24/96 FLACs are a fraud

[Anoid]

SACD is not a PCM format so it cannot be converted. This was intentional to keep music away from MP3 players and iPods etc.

So my media rack has no SACD and they are an unwelcome format. They are far too proprietary.

CD has been very successful and it will remain as the format for music for decades to come. The RIAA has said the CD will continue.

[bubanee]

SACD is not a PCM format so it cannot be converted. This was intentional to keep music away from MP3 players and iPods etc.

So my media rack has no SACD and they are an unwelcome format. They are far too proprietary.

CD has been very successful and it will remain as the format for music for decades to come. The RIAA has said the CD will continue.

Redbook got it right hey  16/44.1 is more than enough, when i create 'PCM' format basically WAV really it's in 'Data' format which most DVD players read. SACD 24bit is really a 'Storage' format and some fancy sales pitch nothing more

[Anoid]

My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists

If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion

[Moe]

My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists

If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion

That has nothing to do with sample rate, and everything to do with poor compression and anti-aliasing filters.

Nothing you perceived would be rectified by capturing frequencies outside of the 44.1k range.

[ill88eagle]

The funny thing about this discussion is people still want higher and higher resolution for video. We have reached the wall of what we can perceive in terms of audio but when it comes to visuals it just HAS TO BE BIGGER AND LARGER AND FILL THE ENTIRE WALL. Guess what: your standard analog big silver screen cinema was never any better than 320p / 24fps. That shit sucks on a 60 inch flatscreen but it displays beautifully on a 22 inch B&O TV (why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?). Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?

But anyway. In terms of aliasing there will be issues no matter how high the sample rate. Only sine waves to reproduce somewhat smoothly will be the ones at frequencies by which the samplerate is divisible. This is not a question of ear. It is plain math. Then you have a shitload of ISO anti aliasing filters to reduce the damage BUT most of us cant hear the difference.

There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.

[bubanee]

My high frequency hearing can notice distortion in the higher frequencies of sibilance in vocals, of cymbals and female vocalists
If CD was 64K samples I would have been much happier, far less distortion

That has nothing to do with sample rate, and everything to do with poor compression and anti-aliasing filters.
Nothing you perceived would be rectified by capturing frequencies outside of the 44.1k range.

Moe is correct, hence why a lot of studios use 24bit but the final product normally is 16bit which is more than enough and the fact 44.1 range (half that at human hearing which basically is 22khz which!! is 3khz higher than the 'normal' range of human hearing which falls at 19khz.. !! Music has been led up the gold path for years...
Also add since this is a 24/96, read up on Vinyl and see exactly how high and wide it actually goes and some of these styluses (if that is a word lol) are lucky to go over 27khz!! (54)... a lot of atmosphere hog wash...

---

The funny thing about this discussion is people still want higher and higher resolution for video. We have reached the wall of what we can perceive in terms of audio but when it comes to visuals it just HAS TO BE BIGGER AND LARGER AND FILL THE ENTIRE WALL. Guess what: your standard analog big silver screen cinema was never any better than 320p / 24fps. That shit sucks on a 60 inch flatscreen but it displays beautifully on a 22 inch B&O TV (why on earth would you want anything bigger than 22 inches?). Personally I find those UHD TVs at 60fps to feel unreal. I dunno if you ever got that feel? Like someone is randomly fast forwarding/pausing the tape?

But anyway. In terms of aliasing there will be issues no matter how high the sample rate. Only sine waves to reproduce somewhat smoothly will be the ones at frequencies by which the samplerate is divisible. This is not a question of ear. It is plain math. Then you have a shitload of ISO anti aliasing filters to reduce the damage BUT most of us cant hear the difference.
There are people who want to sell you higher resolutions and framerates, and they want make your eyes and ears feel like it is better. It is a business model.

How true, i own a 4k 55'' and i use a BluRay player because that is all i need... I used to have 4k player but seriously the quality on some movies was crap, total regenerated computer graphics for some movies and others that usual grainy lets hide all the crud of a old film lol... I'm half blind out of focus and 55'' is all i need i have some friends who have that penis eXtension of TV's.. seriously if you have to turn your head like a tennis match lol.. it ain't worth it lol..