requires 40khz that's it no other specs required and it can say "hi-res" yet I read online people cant hear past 20khz and I did a hearing test on pare of shitty headphones and it put me at 40years old.
sure I have my 50khz sonys but whats the deal with this? is the aumption that 40khz and up devices will be good in other varied ways that are too hard to make a rating for?
would a pare of 60om 25khz headphones be better than 40om 40khz?
confused. why cant audio just have a ITS good number.
>confused. why cant audio just have a ITS good number.
That's what the sticker is for. But even that's changing.
But you need hi-res source, hi-res hardware, and hi-res output. Otherwise it's wasting money.
The frequency specified on the soundcards and the hearing frequency are different measures.
The soundcard measure is "cone positions per second", while the hearing is "the highest frequency square wave you can hear".
But it's a easy conversion, just divide the soundcard frequency by 2, and you get the max hearing frequency.
Read up on aliasing. A 40 kHz DAC can perfectly represent any signal at 20 kHz or below.
I thought hi res audio was anything greater than 44.1khz 16-bit? 96khz 24-bit and 192khz 24-bit audio are the most common (hi res). Where does 40khz come from?
Just another meme for dumb audiophiles, even with the best possible equipment they are never satisfied, so companies makes another fairy in form of higher/lower frequencies and dumb audiophile will gladly chase it.
>But you need hi-res source, hi-res hardware, and hi-res output. Otherwise it's wasting money.
And Also: This is not consumer electronics central.
on the japan audio council and American audio councel standards for "hi res" sony created the meme first then gave it to thous councils to enforce
requires 40khz amp
requires 40khz headphones or speakers
requires 40khz source.
I could be wrong thou read it from a 3rd party source not thous actual councils/associations websites.
would a 40khz or higher source from my PC going to a 70khz amplifier powering 25khz 60om headphones count as high res? or would the headphones be the missing link?
I think its relevant for its own thread because it applies to all hardware not just audio hardware its a industry standard its like having a thread about fullHD or 4k I think its relevant the audio general is mostly talking about aesthetics of speakers and brand names not this technical shit it belongs in /fa/ desu while this belongs in Jow Forums.
So high res could be 90's era audio CD? That's absolutely retarded. 24-bit 96/192khz is a better definition.
i assume its this low because they consider things higher than this pointless. and its just to differentiate the crap from the decent and isn't really "extreme" prob also takes into account what could easily be downloaded by the masses.
200$ headphones have this hi-res tag for instance while 100$ ones cant get it.
also Hi-res audio sticker also basically means DSD playback support all of sonys Hi-res branded playback devices have DSD support and so do the other brands ones i think this is because DSD became mainstream in 2013 when this standard came about.
there is also Hi-res MQ-A or some thing not sure what that means maybe a higher standard like you suggest.
oh wait it is 96k read this
en.wikipedia.org
however 40khz playback equipment is apparently good enough for playing 96kb files i think?
i don't get the halfing thing but i assume it what the other guy said if your DAC is playing back 96k your external amp and headphones only need to be 40k to play it back fully and your ears will only hear 20k but it will be perfect while if it was 20k recording and 20kamp you would only hear 10k or some thing?
40khz refers to the frequency response. If it can replicate audio frequencies up to 40khz it's hires.
This requires a sampling rate of at least 80khz.
All this hires stuff is bullshit anyway you can hear maybe 22khz top.
idknow read this en.wikipedia.org
I think you actually do need a 96khz source because it gets halved each time its processed by a dac or amp and again when outputted by a headphone.
96khz is enough for pure 20khz output thou I think...
Yes the maximum FR is half the sampling rate.
When a DAC or a audio file is "96 khz" it's referring to the sample rate.
44.1khz is enough for sounds up to 22khz which is the upper limit of human hearing. It's one of the reasons why CDs are 44.1khz
48khz isn't hi res
the standard is to do with amps and speaker headphones being 40khz the source file still needs to be 96khz to display 40khz on thous devices properly because Nyquist frequency half's it.
kek
funny as hell
isn't that what that wiki implies? or do you disagree.
no. double the frequency limit of your ears is enough because it only gets converted once from digital to analog in the DAC. the amp or the headphones/speakers work with analog signals.
yes but guy said 96khz signel only gets output perfectly at about 40khz by your dac
I assume that's why 40khz amps and 40khz speakers/headphones are the "hi res standard"
as far as I know the only "hi res dacs" that exist are combo dacs/amps that are prob 96khz+ dacs but maybe only 40khz amps.
also is the meme that you can only hear 20-22khz true... or is it like the 30/60fps thing and really we can see like 1000fps.
>but guy said 96khz signel only gets output perfectly at about 40khz by your dac
what "guy" actually said was that it gets halved when it is processed by DAC, amp or headphone.
but yes, it is true. you do not hear above that range and it is quite possible that you do not hear above 16khz or even lower depending on age.
>Whats the deal with this?
Mostly just marketing, plain and simple.
>manufacturer makes a piece of gear that goes upto 40kHz
>manufacturer pays the license fees for the permission to slap a hi-res sticker on their shit
>???
