Where can I find 24bit/96Khz music?

[Daniboy]

Honestly? You can take an .aiff file, convert it to a 320kbps .mp3 file, and tell the difference in a blind test?

Worrying about this type of thing is EXACTLY what will stop you from progressing as amusicion/DJ/perfomer. It's a distraction.

Yes, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I've spent way too much time synchronising tracks and trying to find perfect beat superpositions.
Of course people in the crowd who don't DJ won't hear the difference, some of them won't even notice that the beats are drifting like hell.
But I will, and hearing clean sounds gets me in the mood when I'm playing.

[deevey]

I have my doubts about this as well. But be that as it may, comparing the bitrate of a lossless file to the bitrates of lossy compression formats is absurd.

It also depends on the mastering of the lossy track as well, with many tracks being re-mastered exclusively for lossy encoding in a different way than the lossless wav to "make up" for the lost/suppressed frequencies we as humans can pick up on.

A straight up rip from a CD to mp3 "can" be noticeable on certain tracks with certain frequencies, I don't believe for one moment that every 320kbps ripped track would be apparent - in a blind test

However if its been produced and mastered exclusively for lossy digital distribution the effects can be made up for to make it as clean as the original, albeit slightly "different sounding" .

[Shishdisma]

I have my doubts about this as well. But be that as it may, comparing the bitrate of a lossless file to the bitrates of lossy compression formats is absurd.

Bit rate =/= bit depth. I made a typo in my previous post, I was referring to bit depth. Although bit rate is a function of bit depth and sample rate, and thus has rather immediate diminishing returns to scale.

[3heads]

Bit rate =/= bit depth. I made a typo in my previous post, I was referring to bit depth. Although bit rate is a function of bit depth and sample rate, and thus has rather immediate diminishing returns to scale.

My post wasn't directed at you, but rather at Daniboy who seems to think both signify the same thing, which they don't

[Daniboy]

My post wasn't directed at you, but rather at Daniboy who seems to think both signify the same thing, which they don't

who says I don't know what bit rate is?

I said I can hear the difference of quality between tracks with different bit rates. Am I the first person you meet to say it? There is a whole market for 1411kbps tracks..

[Shishdisma]

My post wasn't directed at you, but rather at Daniboy who seems to think both signify the same thing, which they don't

They actually do kind of mean the same thing, one is a function with the other as a component. What people don't seem to accept is that CD quality was chosen to be beyond the limits of human hearing, and that modern compression methods don't really lose anything outside of excessive recoding. Good luck convincing "audiophiles" that CD quality isn't peasant level, inferior to the bigger numbers of SACD...

who says I don't know what bit rate is?

I said I can hear the difference of quality between tracks with different bit rates. Am I the first person you meet to say it? There is a whole market for 1411kbps tracks..

Except for the fact that you really can't. Unless multiple recodes and compression cycles occur, 320kbps MP3s don't lose anything from dropping from 1411kbps CD quality. There's a whole market for 1411kbps because CDs exist, and CDs just happen to be 1411kbps. "Audiophiles" simply shit themselves any time the word "compression" is involved, even though about 99% of commercial MP3s are only encoded once, and have to justify thousands of dollars in sound equipment they can't physically hear the limits of.

[Daniboy]

Except for the fact that you really can't. Unless multiple recodes and compression cycles occur, 320kbps MP3s don't lose anything from dropping from 1411kbps CD quality. There's a whole market for 1411kbps because CDs exist, and CDs just happen to be 1411kbps. "Audiophiles" simply shit themselves any time the word "compression" is involved, even though about 99% of commercial MP3s are only encoded once, and have to justify thousands of dollars in sound equipment they can't physically hear the limits of.

Interesting.
So thinking like that I can say that vinyls are useless as "superior sound quality deliverers" as the difference between CD quality and vinyl quality is not audible.

Just because something is not audible it doesnt mean you can't feel it.
The human body reacts to music much beyond to what just the brain can process in a concious way.

Your whole argument is going to the exact oposite way of the state of the art. To have the basis to assert that you must be graduating on music college or completing some master degree, so you can make a scientific argument out of that.

Just saying the whole music industry is wrong is something very easy to do. I want you to prove me that lossless is simply MP3 with 6x more useless data.

[Shishdisma]

Interesting.
So thinking like that I can say that vinyls are useless as "superior sound quality deliverers" as the difference between CD quality and vinyl quality is not audible.

Well yeah, vinyls are completely useless, thats why they aren't in regular commercial circulation anymore. The vinyl "sound" doesn't come from superior technical quality, it actually comes from a certain kind of inferior quality. The "warmth" perceived in sound is the result of analogue systems not being able to reproduce a signal accurately, but in a different way to a digital system's lack of horsepower. Digital distortion in this case comes from quantisation errors and poor sampling, analogue "warmth" is just the same effect, but along a continuously variable analogue signal.

Just because something is not audible it doesnt mean you can't feel it.
The human body reacts to music much beyond to what just the brain can process in a concious way.

Uhh, no, the human body reacts to music through the auditory system, which has extremely well documented limits. Buying $10,000 worth of "audiophile grade" equipment doesn't give you a sixth sense that lets you detect the "airiness" of a signal.

Your whole argument is going to the exact oposite way of the state of the art. To have the basis to assert that you must be graduating on music college or completing some master degree, so you can make a scientific argument out of that.

Also no, what I'm saying is on point with the state of the art since digital technology was pioneered. And you only need a basic understanding of audio technology to get that. It's just superstition, lack of understanding, and disposable income that perpetuates the absurd myths and dogmas.

[Daniboy]

Well yeah, vinyls are completely useless, thats why they aren't in regular commercial circulation anymore. The vinyl "sound" doesn't come from superior technical quality, it actually comes from a certain kind of inferior quality. The "warmth" perceived in sound is the result of analogue systems not being able to reproduce a signal accurately, but in a different way to a digital system's lack of horsepower. Digital distortion in this case comes from quantisation errors and poor sampling, analogue "warmth" is just the same effect, but along a continuously variable analogue

Uhh, no, the human body reacts to music through the auditory system, which has extremely well documented limits. Buying $10,000 worth of "audiophile grade" equipment doesn't give you a sixth sense that lets you detect the "airiness" of a signal.




Also no, what I'm saying is on point with the state of the art since digital technology was pioneered. And you only need a basic understanding of audio technology to get that. It's just superstition, lack of understanding, and disposable income that perpetuates the absurd myths and dogmas.

Vinyls are useless?
I'm done here

[DJSigma]

What people don't seem to accept is that CD quality was chosen to be beyond the limits of human hearing

That's not why it was chosen at all.

Except for the fact that you really can't.

There are no absolutes when talking about lossy compression.

Unless multiple recodes and compression cycles occur, 320kbps MP3s don't lose anything from dropping from 1411kbps CD quality.

Obviously, this is technically untrue by the very nature of it being called "lossy" compression. As for whether it's true when it comes to the listener and perceived quality differences, you simply cannot generalise on that.