Print

Print


PS -- John Chester is right. If you take something from 96/24 to 44.1/16, there will be some level 
of audible difference, depending on the source material. I know there are plenty of quasi-religious 
arguments out in webland about "CD resolution is perfect" and there's a flawed "ABX" test reported 
in the AES Journal, but trained listeners who listen for their profession, such as members of ARSC, 
should hear differences. To take a crack at describing the differences I generally hear, you hear 
less of a fade out on a reverb tail, or less "air" around an instrument being played in a space. On 
the human voice, I hear a bit less of the low-level stuff that often happens in the throat and that 
sensitive mics can pick up, also less breath in a quiet vibrato. The net result, again to my ears, 
tends to be a flattening of the stereo image as heard through monitor speakers, it's more conforming 
to the dimensions and spread of the speakers rather than seeming deeper, wider and higher than the 
speakers. The audible differences shouldn't be drastic, but tend to be audible to a careful 
listener. Obviously I'm talking about differences in well-recorded content with subtle tonal and 
volume-level contrasts and changes. Something full-on slamming loud and harsh may sound equally good 
or bad at many resolution levels, including some lossy. But, it's worth noting that lossy CODECs use 
perceptual encoding and often change the frequency spectrum as heard over good speakers in a 
full-sized room at normal listening levels.

-- Tom Fine


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:32 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Downsample


> Hi Steve:
>
> Since it's free to try, definitely try dBpoweramp:
> https://www.dbpoweramp.com/
>
> The batch converter uses very good SRC and dither-down software, to my ears. By the way, I don't 
> know why this is, but their batch converter, using the LAME engine, makes better-sounding MP3 at 
> the same bitrates than iTunes using licensed Frauhoffer (sp?) software. Other programs I've tried 
> that used the LAME engine sounded worse.
>
> You can get super-fancy in the area of "downsampling" as you call it. I don't hear any difference 
> that I can describe between software that uses similar SRC methods and similar dither profiles. I 
> think the differences were more radical back in the day of hardware converters built into digital 
> buss racks feeding Sony 1630 machines.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Steven Smolian" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:09 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] Downsample
>
>
>> What is a reasonabley priced program that will downsample from 96/24 to
>> 44.1/16 with no audible sonic alteration?
>>
>> Steve Smolian
>>
>>
>
>