The 2012 Vinyl Re-Issues Were From 44.1khz Source

[ringo9]

Thanks a lot Lord! You're the man. Promise won't break your balls anymore regarding this

[Lord Reith]

No sweat.

[rhino]

This is somewhat peripheral to this thread but still interesting. My previous boss, a brain researcher, has been able to demonstrate using BCI [brain computer interface] and stunning 3D technology that the human brain will continue to hear a familiar song even if the song abruptly stops part way through. It's also interesting how we sometimes carry sometimes almost unconsciously, the last song we heard even if the song is over.

[ringo9]

Interesting, rhino. Did he mention anything about this new study that says that listening to 78 min of music per day can be very benefitial for one's health?

[Vee-Jay]

This is somewhat peripheral to this thread but still interesting. My previous boss, a brain researcher, has been able to demonstrate using BCI [brain computer interface] and stunning 3D technology that the human brain will continue to hear a familiar song even if the song abruptly stops part way through. It's also interesting how we sometimes carry sometimes almost unconsciously, the last song we heard even if the song is over.

I've often been amused by how my brain can quickly and easily pick up on even the faintest hints of Beatles songs when I'm out in public. My favo(u)rite example of this is when I'm in a department store (Jeez, will we even have those in the near future!?) and I didn't even know that music was playing over their PA system because it was so soft, but as soon as a Beatles or solo Beatles song comes on, it instantly sounds much louder than it was before (presumably because my brain is "playing" it in tandem with the PA). Even more amazing is how, when the song is over, it suddenly gets incredibly quiet, even if I try very hard to hear what's being played.

The brain is an incredible machine!

[ringo9]

Im reading this but I can only follow 0,0000000000000000000001 of it

https://soundcheck-audio.blogspot.com/2 ... id-it.html

I'm a creep

[ringo9]

I said I wouldn't break balls again but well... I read that the 24 to 16 bit conversion (when the dithering happens right?) should be the last part of the process. Is that OK? Should I go from 96 or whatever to 48 and then go from 24 to 16 in a second conversion? Thanks

[Lord Reith]

I said I wouldn't break balls again but well... I read that the 24 to 16 bit conversion (when the dithering happens right?) should be the last part of the process. Is that OK? Should I go from 96 or whatever to 48 and then go from 24 to 16 in a second conversion? Thanks

The 96 to 48 bit is a different process to 24 to 16 so it doesn't matter if they are done separately or together. Changing the sampling rate from 96k to 48k changes the number of digital samples from 96k per second to 48. Changing the bit depth from 24 to 16 changes the range of levels of the samples ie: the dynamic range. Dithering is a process which deliberately introduces a tiny amount of digital noise to mask digital rounding errors at the limit of audibility. That's why you should only dither down to 16 bit at the very end. But you can also convert the sampling rate in the same step. Converting fr0om 32 to 24 bit does not involve any dithering - it just throws away the extra overhead that the extra 8 bits allows and which is not required unless you have signals over 0db in level.

No balls broken here. Always glad to educate and inform, as my namesake always professed!

[rhino]

No ringo9 , he didn’t mention that study.

[alphabeatles]

Try this: Make a copy of one of your 24/96 files, bring it down to 16/44. Do you hear a difference upon comparing them? That's your answer...