They also think that you need frequency response above 20kHz to make the music sound "alive" (whatever that means).
...
Assuming your equipment can replay them (a lot fo tweeters can, if the needle and amplifiers are up to the task) and your soundfield is set up correctly (ultrasound tends to beam-form), you do perceive the beat pattern caused by interference between frequencies in the ultrasound range (up to around 40KHz), even though you can't hear the frequencies themselves.
And the clarification that followed:
Of course, higher frequencies mean thinner ridges on the record so, even if your equipment can reproduce them, a given record will only contain them for the first few playthroughs.
And further:
it's something digital can do better, anyway -- just not CDs.
Since you clearly didn't read my whole post... and, since I'm posting again anyway, a bit more info:
The phenomenon I'm referring to most often manifests itself as something that is felt, rather than heard, like a chill down your spine or a physical reaction like the hairs on your arm standing up. A decent quality amplifier and a pair of high quality studio monitor headphones, plus a well-mixed 88.1KHz (or 96KHz) or higher digital recording are all you need to experience this for yourself and, yes, it's very real. You can A/B test for it (against 44.1KHz) with a near 100% identification rate among people who have reactions -- mind you, that doesn't include everybody, but it does include a majority of the population. For those who don't react to the interference patterns between ultrasound frequencies, who can easily be identified because they also don't react to the interference patterns between audible frequencies, a CD is more than adequate. For everyone else, at least doubling the sample rate would actually be noticeable when proper equipment was being used.
For reference, a lot of the better-sounding bass boost systems use the same phenomenon, but with audible frequencies, to create beat patterns representing the low bass most smaller speakers simply can't produce. The technique is also used by a lot of smaller bluetooth speakers to give the illusion of a 2" driver putting out powerful sub-bass, and it works quite well. Test it yourself, pick up an H2O Mini speaker, give it a listen with some bass-heavy material, then pop it open and disconnect one of the drivers and listen again. Reconnect the driver and see that it wasn't the act of opening it, but the act of reducing its output to monaural (although it's a mono speaker, the binaural beat effect it utilizes is a stereo effect and requires two or more drivers to work) that killed its bass response. In other words, yes, this is a real thing, it's used in a whole lot of audio products, and you can experiment for yourself to prove it.
Unless you're one of the small minority of the population who can't process binaural beats, in which case I feel sorry for you that you are missing out on a lot of the joy and wonder of high quality recordings, as well as liver performances, because your brain simply cannot process the information required to fully experience them.
Yes, "argued". I havne't heard it in at least a couple decades, though. Note that I said I don't think many people would (as in today, not did as in years ago) argue that -- and even if audiophiles were still making that argument today, there aren't many of us. And no, the $10k speaker cable bunch aren't audiophiles, they're idiots, so it really doesn't matter if they're making that argument, they lack the understanding required to make it legitimately.
That said, new vinyl does have the potential to sound more lifelike than a CD, because vinyl can capture ultrasonic frequencies. Assuming your equipment can replay them (a lot fo tweeters can, if the needle and amplifiers are up to the task) and your soundfield is set up correctly (ultrasound tends to beam-form), you do perceive the beat pattern caused by interference between frequencies in the ultrasound range (up to around 40KHz), even though you can't hear the frequencies themselves. Of course, higher frequencies mean thinner ridges on the record so, even if your equipment can reproduce them, a given record will only contain them for the first few playthroughs.
And it's something digital can do better, anyway -- just not CDs. Any medium or format that can capture at least 80k samples per second can outperform vinyl on this front, but CDs can not do that. There's a reason many of us "rip" out vinyl at 192/24, then store it in case we ever need to rip it again -- virgin vinyl does carry more detail than a CD (though less than a high-sample-rate high-bit-depth digital recording), but it quickly loses that detail when played. It can be captured (and measured, even) in the first playthorough (maybe the first few, if your equipment isn't too hard on the grooves).
It's not a practical medium, I'll grant you that, and what benefits it has do degrade quickly with use, but until I can buy high-sample-rate high-bit-depth digital recordings mastered without all the compression, it's the best medium from which to source material to make my own.
