View Single Post
Old 01-25-2017, 06:39 PM   #55
JSWolf
Resident Curmudgeon
JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JSWolf ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
JSWolf's Avatar
 
Posts: 79,796
Karma: 146391129
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts
Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami View Post
If Xiph.org, the current maintainers of FLAC state that 192/24 audio is useless for playback (and can actually be inferior), thus only wasting space, I tend to believe them.

Good mastering practices, such as not crushing the dynamic range to get the audio to play as loudly as possible, are FAR more important than a high bit depth.
Mostly what that article is saying is that 24/192 gives a possible dynamic range that can be damaging to our haring. It also says that since we cannot hear past 20khz that we don't need 24/192.

That article doesn't take into account the audio benefits in the range most of us can hear. It doesn't take it's account artifacts that can get into the audio at the top end when you use a cutoff point near the top end. It's scare mongering is what it is and it's mostly wrong when it comes to NORMAL music. I have never heard of any music recorded so dynamically that to hear the soft bits, you'd damange your hearing on the loud bits.
JSWolf is offline   Reply With Quote