[DerAlte]

Originally Posted by frankmehta

on a more serious note? Why not a playstation 3? ...

Day, phunny question asking! Movie watching yes, but how will we do GPS-based navigation and DSP on PS3, enh?

Originally Posted by ibm_jennifer

... if I started to tell something from my stupid brain, ...

Arrey no yaar, tchah, just tell from your intelligent brain, no!

Originally Posted by ibm_jennifer

... and break the stupid DRMs ...

Ahem! Indiscrete.

Originally Posted by ibm_jennifer

... If you didn't hear True-HD or DTS-MA, don't ask me 'Why Blu-Ray in Car'? ...

No, kanna, we have the right to ask dumb questions, and you have to answer!

[frankmehta]

i meant, instead of ordering a bluray player, which costs about the same (if i am not wrong), why not a ps3? movie watching and gaming in 5.1!?

[ibm_jennifer]

No, kanna, we have the right to ask dumb questions, and you have to answer!

Then I will start to diss, but you should not reply with a laugher!

But, how about explaining us anyhow?

There are no more advantages in DTS-MA/TrueHD/24-192 Flac when comparing to DVD/CD other than High Dynamic range, Less Quantization Errors, Pure Transients, Lower Noise Floor, More Headroom, Less Jitter, Zero DC Offset, less Aliasing effects and finally more frequency spectrum.

If you cant feel any difference, You are really very OLD or you need to train your ears.

[arpandiv]

Originally Posted by ibm_jennifer

There are no more advantages in DTS-MA/TrueHD/24-192 Flac when comparing to DVD/CD other than High Dynamic range, Less Quantization Errors, Pure Transients, Lower Noise Floor, More Headroom, Less Jitter, Zero DC Offset, less Aliasing effects and finally more frequency spectrum.

What is all this ?
Can some audio guru please explain

[frankmehta]

i think they are names of songs. never heard them though.

[esteem_lover]

Originally Posted by frankmehta

i think they are names of songs. never heard them though.

No wonder, they are yet to be released, dumb brain.

[ibm_jennifer]

they are yet to be released

And I believe the release is for our/next Generation and I recommend all old people to stay with the Analog gramophone for SQL.

We did a days worth of tests - the same program recorded at 48, 96, and
192k at the same time. We played piano, acoustic guitar, percussion,
drums. Not a scientific A/B/C test, but as blind as we could make it.
Everyone (6 people - musicians, engineers, bystander) picked the 192k.
Most telling, the piano player ran into the room after hearing the 192k
from outside the control room saying "I never heard it sound like I hear
it while I'm playing."

You never realize how bad 48k sounds until you do this test. 192k is
pure and airy, 96k has a mid-range grunge that appears, and 48k really
has a lot of the mid-range hardness.

That being said, we don't go out of my way to record anything at 96k
anymore. It's too much effort for not a lot of advantage in the end for
most types of recording. But if I had to make a real "audiophile", we'd do it at 192k in a flash.

--
Bobby Owsinski
Surround Associates
Surround Associates - Experts in Surround Sound

[arpandiv]

Okay so 192K sounds good, old news to be honest. Please can you explain "High Dynamic range, Less Quantization Errors, Pure Transients, Lower Noise Floor, More Headroom, Less Jitter, Zero DC Offset, less Aliasing effects and finally more frequency spectrum."

[ibm_jennifer]

Please can you explain "High Dynamic range, Less Quantization Errors, Pure Transients, Lower Noise Floor, More Headroom, Less Jitter, Zero DC Offset, less Aliasing effects and finally more frequency spectrum."

There is no use of explaining this mastering techniques to an end user unless your ear cant find any difference. The main Aim of this 24/192 is to simulate the old day Analog Harmonics in the Digital Music with pure reproduction. If you don't love the gramophones, you may not need 192 in digital. But I recommend you to buy any original 192KHz music first and tell me whether you find it worth or not! Yes, You can find the difference even with a $100 computer speakers, if you have good ears.

Don't ask me to upload a 192Khz music here as it takes almost a GB for a single song. Even the 92Khz Hotel California song takes 645MB. I will try to upload a small sample in my site, if needed.

[arpandiv]

Yeah i am an end user, you mean unless my ears CAN find a difference ?

[ibm_jennifer]

you mean unless my ears CAN find a difference ?

No, You may be a musician too. I met lot of musicians who even cant find any difference bw 16 bit to 24 bit. But you cant be a Sound/Mastering Engineer.