I didn't spend the extra 30 seconds to find a quality unit, sue me. My point was that they're easy as hell to find in the first place, which disproves your "point" about them being difficult to find. As for the amplifiers, they're so easy to find you literally trip over them at any pro audio supplier, I didn't think I'd have to do the legwork for you. I still don't think I do, you're either a low-quality troll or too willfully ignorant to be educated; if I'm wrong about either of those things, you'll find that you're perfectly capable of doing 5 minutes of your own research to find the components required to assemble a literal movie theater sound system -- which will sound measurably better than any integrated system
Also, pointing out my misspelling of discrete, while possibly amusing to you, didn't really do much for your argument.
Try going up to an actual sound engineer at a theater (or theatre, if you prefer liver performances), concert hall, or stadium, and asking them a few questions about the sound system(s) they oversee. I'm sure the'll tell you you're right and they're using integrated systems, rather than discrete components, because they sound better.</sarc>
Here's a hint: I have industry experience, I actually know you won't find a single employable sound engineer who would ever tell you that. Care for me to explain why?
That wasn't the argument; perhaps you should read it again? Here you go:
music mastered for CDs tend to be over compressed where as vinyl can't support the level of compression that CDs can
It's not that the physical limitation of vinyl makes it sound better, it's that the dynamic range compression applied to CDs makes them sound worse. I don't think many people would legitimately argue that the same recording, with the same mastering, would sound better on a CD, at least over time. Most of us would absolutely love for CDs to not be stamped with overcompressed shit.
First off, I never claimed to be a musician, but that's an idiotic assumption to make. Second, you completely missed my point. Even with that, your second remark is pretty much spot on; and illustrates my point in a way you might not realize: you see, something that sounds good is certainly not an accurate reproduction of something that doesn't. A CD mastered with too much dynamic range compression will sound like garbage versus the same recording, properly mastered, on vinyl. Due to physical limitations of vinyl, recordings on vinyl are often mastered with less compression than theid CD counterparts and, thus, sound better.
There would be no argument if most CDs weren't stamped with overcompressed shit. Yes, of course, CDs would be the clear winner then.
Uh... LineageOS for various phones is still LineageOS. A derivative for any of the same phones is... still LineageOS? So they're no different, then? That's what you're saying? No, sorry, that doesn't follow, but that was a good stream of nonsense that I'm sure might confuse enough people into going along with your incorrect line of reasoning.
If you take LineageOS and change the launcher or some of the defaults and repackage it, it is no longer LineageOS; that's what differentiates Ubuntu from Debian, as well. The drivers, of course, are not part of the LineageOS distribution itself but are, rather, a required addition and bundling your own additions do LineageOS doesn't make it something else, much like bundling your own additions with Debian doesn't make it something else.
Unless, of course, you can point me to something authoritative that shows that the only difference between LineageOS and Resurrestion Remix is the drivers that come bundled within. Of course, that's not the case, so you can't.
A quick follow-up, it took me all of 30 seconds to find this 7.1 channel decoder on Amazon. Basically any HDMI audio decoder will output at least 5.1 analog, which you can feed into your discreet amplifiers or a mixer (which then feeds into your discreet amplifiers).
The reason 99% of what's out there is integrated is because 99% of people prefer convenience over sound quality.
You do realize you can find 7.1 receivers and discreet amplifiers quite readily, right? Discreet amplifiers are still quite popular in pro audio where 8 channels isn't typically enough. Not that more than two channels even matter if we're talking about listening to music; nobody even releases quadraphonic anymore, let alone 5.1 or 7.1 recordings.
Also, by having your amplifiers physically separated and isolated from your receiver, you avoid a fair bit of noise and corsstalk, which is certainly audible at moderate volume. You go on and enjoy your 7.1 channels of hiss and whine while I crank up 8 channels that remain dead silent when I'm not giving them any input. That's step one in obtaining vastly superior sound.
all the inconvenience of an LP but without all of the "interesting" quirks that vinyl gave you
According to you, those quirks include
Things like the attenuation caused by the disk being slightly warped, the needle not being perfect, etc. Essentially, the music changes slightly and unpredictably as you play the record more often
Since this format ends up pressed on vinyl and is played with a needle (the same needle and player as a traditional LP, mind you), I'm pretty sure none of that will be lost. All that's really changing here is how the master is etched.
