SuprBay: The PirateBay Forum

Full Version: 24/96 FLACs are a fraud
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
In recent times since i have now plenty of time on hand, i've been playing around with codecs and sizes. 16/44 is excellent don't get me wrong, but i have notice i have been doing a lot of mixing at 24/48 and 24/96 and even tried with 192.. 192 is a little to high for my liking 'repeat' my liking as i have found it's way off for my liking as i don't need it at all.. music at 24/48 flac especially sounds more clear, more open and of all the other codecs Opus in this range even though it's hard cut off at 20khz sounds as good as Flac.. I use a basic iPhone and a pod deck with half decent speakers and for size match of Opus, compared to size of Flac.. i think the world is going the wrong way in music.. A good size Opus at 256 is astounding... and remember this, although Opus cuts at 20khz and stuff at 48 is 24khz.. I can't tell the difference from a high end audio system or a cheap iPhone.. other words, music comes down to 'own preference' a happy medium and not a 'placebo effect' as many tend to follow i.e the 24/48 and above group. Now where is these Pono Flac Torrents ! lol...
The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better — And When It Isn’t)
(Aug 23, 2014, 16:00 pm)connor17 Wrote: [ -> ]The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better — And When It Isn’t)

good find!

explains things very well
Quote:Another valuable thing to remember is that when a converter does sound surprisingly different at different sampling rates, those distinctions are usually still audible once you down convert to 44.1kHz. Ironically, this only goes to show that any benefit in the higher rate exists in the sonic range that 44.1kHz can capture!

Well that cements the deal, that article is a good read indeed..
If music can't be equalized, not worth listening
Sorry. NM.
Man, I don't know many technical details nor if they are fraud or not, but.. It simply sounds better; maybe I am an audiophile Shy
(Jan 07, 2014, 17:14 pm)connor17 Wrote: [ -> ]First thing, a proper article:

I've read some articles about this subject, and all of them are the same. Basically they say that in a double-blind testing, no one can tell any difference between "high definition" files and regular CD (16/44) ones.
"16 bits is enough to store all we can hear, and will be enough forever."

So, why all this nonsense?

In the record labels side, there is no question: they are going to sell the same thing again with a higher price.

So the question is: why people use it?
As an audio engineer I have agree, it present a poor background and distracts the user from the enjoyment, there are too many people converting perfect good SACD to flac, I have deleted too many titles because of this - DON'T DO IT
Just came here to see if my account still existed lol and it does.. I just had a good re-read of all this... Interesting indeed... I'm half deaf these days and 19khz is plenty as most humans hearing don't go over, the crap about 24 and 16... Is a great debate lol... For my android phone i rip everything in OPUS 128 dithered of course from higher like 24/48/96 blah blah... for the DVD i use 24/48 which is way more than enough .... Anyway, see ya...
I too read this thread, and I firmly believe 24/96 sounds better than 16/44.1
Maybe it's my playback system (Rotel RB1582 amp, Rotel RC1580 preamp, HTPC using DAC from Marantz SA8004 CD player, Magnepan 1.7) and the difference to me is quite clear. Interesting debate though.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9