Sony attempts to lure audiophiles with 'Premium Sound' microSD - Polidicks

[QUOTE=itisjuly;47180726]As someone who listens to various electronic genres, I can tell the difference in a heartbeat. mp3 just doesn't have that defined clarity you get with flac or similar formats.[/QUOTE] This is a thing I've been noticing moreso in digital music lately as well. When you can export to any possible bitrate you want, since you're not limited to the physical capabilities of your recording equipment, you can make music that sounds much clearer and more realistic than most recorded performances.

[QUOTE=Ripmax;47177782]Yes, if people buy [url=http://www.custom-cable.co.uk/audioquest-diamond-usb-digital-audio-cable.html]this[/url] they will buy anything.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/5YGJJg0.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=mac338;47180686]I'm not an audiophile, I don't need the highest end stuff. I am a music enthusiast. Most of what I listen to is 320kbps. I have some pretty good $270 headphones, and I've maintained them for a few years now, and I think that's perfect for the casual music enthusiast. However I will note that I do hear the difference between 320kbps and 1411kbps, like the streaming service WiMP offers. I was subjected to a blind test by a friend (musician) on his expensive-ass stereo thing after claiming there probably wasn't that much of an audible difference above 320kbps for untrained ears. Except when listening, one sounded like a recording and the other like a live performance, and I was staggered by how much depth and niceness that added. Now, personally I like to have treats like that reserved for actual live performances, as not to be too spoiled, but there is a whole world out there of ungodly audio replication. It should also be noted that a lot of artists are limited by their recording equipment, so above 320kbps in songs recorded with older microphones or systems there might not even be an information difference at all - or at least not one worth pouting over.[/QUOTE] Are you sure those two files were from the same source, played at the same volume level? Were you really blind for the entire duration of the test? Because that's not what MP3 does at 320kbps. [QUOTE=woolio1;47180731]So basically, sound is made of waves of energy transmitted through the air, right? And these waves, they make your eardrums move back and forth, letting you hear things. So the red line is a standard waveform, probably some sort of oscillating tone, and the black line is what happens to that waveform when you run it through an Analog to Digital converter, which is what you do when you convert something to any digital format. Why does it go all stair-steppy? Because, when you convert something from analog to digital, the converter can only pick up so much information per timestep, sort of like how a digital camera can only capture a scene within the resolution of the image sensor. Think of the stairsteps like individual pixels. So, depending on what your encoding rate is, you can get finer or larger stairsteps, which can result in music that will sound fragmented, tinny, or empty if you use absurdly low encoding rates. Basically, all that to say that digital sound is an approximation of the analog source, because you can only capture so much data at a time. So that's what that chart represents.[/QUOTE] And the Digital to Analog converter will turn those samples back into a smooth waveform. There is no loss of detail when digitalising sound at a high enough samplerate - which 44.1 kHz, which is used for CDs, is.

[QUOTE=zombays;47180683]Your chart looks like hieroglyphics. EXPLAIN! [B]Edit:[/B] And people rate me dumb when I want to be educated. Wow, people suck :([/QUOTE] When you convert an analogue value to a digital value it has to be in terms of a quantum value - 1, 2, 3, etc. ADCs (analogue to digital converters) In the image there it's trying to show you that if you have a 4 bit ADC it can represent a number from 0-15, so any value you're converting in will be represented as a value from 0-15. If your signal is 0 to 15V for example (to make the math easy) you can represent each major step in volts, but you're limited to that. You can't represent the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 because you don't have the numeric space to do so. What the staircase represents on the graph is the binary number counting up each time the analogue signal has changed enough to represent a change in a binary value. The green line represents the error between the digitized signal and the signal you're measuring. As people have brought up a 4 bit ADC is quite poor [i]accuracy[/i] although in some cases (definitely not measuring audio) a low bit ADC can be advantageous.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;47179837]Y'all need to watch this video. [video=youtube;cIQ9IXSUzuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM[/video][/QUOTE] Fuck, that video is still listed as [B]new[/B] on Xiph despite being from 2013. When the hell is part 3 coming?

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;47179837]Y'all need to watch this video. [video=youtube;cIQ9IXSUzuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM[/video][/QUOTE] I was waiting for this to be posted on the first page before the thread was filled with misinformation bullshit. Too bad it took this long.