Maybe for you... but you're right, the lure, for anyone with any common sense, isn't fidelity. In my case, it's that vinyl is (usually) mastered differently and I often prefer that sound over the sound of how a CD or streaming/download release is mastered; and the experience, handling the record, placing the needle on the surface, there's just something wholesome about it. Of course, I've been disappointed by vinyl with poor mastering, as well, and the experience doesn't make up for that; especially considering that I rip my vinyl to 192/24 anyway, so I only get the experience once per record.
Take the output of your record player, pump it into a moderately okay sound card, write the files to a standard CD and then tell us if you can still tell the sound apart. I bet you can't.
This is what I do, and why. Vinyl is, as you mention, mastered differently and it does sound better to me for that reason; and I want to keep it that way, so much of my vinyl has only been "listened to" once, when it was dubbed to 192/24 digital, which gets archived and FLAC, AAC, and MP3 versions are created for use with my current devices. If a better compressed format comes along and I eventually get something that can play it, I have the 192/24 archive copy as a source.
Yeah, I'd say that probably applies to plenty of gamers, if we're being honest. Like... and this is just an examples... any Steam users. Get off your fucking high horse, not every piece of old software is a security mess and not every piece of 32-bit software is old.
You think you're arguing with me, but you're not. Microsoft does very little for backward compatibility and, yet, it mostly just works. It would be more work for them to remove that compatibility than it is for them to leave it in place until it breaks, which is probably why they do it. Like I said, one part time guy could handle it, pick up everyone's lunch orders, and detail clean the break room twice a day.
Lineage website does not list independent roms built from their source code, only official ones, and there are TONS that are unofficial
Water isn't oxygen and hydrogen; it's something a fair bit different, despite being derived from those two elements, but you might not get my point from that example, so here's one relating to operating systems: Ubuntu, Grml, Kali, PureOS, and Tails aren't Debian, though they're derived from Debian. LineageOS is LineageOS; anything derived from LineageOS is something else. This is an important distinctions because, as you state, flashing the wrong thing can easily and permanently brick some phones.
Oh, and if you want accurate documentation and support, well, you'd probably better know what your OS is called so the documentation you find includes things that differ from its derivative base and the people you contact for support can actually help.
Whether they're on staff already or not, Apple has the money to hire them. It's a moot point, anyway, as you'll realize if you read through to the end of my comment.
So, I thought it was all well and good when you said you did the same with Resurrestion Remix, but now I'm calling bullshit. Especially as LineageOS doesn't appear to support the S4.
Apple has way more money and developer resources than Microsoft, yet Microsoft has no problem supporting 32-bit applications. Try again.
Yes, they dropped 16-bit support some time ago, because the CPUs required to run newer versions of Windows no longer included the 16-bit instruction sets and the operations had to be emulated; that emulation was error prone and took a load of resources to develop and maintain, on top of being somewhat slow and mostly useless. 32-bit code still runs just fine natively on modern x86 CPUs, though, so there is no emulation layer being maintained. To add to that, Apple does very little, if any, assembly development, even at the the kernel and driver level, so the difference between a 32- and 64-bit version of a given library is literally a compiler flag in the vast majority of cases.
Do you really think every developer who releases 32- and 64-bit versions of their software (or fat binaries, for that matter) writes and tests it twice? No. It's a damn compiler flag. They could hire one guy part-time to maintain the 32-bit libraries, pick up everyone's lunch orders, and detail clean the break room twice a day.
No, but they do stop providing security updates. Maybe someone wants to continue using 32 bit software and receive patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities?
If something affects 1%, that means you're sure to know at least a handful of people affected by that thing. How would you feel if 1% of the people you know kicked you in the balls? Because that's what you're metaphorically doing to 1% of the people you know; and turnabout should be fair play.
Slashdot Mirror
They also think that you need frequency response above 20kHz to make the music sound "alive" (whatever that means).
...
Assuming your equipment can replay them (a lot fo tweeters can, if the needle and amplifiers are up to the task) and your soundfield is set up correctly (ultrasound tends to beam-form), you do perceive the beat pattern caused by interference between frequencies in the ultrasound range (up to around 40KHz), even though you can't hear the frequencies themselves.