>profit
mm right I did a test and I think I couldn't hear above 15khz that was like a 40year old and im in my 20s ;/ lots of hardcore shows and underground music fucked me up.
I did notice when I was like 24 or so I stayed in heaps and neeted hardcore and only lessened to super low volume speakers not headphones and I felt my hearing improved took like 12 or 18months or some thing thou. not sure if real but it felt that way.
I question thou is that like.. obviously people recording music are like 30year olds n stuff wouldn't they master to that any way and does higher than you hear khz convay more data at the lower ranges any way because its like more data or some thing.?
or at that point would higher bitdepth or 1bit DSD512 help at that point?
I understand DSD has more noise but blind tests in japan did say people could notice DSD superior to PCM however couldn't notice diference between dif quality's of DSD...
I tried DSD via converting PCM with audio gate in 2013 and I think I could notice a very sutble difference and improvement and that was with my stuff setup wrong and amp not using its 70khz CD line and just its 25 or 50 or what ever other lines.
hmm. I also notice tape that was mastered analogue sounding nicer
like im of the opinion that sure analogue mastered vinyl and cassette has more noise and DSD has way less noise than that but more than PCM but imo you can "hear past the noise and hear a higher quality music behind it".. idknow. I guess its what your interested in.
im just really trying to decide what I should download with my 15khz ears. im thinking DSD but maybe not at the highest quality? or maybe PCM but at a good bitdepth but not stupidly high khz?
idknow.
im also wondering if getting a SACD player would be a good idea to get acess to DSD from ebay and random places or are most SACD boring shit and expensive and its easier just to download it.
as you tested your hearing limits, CD audio covers everything you can actually hear and beyond perfectly, everything else you think you hear is pure placebo. if you want to waste your storage space for that then go ahead, but maybe try some proper ABX testing first so you can actually see if you hear anything but the sound of fooling yourself
But even $100 chinkshit has this label.
>I felt my hearing improved
you are actually right on this! your hearing improved. but how did it improve? you became musically trained. you started to hear stuff that is hidden in the background that people who do not know what to listen for cannot hear.
example: acoustic guitar in child of mine intro. untrained ears only hear the electric and bass.
>I question thou is that like
sample rate does not matter as long as it is higher than the minimal nyquist frequency which allows for the full audio range that humans hear.
bitdepth on the other hand is important for the dynamic range of the recording and the noisefloor. 16bit allows for 96db of dynamic range. that is more than enough to for you to not notice the noise. example: you crank your amp/speaker combo to put out 120db loudness. your noise is at a whopping 90db (that is still VERY loud). you will not hear the noise until the song has played.
in the studio a higher bitdepth is nice because you get lower noisefloor and more dynamic range to mix with.
>I tried DSD via converting PCM with audio gat
if there was a difference that would mean the conversion was not lossless, it was faulty. if you think that it got better than you probably also think that mp3s sound better when converted to flac. it just does not work that way. you have fooled yourself to hear a difference. that is VERY common in audio. people hear differences (or think that a technical inferior platform sounds better, when in fact it CANNOT - I am talking about vinyl vs cd) that do not exist.
>I also notice tape that was mastered analogue sounding nicer
what you hear is merely that audio engineers and producers in the past did a better job. today they only care for loudness with less dynamic range in the mix.
but on the technical side the modern gear is way better than the old stuff. it just does not get used the right way.
there is a very simple test that you can perform:
get a 32bit/96khz SACD rip. convert that to 16/44.1. convert that back to 32/96. import the original and the double encoded one into audacity, flip the phase on one (invert it) and listen. I tell you: you will hear nothing. but you should hear something if the original source had information that cannot be replicated in 16/44.1. after converting it back to 32/96 it cannot come back. yet you will not hear a sound because the waves will perfectly cancel each other out.
you can get DSD in the quality of CD mate. read up on DSD I want it for the dif way it generates the wave form not the higher "res" or what ever.
DSD converting doesn't add "resolution" it changes how the wave form is caculated from steps to mathematical algebra wave..
im pretty sure that's what I was hearing but ok.
I trust Korg to make not shit software even if audio gate looks like a ugly winamp skin from 2002
but don't you need special DAC for DSD playback? arnt most made and speced for PCM so their 1bit is shit.
apparently in the 90s one reason they used DSD was because a top quality DSD dac was actually cheaper to make than a PCM one but that's changed now PCM dacs have got cheaper but that makes me think some old 90s DSD focused dac would be ideal and required to test that making comparisons maybe impossible.
>it changes how the wave form is caculated from steps to mathematical algebra wave
>im pretty sure that's what I was hearing but ok.
kek. I told you you are fooling yourself.