[QUOTE=Elspin;47180875]When you convert an analogue value to a digital value it has to be in terms of a quantum value - 1, 2, 3, etc. ADCs (analogue to digital converters) In the image there it's trying to show you that if you have a 4 bit ADC it can represent a number from 0-15, so any value you're converting in will be represented as a value from 0-15. If your signal is 0 to 15V for example (to make the math easy) you can represent each major step in volts, but you're limited to that. You can't represent the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 because you don't have the numeric space to do so. What the staircase represents on the graph is the binary number counting up each time the analogue signal has changed enough to represent a change in a binary value. The green line represents the error between the digitized signal and the signal you're measuring. As people have brought up a 4 bit ADC is quite poor [i]accuracy[/i] although in some cases (definitely not measuring audio) a low bit ADC can be advantageous.[/QUOTE] Judging by the video Im Crimson posted, that graph you posted is incredibly misleading. For instance, in the image below: [img]http://i.imgur.com/8dWddDe.png[/img] On the one hand we could turn the data points into a staircase and claim that we don't have enough bits to represent our signal and that digital is corrupting everything, but that's completely wrong. The final signal only has to pass through every data point rather than adhering to them in some kind misleading stepped pattern thing.

[QUOTE=No_Excuses;47182066]Judging by the video Im Crimson posted, that graph you posted is incredibly misleading. For instance, in the image below: [img]http://i.imgur.com/8dWddDe.png[/img] On the one hand we could turn the data points into a staircase and claim that we don't have enough bits to represent our signal and that digital is corrupting everything, but that's completely wrong. The final signal only has to pass through every data point rather than adhering to them in some kind misleading stepped pattern thing.[/QUOTE] It's extremely alarming to me how often people will argue about things they don't really know anything about. Everything I've posted so far is fact. While you can improve a signal's reproduction by knowing information about it (ie is it a repeating pattern?), in the end the only thing you know just by measuring it is value of the analogue signal accurate to the [i]resolution[/i] of the ADC (which is what the "staircase" is visually representing) delayed by the time it takes the ADC to capture the value (extremely relevant in robotics but when you're just storing the value not as much). Any competent engineer will tell you this.

Century Stereo tried to sell me [I]one [/I]pair of banana plugs for $50. "Gold plated" ... said "HQ" on the box.. I went to Fry's and got [I]two [/I]pairs (two for each speaker) for $9. Still gold plated

[QUOTE=Take_Opal;47177846]Squashing this. Anyone who says "analogue" is more "premium" than digital doesn't understand audio. Digital is a perfect reconstruction of whatever is recorded, and so if you record shit it's going to become perfectly reconstructed shit. Analogue just has natural, physical presence but technically is of a lower fidelity than digital recording.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure the string on a guitar (analogue) and then straight into my amp is of better quality than once it's been through PC->encoded->VLC Player.

Why are people still relying on MP3 as the guide for digital audio? MP3 was crap 15 years ago when it was replaced by AAC.

ADC converters have gotten to the point where they have more precision than there is available data, eg the rest is just random noise. I think digital can pretty much copy 1:1 the entire intended analogue sound [editline]21st February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDecryptor;47183465]Why are people still relying on MP3 as the guide for digital audio? MP3 was crap 15 years ago when it was replaced by AAC.[/QUOTE] because mp3 costs to use and mp3 doesnt want people to stop using mp3

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;47180849]Are you sure those two files were from the same source, played at the same volume level? Were you really blind for the entire duration of the test? Because that's not what MP3 does at 320kbps.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong. My definition for sounding like a recording is more like [I]not sounding like I'm at a live concert[/I]. I was sitting on a laptop while my friend was fiddling with his stereo. He played the song on WiMP, first with the Hi-Fi function disabled (320kbps) and then enabled (1411kbps), so you can be pretty confident it was the same source.

[QUOTE=Tools;47183290]I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure the string on a guitar (analogue) and then straight into my amp is of better quality than once it's been through PC->encoded->VLC Player.[/QUOTE] You're comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about digital distribution (e.g. CDs) vs. analogue distribution (e.g. vinyl).

You guys really aren't trying hard enough if you want to find truly [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IL3TZSQ/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00IL3TZSQ&linkCode=as2&tag=hothard-20&linkId=KF44MKFFBDPOC2R7"]premium connections[/URL].

Edit: I'm late.

[QUOTE=Levelog;47183686]You guys really aren't trying hard enough if you want to find truly [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IL3TZSQ/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00IL3TZSQ&linkCode=as2&tag=hothard-20&linkId=KF44MKFFBDPOC2R7"]premium connections[/URL].[/QUOTE] The reviews are a goldmine.

[QUOTE=Chinook249;47183226]Century Stereo tried to sell me [I]one [/I]pair of banana plugs for $50. "Gold plated" ... said "HQ" on the box.. I went to Fry's and got [I]two [/I]pairs (two for each speaker) for $9. Still gold plated[/QUOTE] I got six pairs for $9 from Monoprice.

