From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Apr 26 05:10:28 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC40FC27ED for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:10:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com) Received: from sonic309-26.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (sonic309-26.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com [77.238.179.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E09A7416B for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:10:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ralf.mardorf@rocketmail.com) X-YMail-OSG: XqXmaJcVM1nHI0AzJM4soOHLG7ppLRk1A7aLXzv4cyGgDeoMuZnofhGXqthx3f_ Ltk_iTnoT0C.MB7Jcioltfq8InXC2Ni6hjYAJ8OTy9TUsYDHQRpwXB0LhCZQ9guS5_k8LL3WGJ5d sUPgXqplNYYCJjbXIHD1DJAoBDDGF9KoPXuo5KlJn6QR4s_4HR.OZovfGji1bP5e0Iuf_Q9nNvmh TSU6G.CQDTSD_TX5ktvj8dlW6U8wqL3qnHz4wTkSt_PQYTx.FCgjJkg1yrhAdwVgNTyrys6Hb5l1 0CpWQVHPYmoZVMFiBkdIIvB_qx7rOf7C1RKE1ZmXN2RAt5WF3JJbBajabXSRmauyUMjloZgi3Gqe viAzWmpvSIh20QlpLjz4mlfI.nkQgVx1CEi9y7cH8BxABkbH6NFPmooKPY6oXwgZUptzP6BtUqsw GCLf0MSizz4.ZXR5sBssmDgFC5QatVWA8m0pFH_XX8d.JQV0DR_ezO9duxlsSDID8idg8GJIXq2N _1VbfmasVnEG.L.Use21qQ.tVdhxIxzm0Mxtxc6nzVbnEyr13EMuxxfQTM9axwqdJK.JfA6S_OR1 rf9Npt43I9KJObm_901LLIy4gyBua2V9XQPt30F6_.1_s6zIbM8FCHDsvEzKkm5UmsvPJ3c1QfnV t6g-- Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic309.consmr.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:10:26 +0000 Received: from x4e3214c9.dyn.telefonica.de (EHLO archlinux) ([78.50.20.201]) by smtp407.mail.ir2.yahoo.com (Oath Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID 4e2a43c996fcb401408055177790d4c5 for ; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:00:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 07:00:16 +0200 From: Ralf Mardorf To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: audiophile sound on FreeBSD ? Message-ID: <20180426070016.60d735ed@archlinux> In-Reply-To: References: <20180423224242.7299f430@WorkMachine> <20180424113308.52f35f93@WorkMachine> <20180424200924.12c648bf@archlinux> <20180424235410.5e175bc6@gumby.homeunix.com> <20180425185330.70fb9b1e.freebsd.ed.lists@sumeritec.com> <20180425121249.3de329616ad9c07822e5e572@sohara.org> <20180425233158.6aa4ddd0@archlinux> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0git136 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-arch-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:10:28 -0000 On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:04:52 -0400, Waitman Gobble wrote: >Hardly anything recorded in a studio the past 20 years (30?) is over >48KHz. The actual master digital recordings are not hi definition. You >can find modern classical music recordings with higher resolution. But >there are also great recordings that were originally analog (like up >until the 1990's) and digitized at 96/192 and you (well at least I) >can tell the difference. > >(But there are also people who claim there is no difference in >shooting JPEG format photos compared to shooting RAW, they claim they >cannot see any difference when it's quite obvious there's more detail >in RAW) > >If you want 96/192 on a pci card you'd need something several years >old, verify the chipset and use OSS on FreeBSD. > >There are a couple good USB audio devices that do 96/192. I do not >think you can get 96/192 out of any "Creative" device on FreeBSD. Any comparison with a lossy compression image file format is utter nonsense. Apart from working around latency issues for PA systems 96 and 192 KHz gains you nothing. For listening 48 KHz 16 bit already would do the job and for production 48 KHz 32 bit floating point should be used. 32 bit floating point doesn't provide a better audio quality, it just makes production easier. For production usually uncompressed audio formats are used, but usually not raw header-less PCM, I suspect most common is WAV. However, regarding all the double-blind test discussions, lossless compressed audio format are lossless and lossy compressed audio format are lossy. It doesn't matter how many people are able to hear a difference or if they should hear a difference to claim that the culprit is a bad algorithm. To avoid any issue for any person, using whatever algorithm is provided by the software, lossy audio formats shouldn't be used.