Overclockers Australia Forums

OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Specific Hardware Topics > PC Audio

Notices


Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!
Search our forums with Google:
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 15th May 2017, 10:24 AM   #31
sTeeLzor
Member
 
sTeeLzor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acid View Post
That's dumb it's like saying there's no noticeable diff when you buy a top of the line monitor or mechanical keyboard - if you want the best and can appreciate it you get a lot of value out of the top end stuff
Yes and no. Diminishing returns. I acknolwedge the value of spending to a degree. When your talking SNRs about 100x better than audible hearing ability, then who gives a shit anymore?

Monitors still arent above visual acuity, mechanical keyboards have various different specs which give variety, but audio once output hits what you need it to, and the SNR is so far above your ability to hear the difference, I laugh at you.

It simply gives you audophiles a way to distinguish yourselves as better than the rest of us peasants

And dont confuse me with someone who just cant afford it. No, I just choose where the value is and its not in some technical specifications that dont affect my experience.
sTeeLzor is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 28th May 2017, 10:51 PM   #32
Drubbing
Member
 
Drubbing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew kane View Post
Waste of money on a dac or soundcard just to listen to crappy compressed 320k mp3. You're better off onboard if you're listening to just mp3's and put that money towards beer or an ssd.
Just not so. No one one can reliably hear a difference between lossless and 320, when you're comparing the same material.

Compression doesn't start making a noticeable difference til you get down to 128kbps. Even then, some really well recorded material, played on decent gear, will still sound very good. Poorly recorded stuff sounds average whatever the format - lossless won't change that.
Drubbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2017, 11:55 PM   #33
Cpt.J.Sparrow
Member
 
Cpt.J.Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Korea
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drubbing View Post
No one one can reliably hear a difference between lossless and 320, when you're comparing the same material.
Normally, you are right. However, if you use studio monitors and play recent (say, within last 3 years) recordings painfully loud, the subtle differences can be felt without too much difficulty. In typical everyday listening setup and volume, I don't think anyone can reliably tell the difference.

Found this at a recording studio.
Cpt.J.Sparrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 12:29 AM   #34
Drubbing
Member
 
Drubbing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.J.Sparrow View Post
Normally, you are right. However, if you use studio monitors and play recent (say, within last 3 years) recordings painfully loud, the subtle differences can be felt without too much difficulty. In typical everyday listening setup and volume, I don't think anyone can reliably tell the difference.

Found this at a recording studio.
No, I don't buy that. The age of a recording has nothing to do with its quality and ability to be well reproduced.

There's seems to be this pervasive "conventional wisdom" that dictates bitrate compression is the source of poor sound quality. It's a very old argument that - like the 128kbps compression that helped create it - just isn't relevant anymore.

I have some artists material from the 70s-90s who's material sounds clearly better, clearer and has audibly more dynamic range than many modern recordings.

Often this is due to compression at the recording source - the loudness war, where so many recent recordings squeeze out dynamic range and clarity to increase volume.
Drubbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 1:33 PM   #35
Cpt.J.Sparrow
Member
 
Cpt.J.Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Korea
Posts: 836
Default

I didn't state or infer that the sound quality of 320kbps MP3 is poor. The subtle differences between the lossless and MP3 become more audible when played exceptionally loud through studio monitors used for pre-processing analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drubbing View Post
No, I don't buy that. The age of a recording has nothing to do with its quality and ability to be well reproduced.
(*snip*)
I have some artists material from the 70s-90s who's material sounds clearly better, clearer and has audibly more dynamic range than many modern recordings.
So, you are saying recordings on ancient phonograph cylinders, LPs, tapes, and digital recordings from the last decade have equal reproduction capabilities as today's?

Certainly placement of recording devices, instruments, etc, sound processing and audio mastering as well as experience of producers, mix engineers, and mastering engineers can greatly affect the final sound reproduction. However, that's a whole new level of delusion to claim recording qualities of old studio equipment are as good as or better than today's!

Last edited by Cpt.J.Sparrow; 29th May 2017 at 1:36 PM. Reason: Corrections
Cpt.J.Sparrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 2:24 PM   #36
Drubbing
Member
 
Drubbing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.J.Sparrow View Post

So, you are saying recordings on ancient phonograph cylinders, LPs, tapes, and digital recordings from the last decade have equal reproduction capabilities as today's?
Depends what you're inferring by 'equal'? I'm not referring to the medium used, but the inherent recording process.

Recording and mastering makes a huge difference to the end product. Yes, most 70s and 80s material first came out on vinyl, later remastered for CD, eventually ending up on mp3 or whatever format Apple and others sell.

The source material retains its integrity - whether it's good or bad. You start of with a high quality recorded product, you'll get a high quality one in other formats.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.J.Sparrow View Post
Certainly placement of recording devices, instruments, etc, sound processing and audio mastering as well as experience of producers, mix engineers, and mastering engineers can greatly affect the final sound reproduction. However, that's a whole new level of delusion to claim recording qualities of old studio equipment are as good as or better than today's!
I'm not deluded because I never implied that at all. But you're wrong. The tech isn't the be all and end all of getting a great recording. Certain artists took more care in the process than others. They had to care to do it, as it would have cost a lot of studio time and mastering costs.

The Eagles bothered, so did Pink Floyd, Jean Michel Jarre and Classical orchestras, to name a few. These all produced exceptional reproduction quality - the medium of the time was LP.

None of them re-recorded their master tapes for digital transfer. They took the originals and worked from those. Mastering allows them to clean up certain things, but you can't polish a turd, the material has to be of quality in the first place.

Today's recording aren't all great either, with all this great tech. Especially mass market pop stuff. The dynamic range is compressed at the source to increase loudness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

This is why the bitrate argument is misinformed. Crap in, crap out, lossless will sound as average as any mp3 if the source material isn't that great.

