Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
Listen to some classical CD's. Some have parts so quiet, especially in the beginning, that you're tempted to turn up the volume. If you do however, the later parts blast your head off. They use the full dynamic spectrum of a CD.
A song in that same category is "Down to the waterline", by Dire Straits. It starts so quietly that if you turn op your stereo to hear the intro at a 'normal' sound level, it'll blast the roof off when the main part kicks in.
|
I've never heard of any hi-res recording using dynamic range greater than that of a standard redbook CD. If such existed, word would get out.
So that article saying that 24/192 is a waste of space is saying things that aren't going to happen. As is said on
Dad's Army, "We're doomed!" is incorrect. We are not going to get audio that dyanmic. And so what if some people cannot hear up to 20khz? The reason for 24/192 or 24/96 is that is also effects audio in the normal hearing range. I've seen the graphs for audio at 24/96 and 24/192 and yes, there can be sound past 20khz.
The problem with audio these days is not an over abundance of dynamic range. It's a squashing of dynamic range and upping the overall volume to the point where sometimes there is very noticable distortion. Having one of these recordings at 16/44.1, 24/96, or 24/192 is not going to make a bit of different on the dynmac range. It's still going to sound rather bad.