And the clarification that followed:
Of course, higher frequencies mean thinner ridges on the record so, even if your equipment can reproduce them, a given record will only contain them for the first few playthroughs.
And further:
it's something digital can do better, anyway -- just not CDs.
Since you clearly didn't read my whole post... and, since I'm posting again anyway, a bit more info:
The phenomenon I'm referring to most often manifests itself as something that is felt, rather than heard, like a chill down your spine or a physical reaction like the hairs on your arm standing up. A decent quality amplifier and a pair of high quality studio monitor headphones, plus a well-mixed 88.1KHz (or 96KHz) or higher digital recording are all you need to experience this for yourself and, yes, it's very real. You can A/B test for it (against 44.1KHz) with a near 100% identification rate among people who have reactions -- mind you, that doesn't include everybody, but it does include a majority of the population. For those who don't react to the interference patterns between ultrasound frequencies, who can easily be identified because they also don't react to the interference patterns between audible frequencies, a CD is more than adequate. For everyone else, at least doubling the sample rate would actually be noticeable when proper equipment was being used.
For reference, a lot of the better-sounding bass boost systems use the same phenomenon, but with audible frequencies, to create beat patterns representing the low bass most smaller speakers simply can't produce. The technique is also used by a lot of smaller bluetooth speakers to give the illusion of a 2" driver putting out powerful sub-bass, and it works quite well. Test it yourself, pick up an H2O Mini speaker, give it a listen with some bass-heavy material, then pop it open and disconnect one of the drivers and listen again. Reconnect the driver and see that it wasn't the act of opening it, but the act of reducing its output to monaural (although it's a mono speaker, the binaural beat effect it utilizes is a stereo effect and requires two or more drivers to work) that killed its bass response. In other words, yes, this is a real thing, it's used in a whole lot of audio products, and you can experiment for yourself to prove it.
Unless you're one of the small minority of the population who can't process binaural beats, in which case I feel sorry for you that you are missing out on a lot of the joy and wonder of high quality recordings, as well as liver performances, because your brain simply cannot process the information required to fully experience them.
Yes, "argued". I havne't heard it in at least a couple decades, though. Note that I said I don't think many people would (as in today, not did as in years ago) argue that -- and even if audiophiles were still making that argument today, there aren't many of us. And no, the $10k speaker cable bunch aren't audiophiles, they're idiots, so it really doesn't matter if they're making that argument, they lack the understanding required to make it legitimately.
That said, new vinyl does have the potential to sound more lifelike than a CD, because vinyl can capture ultrasonic frequencies. Assuming your equipment can replay them (a lot fo tweeters can, if the needle and amplifiers are up to the task) and your soundfield is set up correctly (ultrasound tends to beam-form), you do perceive the beat pattern caused by interference between frequencies in the ultrasound range (up to around 40KHz), even though you can't hear the frequencies themselves. Of course, higher frequencies mean thinner ridges on the record so, even if your equipment can reproduce them, a given record will only contain them for the first few playthroughs.
And it's something digital can do better, anyway -- just not CDs. Any medium or format that can capture at least 80k samples per second can outperform vinyl on this front, but CDs can not do that. There's a reason many of us "rip" out vinyl at 192/24, then store it in case we ever need to rip it again -- virgin vinyl does carry more detail than a CD (though less than a high-sample-rate high-bit-depth digital recording), but it quickly loses that detail when played. It can be captured (and measured, even) in the first playthorough (maybe the first few, if your equipment isn't too hard on the grooves).
It's not a practical medium, I'll grant you that, and what benefits it has do degrade quickly with use, but until I can buy high-sample-rate high-bit-depth digital recordings mastered without all the compression, it's the best medium from which to source material to make my own.
I didn't spend the extra 30 seconds to find a quality unit, sue me. My point was that they're easy as hell to find in the first place, which disproves your "point" about them being difficult to find. As for the amplifiers, they're so easy to find you literally trip over them at any pro audio supplier, I didn't think I'd have to do the legwork for you. I still don't think I do, you're either a low-quality troll or too willfully ignorant to be educated; if I'm wrong about either of those things, you'll find that you're perfectly capable of doing 5 minutes of your own research to find the components required to assemble a literal movie theater sound system -- which will sound measurably better than any integrated system
Also, pointing out my misspelling of discrete, while possibly amusing to you, didn't really do much for your argument.
