- Last Active
thedba said:Musk can build rockets faster than Apple can build a simple all-in-one computer. Aluminum chassis, system board and display. What takes 2 years?Maybe he can buy out a display manufacturer and do miracles with it like he did for Twitter.
Musk can build rockets faster than Apple can build a simple all-in-one computer. Aluminum chassis, system board and display. What takes 2 years?Maybe he can buy out a display manufacturer and do miracles with it like he did for Twitter.
Maurizio said:Tim Cook is buying popcorn.
lotones said:"More than high-res audio, I think Dolby Atmos music adds a meaningful and noticeable improvement to music."Yes, but Dolby Atmos is much better in high-res. So is stereo.I'm really tired of the gaslighting downplaying the benefits of high-res audio. Just because some people can't hear it doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Why have monitors over 720p? Why have cameras with more than 2 megapixel resolution? It's "good enough" for "most people", right?If we have the technology, and we do, we shouldn't be arbitrarily chained to audio standards set in the late 70's.What we're talking about here is playback.
Let's also agree that human hearing is limited between 16Hz and 20000Hz (20kHz) even though the vast majority of humans over the age 30 will be hard pressed to hear any frequencies above 16kHz.
CD quality music was set to 16bit/44.1kHz. This is far greater than any cassette or LP sold in the 60's/70's/80's etc could ever attain.
For one thing 44.1 kHz means that your playback medium can reproduce sounds up to 22.05kHz frequency. Well above the human hearing range, say 20kHz for an absolute perfect human.
The 16 bit part of the above number translates into 96 db (decibels) of dynamic range, meaning the difference between the quietest part of a track and its loudest part.That is way more than enough for any modern rock/pop tunes (typical dynamic range is 10-15db, let's be generous and give it an even 20db).Well mastered and recorded classical pieces can offer a dynamic range of say 30-50db, again let's be generous and give them 60db.
This debate about how much better are sampling rates and even more dynamic range (24 bit = 144db) is ridiculous when it comes to music that is targeted for human consumption.
Now if you're doing scientific research and want to reproduce mating calls of crickets, or want to see how bats react to frequencies only they can hear, then yes the 192kHz sampling rate makes sense.If you want to reproduce dynamic ranges well over the 96 db (we haven't included dithering which can increase the dynamic range to 122 db) and try them on political prisoners, violating every written code of the Geneva conventions, then yes you may also need to go beyond 96db undithered dynamic range.But let me add a caveat here. If seeing 24/192 on your playback system's screen gives you a warm fuzzy feeling that you're getting much better quality than everyone else, knock yourself out.