Here are some of the test files to start with:

Download our testfiles

But I recommend you to buy/listen your favorite band/music to really find the difference.

[DerAlte]

A-ha, now we are getting to serious business. Just to go beyond the terminology (there is nothing new here, all this has been around for the last 30 years!)
* High Dynamic range: cannot exceed that of the recorded stream, so a badly recorded movie will still look/sound bad, right? Are we talking about reproduction fidelity? But then would assume that the electronics is incapable, not that the media format is more capable
* Less Quantization Errors: theoretical issue, 'good to have', but no one will be able to figure out LSB errors in playback, right?
* Pure Transients: OK, good dv/dt, but even the old method didn't give impure transients (the mathematics is killing for this one)
* Lower Noise Floor: theoretical issue, since self-noise is negligible (digital)
* More Headroom: Again theoretical issue, since the analog components and 'bits-per-sample' govern the achievable max
* Less Jitter: OK, what is the practical impact?
* Zero DC Offset: mathematical issue only, and one of the basic things that was overcome about 25 years back!
* Less Aliasing effects: Video or audio?
* Frequency spectrum: aren't the current set of codec technologies already covering it, even mathematically?

PS: I am just trying to be a good student, and a good student must ask a ton of questions. Right?

Originally Posted by ibm_jennifer

There is no use of explaining this mastering techniques to an end user unless your ear cant find any difference. The main Aim of this 24/192 is to simulate the old day Analog Harmonics in the Digital Music with pure reproduction. ...

Hello boss, please do not assume that others have an inability to discriminate. Otherwise ... have you heard of the story "Emperor's new clothes"?

These concepts have been around since ages - long before people took Vitamin K(nowledge) capsules via browsers. Respect others' knowledge, then others will respect your knowledge and we all can have a good intellectual discussion. What you are seeing today as path breaking discoveries are actually another step in the process of evolution of signal reproduction techniques. You are only seeing the latest implementation - many of us are into our 6th or 7th. Let us synchronize, otherwise there is severe signal attenuation.

[frankmehta]

welllllll put der alte. i like!!
anyways, i still didnt get what quantization errors and transients are.

[ibm_jennifer]

so a badly recorded movie will still look/sound bad, right?

Why do we listen to them when we have professional Remasatering Engineers?

As for as I know even a low budget Tamil film is recorded in Analog format (Nagra) and mixed at 144DB DR. I don't know anything about the Hindi studios which still digitize at 90 DB. But no one from the Hollywood doing that any more.

Quantization Errors: theoretical issue

Man, I thing you have to go back to school to hear them: Quantization error - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

but no one will be able to figure out LSB errors in playback, right?

I haven't seen any olden days LSB errors in current DACs.

the old method didn't give impure transients

No, Unless you feed your amplifier with pure Analog signal, you cant feel the transients. The transient response of the analog devices vary based on the quality of the input signal, thats why I ASKED YOU TO TRY FIRST.

More Headroom: Again theoretical issue, since the analog components and 'bits-per-sample' govern the achievable max

No, Since we are delivering in Analog, we need atleast 16DBFS headroom in Digital to achieve 0 VU in analog. And in a Car its impossible to keep the Noise floor at 20DB like your Home theater setp, so you need even more heardroom for a pure SQL setup.

DC Offset: mathematical issue only, and one of the basic things that was overcome about 25 years back!

Then how do you remove the artifacts when using DSP effects like normalize in Car? Can you show me a today's Mastering suite without DC Offset removal plug-in? You can find DC offsets in almost all 44.1Khz Audio CDs, but not in DVD-Audio/Blue-Ray music.

Less Aliasing effects: Video or audio?

Are you really a student? Aliasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes, I feel aliasing effects in CDs/DVDs as I am the one who can feel 23Khz in Music as I am just 23 (Please be Read sure - I can feel - doesn't mean I can hear!)

aren't the current set of codec technologies already covering it, even mathematically?

Whats the relation between codec and Spectrum?

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by ibm_jennifer

Don't ask me to upload a 192Khz music here as it takes almost a GB for a single song. Even the 92Khz Hotel California song takes 645MB. I will try to upload a small sample in my site, if needed.

Thats wrong.

A plain PCM wave file with NO compression would take ~400 MB for a 6 minute song.

(6 minutes, 192 Khz, Stereo, 24 bit)
Calcs :




And such a file would be compressed a lot by lossless bz2 or 7z compression.