24-bit/192kHz is pointless?

[Audio_ELF]

I agree, and even more dangerous is texting while driving... Unfortunately legislation is not keeping up very well.

Perhaps but surely "driving without due care and attention" is pretty much a catch all. Do we really need micro-legislation?

 

Eloise

[tne]

Peter, If you think that "Holland could be the most "wild" country for the most ridiculous driving and where giving way (like in the US) is the opposite of what's in the mind."

 

and Paul, if you feel that Parisian driving is most dangerous,

 

you both need to visit China someday. I do not drive here in Shanghai, but even crossing the street with or without "right of way" is an life-endangering event where constant 360 viewing is required. Buses, trucks, electric (silent) bikes that also are ridden on the sidewalk, in addition to the loosely controlled chaos and the demand to get in front of everyone else that is so evident in Chinese societal behaviour, makes everyday an adventure here.....but it sure does sharpen your reaction time.

[Boris75]

Paul, come on now.

 

This is a view from the top of L'Arc de Triomphe. This is a 7 lanes roundabout although with some squeezing it can be 9 or so. Not official lanes of course because how to do that.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12893[/ATTACH]

 

When I was 18 I drove there and yes, it took some skill (which I of course did not have). Lanes in the city (towards this building) are 5 lanes I think and always stuck. So if you are in the left most and need to go to the right it really takes some planning "how to accomplish that".

Cars (at least at that time) all have special stupid bumpers because no free parking space is larger than your car to park at all. Thus, just drive into the too small space, push forward one car, push backward the other and there you are. Driving out, same thing but more easy. But really so !

 

But then this roundabout. I was there with my girlfriend and another couple and one of us had heard that this roundabout could be crossed on foot by just starting walking. Cars would automatically stop, as was told. Now *that* we had to try.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12892[/ATTACH]

 

But djeezz it really took some breath taking and mental preparation because when you're there and envision how such a thing would go you can easily see that once you started there is no way back and you're in the middle of these 7 lanes with cars really all around you. Say that they just move on "city speeds" so not even really slow.

Well, we tried it and it worked. Amazing.

I Googled a bit for this roundabout and ran into above picture plus text, and you can see that we were not alone with this idea. It's apparently a known phenomenon and you can just start crossing blind folded.

 

Still I'd say Paris is scary, yes, but not dangerous.

 

I strongly discourage anyone from crossing this particular roundabout on foot. For sure cars will try to avoid people, but success is not guaranteed. Please note that, each year, vehicles kill 15 to 30 pedestrians in central Paris. Here are the official statistics on the website of the city of Paris.

[Jud]

Peter, If you think that "Holland could be the most "wild" country for the most ridiculous driving and where giving way (like in the US) is the opposite of what's in the mind."

 

and Paul, if you feel that Parisian driving is most dangerous,

 

you both need to visit China someday. I do not drive here in Shanghai, but even crossing the street with or without "right of way" is an life-endangering event where constant 360 viewing is required. Buses, trucks, electric (silent) bikes that also are ridden on the sidewalk, in addition to the loosely controlled chaos and the demand to get in front of everyone else that is so evident in Chinese societal behaviour, makes everyday an adventure here.....but it sure does sharpen your reaction time.

 

My aunt and uncle who'd lived all their lives in the US were vacationing in Hong Kong (this is 30-40 years ago), and of course she was freaking out at the way the cabbie was driving. She managed to say enough to irritate him, at which point he turned completely around, looked directly at her, and gave his best evil-movie-star laugh - while keeping his foot on the gas pedal. She was of course quite resentful, but my uncle took great delight in telling the story after they got home (alive, which helped make it amusing).

[Sam Lord]

Fed Gov: Annual Auto-Related Deaths Three Times Higher Than Gun-Related Deaths

 

Oh thanks Teresa, now Texas and its fellow-travelers will pass laws that mandate driving with guns: "Stand your Highway!"

 

My late beloved dad thought we should save bucks by eliminating roads in the burbs. All the vehicles are four-bys, so why not? Tear it up Bubba!

 

He had lots of ideas like that. He used to ride his bike from our house in the burbs downtown to work, back in the 60's and 70's, first to help his ailing back, then because he loved it. His dream for St. Matthews, a sidewalk-less wasteland between our house and good roads, was to build a concrete dome so he could ride his bike over it. I'm sure he does that every morning in the place he now resides.

 

What's this hi-fi topic?

 

OK, I gather that a big question is whether music recorded by the best possible means then decimated and undersampled (with ideal dither) to 16/44 bits is very, very close to the same recording taken down to (or left at) a friendly 24/96 or 24/192 PCM or a DSD flavor. Can we hear the effect of the resulting induced amplitude and timing error? Can any type of very processed, upsampled/oversampled replay from that 16/44 state deliver the same apparent fidelity? Peter St thinks almost but not quite yet: possibly in the future. Based on my limited experience with the best redbook music I have, I think not. It's always the more complex music with many voices or strings, etc. that seems too stripped of reality. The question should interest us because of all the redbook-only masters laying around.