Try going up to an actual sound engineer at a theater (or theatre, if you prefer liver performances), concert hall, or stadium, and asking them a few questions about the sound system(s) they oversee. I'm sure the'll tell you you're right and they're using integrated systems, rather than discrete components, because they sound better.</sarc>
Here's a hint: I have industry experience, I actually know you won't find a single employable sound engineer who would ever tell you that. Care for me to explain why?
music mastered for CDs tend to be over compressed where as vinyl can't support the level of compression that CDs can
It's not that the physical limitation of vinyl makes it sound better, it's that the dynamic range compression applied to CDs makes them sound worse. I don't think many people would legitimately argue that the same recording, with the same mastering, would sound better on a CD, at least over time. Most of us would absolutely love for CDs to not be stamped with overcompressed shit.
First off, I never claimed to be a musician, but that's an idiotic assumption to make. Second, you completely missed my point. Even with that, your second remark is pretty much spot on; and illustrates my point in a way you might not realize: you see, something that sounds good is certainly not an accurate reproduction of something that doesn't. A CD mastered with too much dynamic range compression will sound like garbage versus the same recording, properly mastered, on vinyl. Due to physical limitations of vinyl, recordings on vinyl are often mastered with less compression than theid CD counterparts and, thus, sound better.
There would be no argument if most CDs weren't stamped with overcompressed shit. Yes, of course, CDs would be the clear winner then.
Uh... LineageOS for various phones is still LineageOS. A derivative for any of the same phones is... still LineageOS? So they're no different, then? That's what you're saying? No, sorry, that doesn't follow, but that was a good stream of nonsense that I'm sure might confuse enough people into going along with your incorrect line of reasoning.
If you take LineageOS and change the launcher or some of the defaults and repackage it, it is no longer LineageOS; that's what differentiates Ubuntu from Debian, as well. The drivers, of course, are not part of the LineageOS distribution itself but are, rather, a required addition and bundling your own additions do LineageOS doesn't make it something else, much like bundling your own additions with Debian doesn't make it something else.
Unless, of course, you can point me to something authoritative that shows that the only difference between LineageOS and Resurrestion Remix is the drivers that come bundled within. Of course, that's not the case, so you can't.
A quick follow-up, it took me all of 30 seconds to find this 7.1 channel decoder on Amazon. Basically any HDMI audio decoder will output at least 5.1 analog, which you can feed into your discreet amplifiers or a mixer (which then feeds into your discreet amplifiers).
The reason 99% of what's out there is integrated is because 99% of people prefer convenience over sound quality.
You do realize you can find 7.1 receivers and discreet amplifiers quite readily, right? Discreet amplifiers are still quite popular in pro audio where 8 channels isn't typically enough. Not that more than two channels even matter if we're talking about listening to music; nobody even releases quadraphonic anymore, let alone 5.1 or 7.1 recordings.
Also, by having your amplifiers physically separated and isolated from your receiver, you avoid a fair bit of noise and corsstalk, which is certainly audible at moderate volume. You go on and enjoy your 7.1 channels of hiss and whine while I crank up 8 channels that remain dead silent when I'm not giving them any input. That's step one in obtaining vastly superior sound.
The argument that the quality of what's being stored on the medium matters is bullshit?
all the inconvenience of an LP but without all of the "interesting" quirks that vinyl gave you
According to you, those quirks include
Things like the attenuation caused by the disk being slightly warped, the needle not being perfect, etc. Essentially, the music changes slightly and unpredictably as you play the record more often
Since this format ends up pressed on vinyl and is played with a needle (the same needle and player as a traditional LP, mind you), I'm pretty sure none of that will be lost. All that's really changing here is how the master is etched.