[QUOTE=Ripmax;47177782]Yes, if people buy [url=http://www.custom-cable.co.uk/audioquest-diamond-usb-digital-audio-cable.html]this[/url] they will buy anything.[/QUOTE] I can't stand inter-strand intererence it honestly sounds and tastes like shit and makes me hurl. Once you've heard music without inter-stand interference, you realized that interstrand interfrence ruins all sounds from the headphones, like if I knocked on the side of your head with a hammer while you tried listening to Brahms. snip

[QUOTE=Elspin;47179343]It's not a horrible figure and that's completely missing the point - it doesn't matter if it's a 4 bit DAC or an 8 bit DAC or a 128 bit DAC, there's always a staircase and making the DAC finer would just make it harder to see how the error works. It's an instructional diagram, it's not meant to show you the current state of technology just how it works. I did mention that "it's extremely debatable whether or not you can ever hear the difference" given just how good digital sampling can get now, but the point is that there's no such thing as "perfect digital reconstruction".[/QUOTE] What if I told you there is no staircase? When your signal goes through your DAC the "staircase" disappears because the staircase isn't a staircase at all, it's a flawed visual representation of a sampled continuous signal.

[QUOTE=Chickens!;47178393]Jeez i read it as paedophiles and I thinking "what the hell Sony?"[/QUOTE] With this new tech, the inner thighs of young boys will look smoother than ever before.

Shit I bought 20 euro hdmi cables because I didn't know they could be 3 euros and it was the cheapest they would sell it at that place This thread made me regret not looking on the internet first

[QUOTE=uitham;47188196]Shit I bought 20 euro hdmi cables because I didn't know they could be 3 euros and it was the cheapest they would sell it at that place This thread made me regret not looking on the internet first[/QUOTE] I never go for the cheapest available cables because in my experience they just stop working after a while. You're not sacrificing audio/video quality with cheap digital cables (it'll either work or it won't) but you may be sacrificing longevity.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47187883]What if I told you there is no staircase? When your signal goes through your DAC the "staircase" disappears because the staircase isn't a staircase at all, it's a flawed visual representation of a sampled continuous signal.[/QUOTE] Look no matter how much people completely uneducated in technical areas think they are, they're not. When you tell people in engineering that you think you know better than them it's literally no different than someone telling a doctor they're pretty sure that they're wrong about homeopathy, it's baffling.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;47187883]What if I told you there is no staircase? When your signal goes through your DAC the "staircase" disappears because the staircase isn't a staircase at all, it's a flawed visual representation of a sampled continuous signal.[/QUOTE] Perfect digital reconstruction is impossible, what you can get though is a pretty convincing representation, even moreso when you add dither and other filters.

[QUOTE=JohnnyOnFlame;47188509]Perfect digital reconstruction is impossible, what you can get though is a pretty convincing representation, even moreso when you add dither and other filters.[/QUOTE] Pretty much, like I said earlier if you know things about the signal especially you can even recreate it pretty decently, IE in this video I recreate a sine wave with a pretty shit old microcontroller [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9InfGLBWYFA[/media] clearly the output is not a staircase because it's got a LPF on it to make it smooth. It doesn't mean there isn't sampling error (and error in every stage of control, really), that would be idiotic to assume.

[QUOTE=Elspin;47188566]Pretty much, like I said earlier if you know things about the signal especially you can even recreate it pretty decently, IE in this video I recreate a sine wave with a pretty shit old microcontroller [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9InfGLBWYFA[/media] clearly the output is not a staircase because it's got a LPF on it to make it smooth. It doesn't mean there isn't sampling error (and error in every stage of control, really), that would be idiotic to assume.[/QUOTE] Would have been nice if you'd focused the camera on the close shots.

I don't know about that video man, did you use gold plated, shielded cables and an anti EMI lens for the cam ? because otherwise the video is really just garbage.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;47188585]Would have been nice if you'd focused the camera on the close shots.[/QUOTE] I would have liked to, but my camera at the time was just my cell phone's camera which was pretty shit :v:

[QUOTE=Levelog;47183686]You guys really aren't trying hard enough if you want to find truly [URL="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IL3TZSQ/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B00IL3TZSQ&linkCode=as2&tag=hothard-20&linkId=KF44MKFFBDPOC2R7"]premium connections[/URL].[/QUOTE] Holy shit, these shysters also make ethernet cables. [img]http://i.imgur.com/rWA0JVR.png[/img] The questions and answers are kinda funny. [img]http://i.imgur.com/mKy9TDW.png[/img] The reviews are gold though. [img]http://i.imgur.com/ny4JtxQ.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/9XsvU8K.png[/img]