Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
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.
|
They don't, because it's not fun to listen to a recording that starts at 10 decibels and then goes up to 89 decibels (the official max of a CD).
Quote:
|
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.
|
While you're correct, it's still a waste of space for 99.9% of people, because only the ones with the very best hearing and most expensive equipment in a specially designed listening room will be able to use the extra sound and dynamics. The CD is already better than what most equipment can play, and it's better than what most people can hear; so a FLAC at 16-bit/44.1 kHz is good enough for me.
Quote:
|
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.
|
And *THAT* is what the article is actually about
: that higher resolutions don't provide the improvements people are looking for. Good mastering is what provides the improvement. If I buy older music, I always buy the oldest CD I can find, because back then (before 1995), CD's were mastered to not exceed the 89 dB max, and they were not squashed. Some of my newest CD's have brick wall mastering, and go up to 100 dB...