Future of digital music distribution., Principals, quality, formats, codecs… |
  |
Future of digital music distribution., Principals, quality, formats, codecs… |
 Mar 24 2006, 18:25
Post
#26
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 325 Joined: 14-December 01 Member No.: 641  |
QUOTE (user @ Mar 24 2006, 05:08 PM) A reminder: Does all this mean that conversion “24/96=>16/44=>lossless” is still the best way for delivering high quality audio content via Net?
The human perception is limited somehow around 20 bit/44.1-48 kHz, so that 24/48 is already overkill, .....  -------------------- keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org
|
 |
 
|
|
Mar 27 2006, 11:16
Post
#27
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 873 Joined: 12-October 01 From: the great wide open Member No.: 277 |
24/96 -> 24/48
I estimate, that 24/96 downsampled to 24/48 flac/wavpack eg., sounds like the best compromise regarding quality and filesize. 24/96 downsampling to 16/44.1 results to downsampling issues (because of 96->44.1), the next best step avoiding 96->44.1 would be: 24/96 down to 16/48 btw., I don't know what's your problem transmitting 24/96 via net, my lan and wlan at office and home doesn't have problems with Lossless music playing. even 10 Mbit lan should be sufficient with 24/96 stereo uncompressed? This post has been edited by user: Mar 27 2006, 11:18 -------------------- www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 27 2006, 11:50
Post
#28
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 498 Joined: 2-October 01 Member No.: 168 |
Well, IMHO lossy encodes should be used for promotional purposes.
My label's artists are forced - by contract - to put whole albums on their official website. To prevent piracy it must be a chained ogg @ q-1/32KHz/mono. We use lossless for storing & distribution (we professionally burn CDs on-demand). We're planning to turn music stores into "burning points", so people can grab phisical CDs without expedition costs. To achieve this we want use a private P2P network (reserved for certain static IPs) based on BitTorrent. This is the FORART way. This post has been edited by PatchWorKs: Mar 27 2006, 11:52 |
|
|
|
|
Mar 27 2006, 16:34
Post
#29
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 541 Joined: 22-May 04 Member No.: 14243 |
QUOTE (user @ Mar 27 2006, 06:16 AM) 24/96 downsampling to 16/44.1 results to downsampling issues (because of 96->44.1), the next best step avoiding 96->44.1 would be: Which re-sampling issues? Please specify what detrimental effect re-sampling 96kHz-->44.1kHz in Adobe Audition has upon the signal, for example. Or are you referring to a theoretical problem[which has not been demonstrated to be an issue concerning audibility when using good re-sampling software]? -Chris This post has been edited by WmAx: Mar 27 2006, 16:41 |
|
|
|
|
Mar 27 2006, 22:01
Post
#30
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 325 Joined: 14-December 01 Member No.: 641 |
QUOTE (user @ Mar 27 2006, 01:16 PM) 24/96 -> 24/48 I estimate, that 24/96 downsampled to 24/48 flac/wavpack eg., sounds like the best compromise regarding quality and filesize. In fact, conversion “24/96=>16/44.1=>lossless” could be considered as a block diagram of a lossy encoder consisting of two bit reduction blocks – lossy (24/96=>16/44.1) and lossless. The lossy stage usually includes low-pass filtering, interpolation and psychoacoustic correction (dithering) of input signal. At the final stage reduced data is compressed losslessly. This “encoder” is simple and really guarantees very good perceived audio quality. The same time I’m pretty sure that conversion “24/96=>lossy” by any modern psychoacoustic coder could preserve more quality (more perceived quality margin) with less bitrate than the one described. QUOTE (user @ Mar 27 2006, 01:16 PM) btw., I don't know what's your problem transmitting 24/96 via net ... No problem at all. This is all about distribution of high quality audio content over the internet. -------------------- keeping audio clear together - soundexpert.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd May 2013 - 20:35 |