>Korg
kek
>was actually cheaper
cheap high quality DACs are available since the 80ies. they only chose DSD because it was more difficult to fuck with for average people back then. like some sort of copy protection by obscurity.
no you retard high quality DACs only existed in the 2000s go back to school. do you have any idea how shit sound chips sounded in the 80s they where all midi and not even dacs you retard.
my point is DSD was used in the 90s because PCM dacs where too expensive and DSD is still used and pushed by sony and others as their premium downloads because its respected as better than PCM. its not "exactly the same" go read up on it it has dif response and dynamic range and lots of weird shit its more complex.
people are still debating which is better to this day but people and studios are converting their tape that's rotting to DSD rather than PCM thous people are crazy or literally work for wornerbrothers and are managing billion dollar masters I trust their opinion more than yours because you have a big PCM collection from what.cd or some thing
there is heaps of DSD on torrents.ru or what ever. sony has been exclusively selling DSD on its market place since 2013 as the higher quality rather than high quality PCM.
I trust them
DSD has 0 piracy protection your just making shit up because you don't want to redownload stuff.
go run it thru audiogate you don't even need to convert the PCM file it just plays it like a music player and converts it on the fly with like 13ms lag when you press play.
Hi-res audio is great! I finally have a way to play music for my pet bat!
over the past weeks a good dozen of people now tried and failed to put some actual facts inside your brain to replace the absolute retarded bro science world view you have going on, but if you after all that time still cannot be assed to at least look up the very basics of digital audio to be able to understand what people are trying to explain you then just leave this place and never come back. there's great spots like SBAF or audiogon around the web that better suit you
your opinion that DSD n PCM is exactly the same is dumb as shit its not your just saying that because you don't want to redownload shit. im not even saying its better just that its different and not 1:1.
so at least you went from
>it's literally digital analogue
to that.
maybe you'll understand how it actually works some day then
it uses a mathematical wave PCM uses steps. showing graphs and saying SEE ITS THE SAME doesn't work you are the one that doesn't understand it.
I am right thou the best DSD dacs are from the 90s and cant play PCM well and the best PCM dacs are more contempary and cant play DSD well because they don't focus on it.
My point exactly. Hell, I have picrelated 30€ chinkshit that has the hi-res sticker.
The requirements for getting to use sticker are such that it doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things.
- goes to at least 40kHz
- supports at least 96kHz/24bit
- must have audio/sound quality control manager in addition to the product quality control manager
jas-audio.or.jp
While I feel it's probable that more thought went into a product with a hi-res sticker than one without, it alone isn't some magic indicator meaning a product is inherently superior in every possible way. And it by definition excludes everything under 40kHz and 96/24. Personally, I don't care about hi-res audio at all, so if I were given a choice between two products known to perform identically when playing 44.1/16, with one of the two having the sticker and the other lacking it (or hi-res support altogether) and costing less, I'd go for the cheaper one.
And after all, Japan Audio Society isn't a charity, they make money selling the rights to use the hi-res certification.
Just because you can't hear over 20khz, your other senses (especially feel) might be able to detect frequencies higher than that.
I doubt your chink shit payed for the license that sticker looks non official and cheap they prob lie about their specs as well.
Who knows, could be. Not that I really care, I didn't buy it for the sticker. It's well built, one charge of the battery lasts for ages, sounds good to me, was affordable. I'm fine with it.
well according to this thread specs don't mean any thing any way. color of sound is whats important and that's super subjective. Varg Vickens recorded his best track on a 360mic beside a shitty 20$ amplifer because he thought it expressed the right emotions.
I think I tend to fall somewhere in between. To me specs do matter, to a degree. I'm not buying stuff that measures so poorly it's likely to be audible, but at some point they become meaninglesss number wankery. Regular amplifiers? Give me something that stays true to the original signal. Something to intentionally color the sound, like tube memery 'n' shit? Hell, why not!
Now recordings are a different thing from playback devices, but I definitely agree 100% on some genres and styles benefitting from a certain type of production and sound. Burzum is a great example, it simply wouldn't be the same with polished, modern production. Same for old school death metal, that's best served gritty, disgusting and slimy sounding.
Thinking about, it's funny how I love me some old school metal with far from optimal production values, but at the same I absolutely cannot stand hearing these modern production trends hat seem to use digital distortion and clipping as an intentional artistic effect. Shit like Welshy Arms and Imagine Dragons just sounds like either my radio's tuner has drifted off channel, the recording is defective, or my speakers are about to blow up. So glad I'm not a fan of that music anyway, I'd super pissed about them ruining their albums with such production choices.
its a jewish trick from sony
are japanese jews literally the final boss
digital punk sounds like shit only band that did it right was crystal castles imo.
>another audio snake oil to the list
this will ever end? dolby goyAudio dts kikeSound and so on
dolby is awesome way to send 5.1 over a single headphone jack like for PSP monster hunter prob its only real use and I guess xbox or some shit
dolby atmos is ment to be pretty amazing and way better than 7.1headphones while only using L/R thou the sound engines in CSGO update last year and pubg use some thing similar with out paying the shickells
Wrong
What is "Nyquist rate" for $10 please.
wtf nigger psp didnt have dd wtf
yer it did or at least the last Monster Hunter game released for it did. I guess they paid the licence and put it into the game code rather than inbuilt into the console. it worked I used it was cool feeling sitting in my bed with 5.1 around my holding a psp with full 3d audio.