Maybe for you... but you're right, the lure, for anyone with any common sense, isn't fidelity. In my case, it's that vinyl is (usually) mastered differently and I often prefer that sound over the sound of how a CD or streaming/download release is mastered; and the experience, handling the record, placing the needle on the surface, there's just something wholesome about it. Of course, I've been disappointed by vinyl with poor mastering, as well, and the experience doesn't make up for that; especially considering that I rip my vinyl to 192/24 anyway, so I only get the experience once per record.
Same as if you saved a JPEG as a PNG, or vice versa
PNG is actually a lossless format, so...
More accurate != better. If the original performance sounded like crap, playing it back less accurately might sound a lot better.
Take the output of your record player, pump it into a moderately okay sound card, write the files to a standard CD and then tell us if you can still tell the sound apart. I bet you can't.
This is what I do, and why. Vinyl is, as you mention, mastered differently and it does sound better to me for that reason; and I want to keep it that way, so much of my vinyl has only been "listened to" once, when it was dubbed to 192/24 digital, which gets archived and FLAC, AAC, and MP3 versions are created for use with my current devices. If a better compressed format comes along and I eventually get something that can play it, I have the 192/24 archive copy as a source.
How far should me setup allow me to descend? I don't think one that only costs a few grand will go very far down...
Maybe you should learn that a receiver is just an amplifier with a radio built-in and that they haven't been separate pieces of equipment in decades.
I can go buy them separately right now. Brand new, even.
Yeah, I'd say that probably applies to plenty of gamers, if we're being honest. Like... and this is just an examples... any Steam users. Get off your fucking high horse, not every piece of old software is a security mess and not every piece of 32-bit software is old.
You think you're arguing with me, but you're not. Microsoft does very little for backward compatibility and, yet, it mostly just works. It would be more work for them to remove that compatibility than it is for them to leave it in place until it breaks, which is probably why they do it. Like I said, one part time guy could handle it, pick up everyone's lunch orders, and detail clean the break room twice a day.
Lineage website does not list independent roms built from their source code, only official ones, and there are TONS that are unofficial
Water isn't oxygen and hydrogen; it's something a fair bit different, despite being derived from those two elements, but you might not get my point from that example, so here's one relating to operating systems: Ubuntu, Grml, Kali, PureOS, and Tails aren't Debian, though they're derived from Debian. LineageOS is LineageOS; anything derived from LineageOS is something else. This is an important distinctions because, as you state, flashing the wrong thing can easily and permanently brick some phones.
Oh, and if you want accurate documentation and support, well, you'd probably better know what your OS is called so the documentation you find includes things that differ from its derivative base and the people you contact for support can actually help.
Whether they're on staff already or not, Apple has the money to hire them. It's a moot point, anyway, as you'll realize if you read through to the end of my comment.
So, I thought it was all well and good when you said you did the same with Resurrestion Remix, but now I'm calling bullshit. Especially as LineageOS doesn't appear to support the S4.
Admittedly some of the drivers I see do seem like zeros.
This is a supporting statement for my assertion; I thought it was obvious enough that I didn't need to state it outright.
Apple has way more money and developer resources than Microsoft, yet Microsoft has no problem supporting 32-bit applications. Try again.
Yes, they dropped 16-bit support some time ago, because the CPUs required to run newer versions of Windows no longer included the 16-bit instruction sets and the operations had to be emulated; that emulation was error prone and took a load of resources to develop and maintain, on top of being somewhat slow and mostly useless. 32-bit code still runs just fine natively on modern x86 CPUs, though, so there is no emulation layer being maintained. To add to that, Apple does very little, if any, assembly development, even at the the kernel and driver level, so the difference between a 32- and 64-bit version of a given library is literally a compiler flag in the vast majority of cases.
Do you really think every developer who releases 32- and 64-bit versions of their software (or fat binaries, for that matter) writes and tests it twice? No. It's a damn compiler flag. They could hire one guy part-time to maintain the 32-bit libraries, pick up everyone's lunch orders, and detail clean the break room twice a day.
No, but they do stop providing security updates. Maybe someone wants to continue using 32 bit software and receive patches for newly discovered vulnerabilities?
If something affects 1%, that means you're sure to know at least a handful of people affected by that thing. How would you feel if 1% of the people you know kicked you in the balls? Because that's what you're metaphorically doing to 1% of the people you know; and turnabout should be fair play.