 

In the meantime, I'll try nearly all the relatively affordable and reasonably friendly ways to make my big redbook library sound better. I'm installing a local SOtM ethernet-to-async USB server, I'll buy a varsity DAC, will try the PCM-to-DSDx2 conversion that Paul R. extols, will then try very strong processing with Miska's HQPlayer when all the hardware is well-seasoned, and will try to turn off the fridge during critical listening. (I'll need my reacher for that, I'm too short in my wheelchair!) And I'll finally get me some hi-res the old fashioned way... broadband cable!

 

Cheers to all of my friends here (= all of you).

[Xii-Nyth]

I'm aware I'm many cycles late to this but I think I can answer in a very clear and concise way

(to stay concise, avoid what I write in brackets (parenthesis))

 

Lets say the maximum you can hear is 22 KHz

(I remember some number in the 30s when I took a test at a science museum when I was like 7, but for now its generally accepted you can only hear 20Hz to 20 KHz (a range which suspiciously matches your average power transformer (or something else, I read it in some electronics textbook at school), and I can still hear 22 at 20 years old)

 

When you sample a wave at twice the rate it ends up being sampled perfectly

(kinda, in a perfect world scenario)

 

So 22 KHz x 2 = 44

 

So my rule is 44 KHz per channel, so commonly 96 KHz for headphones, 384 for 7 speakers and a sub

(convenient to what the standards are)

 

Just started seeing 768...

(on ones based off of AKM something 47 .545 ammo.. (awfully misplaced name :P) and a Xilinx Artix 7 FPGA (supercomputer audio dac what on earth? that's gonna pick up a lot of electrical noise in a pcie slot, or 50w fan noise... (server cooling model yikes))

....which I guess can be used for a Dolby Atmos (array?) (idk the marketing terminology) or hunting, or playing adventure quest?

[NOMBEDES]

Well, I have never been able to tell the difference between "high Rez" and bog standard.  But I can certainly tell the difference between a good recording and a bad recording.  Maybe higher resolution play back makes it easy to determine which recording sucks the most? 

[Rexp]

Since many folks at AS love to upsample, this topic goes on and on and on...

[firedog]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

Since many folks at AS love to upsample, this topic goes on and on and on...

It's possible in some setups upsampling sounds slightly better/your playback hi-res filters please you more.

 

In the past I heard detail  in some hi-res versions of albums that I hadn't heard before. But then, I started to hear the same detail on the Redbook versions (i.e., it couldn't be unheard, once heard).

Possible conclusions:

A) hi-res made it easier to hear small details;

B) Concentrated listening to a new hi-res version sharpened my perception and I simply heard detail that had always been there and hadn't noticed.

 

I tend to think B is correct in most instances. Some hi-res versions are simply have superior mastering and thus sound better.

 

In general, I've found that the better your system gets, the better Redbook sounds. Today I don't really care about the format, as Redbook sounds fine. 

[Rubysea]

...well, my answer doesn't really fit here, but the other day I have finally installed absorbers/diffusors on my back wall, because I have to be sitting right in front of it (no other option possible).
Although I had already treated my system with digital room correction (filters in my Kii Three + Dirac correction in minidsp shd) this installment (altogether 1,8m x 2,4m) made an additional huge difference (Dirac is currently off, because I need to re-calibrate now).
Incredible, what the reduction of the rear wall reflections do to the the sound image and precision! (What have I missed all the time before!!)

For me this additional room treatment is much more of an audible difference than listening to a music in red book or high res. Provided its the same master, I personally could never really hear a sonic difference. I still do buy high res though, if the price difference is not too high, as it gives me the option to "treat" the files (downsample/resample) if necessary
Sorry for contributing mainly off topic here...

[firedog]

2 hours ago, Rubysea said:

...well, my answer doesn't really fit here, but the other day I have finally installed absorbers/diffusors on my back wall, because I have to be sitting right in front of it (no other option possible).
Although I had already treated my system with digital room correction (filters in my Kii Three + Dirac correction in minidsp shd) this installment (altogether 1,8m x 2,4m) made an additional huge difference (Dirac is currently off, because I need to re-calibrate now).
Incredible, what the reduction of the rear wall reflections do to the the sound image and precision! (What have I missed all the time before!!)

For me this additional room treatment is much more of an audible difference than listening to a music in red book or high res. Provided its the same master, I personally could never really hear a sonic difference. I still do buy high res though, if the price difference is not too high, as it gives me the option to "treat" the files (downsample/resample) if necessary
Sorry for contributing mainly off topic here...

Very similar experience here. But I had the panels behind me before the DRC. Made a huge positive difference.

[Miska]

13 hours ago, Rexp said:

Since many folks at AS love to upsample, this topic goes on and on and on...

 

Upsampling/oversampling and hires are two different things serving different purposes...

 

[jiminlogansquare]

5 hours ago, Miska said:

 

Upsampling/oversampling and hires are two different things serving different purposes...

 

I agree. And in fact because my system performs best upsampling to DSD512 (using HQPlayer), I face the interesting conundrum that Qobuz streaming 24/192 files overtaxes my server with the filter I can use effortlessly on 16/44 files. So the 16/44 files are actually better sounding - in room, with my system, to my ears, using my preferred filter - than the high-rez files that Qobuz has gone to great trouble to make available live streaming!

[danadam]

On 10/30/2021 at 7:40 AM, Xii-Nyth said:

So my rule is 44 KHz per channel, so commonly 96 KHz for headphones, 384 for 7 speakers and a sub