Believing and thinking hi-res is audibly superior to CD quality is probably "cool" and giving up such beliefs probably makes life dull. This is probably one reason why many hi-res fans don't let go their beliefs even when given a lot of reasons to do so. Digital audio is somewhat dull. Audible...

Oh. Upsampling? Well, my CD-player can upsample to 192 kHz, so I guess I can listen to all my CDs in hi-res! :dt880smile:

I may have had similar attitude when I was young, but I am wiser now (I hope) and I have noticed being content is more important. I am happy to say CD is good enough to make me content. I don't need to look for anything better, thank God!

Theoretically the "best" digital PCM audio format is ∞ Hz / ∞ bit. That is the best, believe me. Obviously we can never have that, because even one second of music at such resolution means infinite amount of data. We have to be content with finite sampling rates and finite bit depth, but how...

Do you find ALL of your music in hi-res? I struggle to find my favourite music even on CD! I suppose only a minuscule fraction of the music I like is available in hi-res. What is the point of listening to music you don't care about, hi-res or not? Anyway, the limitations of CD have NEVER been an...

Many audiophiles get fooled by snake-oil sellers. For me the illusion is off thou...

Sure, since bit depth has nothing to do with bandwidth.

We can say hi-res is better for dogs, cats and bats, but I do NOTHING with that advantage, because I am a 53 years old human and even CD offers frequencies beyond my hearing...

Fortunately human ears are somewhat less demanding than the sampling theorem.

Hi-res can be closer to original analog audio signal if there are stuff above about 20 kHz in the analog signal (not so clear there is anything else than noise). Even then it doesn't matter, because people don't hear above 20 kHz (apart maybe some extremely rare cases). CDs sound bad when the...

The highest sampling frequency that would make sense in consumer PCM digital audio is about 60 kHz. Even 96 kHz sampling frequency is overkill and 192 kHz is just ridiculous unless you are a bat. As I have suggested before, 58.8 kHz/12 bit consumer audio with shaped dither would make sense as an...

Yes, of course I read, but I don't just believe everything I read. I am critical of what I read. Proper DACs do not have staircases. If the picture is from the actual output, the DAC doesn't function as it should.

It is hard to change the facts since they are facts (2+2 doesn't become equal to 5 just because your beliefs say so), but luckily people can change their beliefs to be more "compatible" with the facts.

That can't be from the output of a DAC. It must be from an internal signal point of a DAC before reconstruction filtering. Nobody claims such signal doesn't have staircases (of course it does, because it isn't properly bandlimited!), but that's not the output of a proper DAC. The next picture...

Yeah, because you haven't seen Jurassic Park before you have seen it in 20K! :jecklinsmile: I am someone who thinks 2K is enough for movies at home unless your screen is very large (simulating movie theaters).

Sound quality is a fraction of my enjoyment of music. Reconstruncting "better" doesn't make any bad music better for me. Since I can't hear beyond 15 kHz or so at my age, 44100 Hz sampling is more than I need, but I can hear the difference between 22050 Hz and 44100 Hz sampling. The former...

Even if we try to make the case, digital audio with 44100 Hz sampling is for the ears the same as maybe 8K video for the eyes. Advocating for hi-res audio is like advocating for 20K video resolution...

In 3-phase AC systems (typically power transmission) the phases are 120° (2𝜋/3 rads) apart from each other and when the load of all 3 phases are identical, the current in the common ground wire gets canceled to zero (electrons don't "move"). In real life the loads of the phases are somewhat...

More current requires more voltage everything else (read: impedance) staying the same. More voltage means more electrons are available.

Today while walking out I payed attention to how I hear Doppler effect. For the most part I hear it the way it happens without much rise in the frequency. However, this is not simple. Does it matter if turn my head with the bypassing car? I didn't try this. My head stay still and the cars drove...

We are splitting hairs here. Slowly dropping means incredibly slow (hardly noticeable by the observer), but it is a mathematical fact. When the car is x meters from the observer approaching, the frequencies emitted by the car get multiplied due to Doppler effect by c/(c-v*cos(𝜶)), where 𝜶 is...

Yes. That's why this is tricky. There is a real physical frequency change, but it isn't exactly what we perceive: A sound source bypasses an observer: Physical recorded/observed frequency: Is higher than the source frequency in the beginning and drops slowly until the sound source bypasses...

It is a combination of physical and perceptual phenomena. Physical phenomena can of course be recorded. Stereo sound is also perceptual, an illusion even, but we still can make stereo recordings. The physical and perceptual sides are linked in more of less complex manner. To put it more...

Surprisingly interesting thread! I have never thought about how I perceive the pitch of sound sources moving compared to me. Indeed the pitch of a bypassing sound source should slowly drop instead of a massive fast drop at the moment the sound source bypasses the listener and starts to move away...

The range 0-8 has more to do with how much computational effort is done in the encoding in order to remove redundancy. The difference in the bitrate/filesize isn't that huge. I just tested (in Audacity) with a song (49,457,900 bytes at 44.1 kHz/16 bit) and the file sizes are: Level 0...