Last edited by Drubbing; 29th May 2017 at 2:27 PM.
Drubbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 2:35 PM   #37
Sphinx2000
Member
 
Sphinx2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,792
Default

Bit late to the party on this thread, and I am no audiophile... but I went from a Realtek on-board audio chipset on an Asus board to a Sound Blaster Audigy Fx PCI-e card 6 months or so ago, and the difference was night and day.

Well worth the $100.
Sphinx2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 3:08 PM   #38
tree86ers
Member
 
tree86ers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.J.Sparrow View Post
However, that's a whole new level of delusion to claim recording qualities of old studio equipment are as good as or better than today's!
depends on point of view, not saying that it is right or wrong but most of the time now it would depend on the artist and how they define better. I seem to remember one of the Foo Fighters albums being all recorded on older equipment specifically for the "sound". Now it worked for that album but i would not expect someone recording EDM to use the same options. Better is subjective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drubbing View Post
Depends what you're inferring by 'equal'? I'm not referring to the medium used, but the inherent recording process.

Recording and mastering makes a huge difference to the end product. Yes, most 70s and 80s material first came out on vinyl, later remastered for CD, eventually ending up on mp3 or whatever format Apple and others sell.

The source material retains its integrity - whether it's good or bad. You start of with a high quality recorded product, you'll get a high quality one in other formats.

I'm not deluded because I never implied that at all. But you're wrong. The tech isn't the be all and end all of getting a great recording. Certain artists took more care in the process than others. They had to care to do it, as it would have cost a lot of studio time and mastering costs.

The Eagles bothered, so did Pink Floyd, Jean Michel Jarre and Classical orchestras, to name a few. These all produced exceptional reproduction quality - the medium of the time was LP.

None of them re-recorded their master tapes for digital transfer. They took the originals and worked from those. Mastering allows them to clean up certain things, but you can't polish a turd, the material has to be of quality in the first place.

Today's recording aren't all great either, with all this great tech. Especially mass market pop stuff. The dynamic range is compressed at the source to increase loudness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

This is why the bitrate argument is misinformed. Crap in, crap out, lossless will sound as average as any mp3 if the source material isn't that great.
as you stated that is all up to the artist for quality. there is also the question of availability since the game now is audio streaming. There is going to be something sacrificed there.
__________________
Main PC "Tensa Zangetsu" - MB "eVGA X99 Classified" - CPU "i7 6800k" - RAM "corsair dominator platinum 32gb" - GPU "evga GTX 1080 FTW x 2" Trans-code PC "Hyōrinmaru" - MB "ASUS P9X79" - CPU "Xeon E5 2670" - RAM "corsair LP 32gb" - GPU "eVGA GTX 960 2GB" LAN PC "Zangetsu" - MB "EVGA Z77 Stinger" - CPU "i7 3770k" - RAM "corsair LP 16gb" - GPU "eVGA GTX 980 4GB"
tree86ers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 4:52 PM   #39
Cpt.J.Sparrow
Member
 
Cpt.J.Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South Korea
Posts: 836
Default

Well, our feelings regarding the recordings are pretty much mutual.

Perhaps, I should have said "latest high-resolution high-quality recordings," instead of rather vague "recent recordings."

Distinguishing DSD from 320kbps MP3 will probably be impossible if the recording was shit to begin with.

At any rate, I was just saying it is humanly possible to detect 320kbps MP3. The less audible portions of the original sound, which get butchered by the encoding algorithm, becomes audible at ridiculous loudness, especially in noise-free recording studio settings.
Cpt.J.Sparrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 7:12 PM   #40
Drubbing
Member
 
Drubbing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt.J.Sparrow View Post
At any rate, I was just saying it is humanly possible to detect 320kbps MP3. The less audible portions of the original sound, which get butchered by the encoding algorithm, becomes audible at ridiculous loudness, especially in noise-free recording studio settings.
It may well be possible, but even if some can, we're talking subtleties and nuances you really have to listen for, and have the right gear to do it.

Been there done that, and I spent too much time listening to the gear than the music, with little to nothing as a return. I have a fairly decent but not high end set up, some very good headphones, and I take whatever the music gives me.
Drubbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 7:17 PM   #41
Drubbing
Member
 
Drubbing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tree86ers View Post
I seem to remember one of the Foo Fighters albums being all recorded on older equipment specifically for the "sound". Now it worked for that album but i would not expect someone recording EDM to use the same options. Better is subjective.
Wasting Light. I love Dave (obviously), but he did bang on a bit sanctimoniously about the recording process on the tour which I saw in Perth. They just had the warm fuzzies for analogue sound.

I watched to doco of making it too. Look, the musos enjoyed the old school process, and not having a delete button and widgets to clean up mistakes. Too hard to edit everything with tape, so they left most in. Whatever. They still ended up with the signature Foos' sound.
Drubbing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th May 2017, 7:24 PM   #42
Matthew kane
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 612
Default

It boils down to the mastering of the source.
__________________
Intel i7 3960X @ 4.7GHZ - Noctua NH-D14 | 16GB OCZ Platinum Series DDR3 1600MHZ | Asus Rampage IV Extreme (4901 bios) | Zotac AMP! Edition GTX 980 Ti | PNY GTX 465 unlocked to 470 | Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatality Pro with LME47920's opamps | OCZ Vertex 3 240GB | OCZ Vertex Plus 120GB| 1TB WD Black, 2TB WD Green, 4 x 2TB Seagate LP | Enermax Revolution 85+ 1250watt | Antec P280 + Veris Elite | LG BD Rewriter
Matthew kane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 6:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Micron21!