Sound quality
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:15 pm44.1KHz is nice but... 48Khz is better, could it be possible to implent this in future version of GE?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:15 pmRe: Sound quality
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:55 pmDo you can hear any differences between a music in 44 and 48KHz?
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:25 pmTouché
Although, I do, just not as much as someone would notice.
And I'm just an audiophile S:
Although, I do, just not as much as someone would notice.
And I'm just an audiophile S:
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:16 pmmakslane wrote:Do you can hear any differences between a music in 44 and 48KHz?
I Can!
jk!
Actually my dog can, but he doesn't play many GE games.
jk again. I don't have a dog!
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 10:26 pmam I the only one that could of noticed a difference? D:
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2009 11:03 pmthe difference is about 9.2%, which isn't much, especially considering the 9% is in the 22khz+ range.
The compact disc format actually has extra channels that allow encoding for sounds above 22khz, so its actually more than 44khz total encoding.
So honestly if you do hear a difference, either its imaginary, or you have a very unusual set of ears. So unusual, in fact, that it wouldn't be worth changing formats because only 1 out of a 100 million users would be served by it.
Though i'd be interested to hear some comparison files.....make two clips that you can tell the difference, and post them here as a poll to see who else can. I'd be interested to see the results!
My attitude on music quality comes from an arguement i got in on a deathmetal irc channel once. Back when mp3 encoding was slow, there was a 300 dollar(!) mp3 encoder called Xing. Xing would encode mp3s at about 5x the speed that other encoders could. One method it used was dropping EVERYTHING below 16hz. Us fanboys concluded that any change to the music was bad, until one day a guy told us all to shut up and prove it.
I encoded a piece of classical music in mp32wav and xing, and looped them. I spent a good half hour trying to hear the difference, but i couldn't. That guy was right.
And i have more sensitive ears than most.
The compact disc format actually has extra channels that allow encoding for sounds above 22khz, so its actually more than 44khz total encoding.
So honestly if you do hear a difference, either its imaginary, or you have a very unusual set of ears. So unusual, in fact, that it wouldn't be worth changing formats because only 1 out of a 100 million users would be served by it.
Though i'd be interested to hear some comparison files.....make two clips that you can tell the difference, and post them here as a poll to see who else can. I'd be interested to see the results!
My attitude on music quality comes from an arguement i got in on a deathmetal irc channel once. Back when mp3 encoding was slow, there was a 300 dollar(!) mp3 encoder called Xing. Xing would encode mp3s at about 5x the speed that other encoders could. One method it used was dropping EVERYTHING below 16hz. Us fanboys concluded that any change to the music was bad, until one day a guy told us all to shut up and prove it.
I encoded a piece of classical music in mp32wav and xing, and looped them. I spent a good half hour trying to hear the difference, but i couldn't. That guy was right.
And i have more sensitive ears than most.
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:44 pmwell you have a good point, I was just wondering if it would of been possible and easy. I wonder why they make sound cards with 192KHz sound quality then, seriously
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 9:44 pmIf people will buy it, they will make it!
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Sat Jul 04, 2009 11:01 pmit's all about precision somethings, for audiophiles, so they can be pleased
Re: Sound quality
Posted: Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:35 amThe word audiophile sounds like someone who touches music in ways that are illegal.
In any case, i could imagine a few uses for them.
1. Police/Military might use them for advanced voice comparisons and pulling relevant data out of eavesdropped recordings.
Possibly marine applications, such as submarine sonar, where sound = survival, or bomb designers using it to understand the explosion patterns and resonance, attack, etc. of explosions.
2. Sound industry experts may use them to fine tune/create samples, perhaps a super high-end drum pack etc. where the creator demands an incredibly fine level of control.
3. Recording industry may use them in the analysis/addition of algorithms for things such as equalizing across a variety of speaker systems, developing methods like TruBass, and inserting additional psychoactive rhythms to music.
4. Institutions may use them for archiving real world sounds such as a university's biology department archiving the calls of different species of birds, or geology department monitoring earthquakes, meteors, etc.
Just some ideas.
In any case, i could imagine a few uses for them.
1. Police/Military might use them for advanced voice comparisons and pulling relevant data out of eavesdropped recordings.
Possibly marine applications, such as submarine sonar, where sound = survival, or bomb designers using it to understand the explosion patterns and resonance, attack, etc. of explosions.
2. Sound industry experts may use them to fine tune/create samples, perhaps a super high-end drum pack etc. where the creator demands an incredibly fine level of control.
3. Recording industry may use them in the analysis/addition of algorithms for things such as equalizing across a variety of speaker systems, developing methods like TruBass, and inserting additional psychoactive rhythms to music.
4. Institutions may use them for archiving real world sounds such as a university's biology department archiving the calls of different species of birds, or geology department monitoring earthquakes, meteors, etc.
Just some ideas.