What is the 4K of Audio?
>>51709483
$5000 shit audiophiles buy out of nowhere and claim it is better than regular stuff.
>ITT we discuss scams niggers fell into in /g/
Way too early for a bump. But I'm interested as well.
>>51709483
i mean, 4k legitimately adds detail to the picture, audio doesn't have anything like that. there's reason to increase your bit depth beyond 16 for listening purposes, nor is there a reason to go above 44,100hz. 24/96 is a joke. FLAC has its archival purposes. Audio is at a dead end in terms of perceptible quality improvement, unless you care about lossy codec development.
>>51709483
DSD, or 24/192. Our hearing simply isn't as acute as our vision, so while there are very slight possibilities of hearing better than 16/44.1, it requires extremely specific situations and speakers can't really output more than 21 bit anyway.
>>51709540
this is probably true. for once, the meme is right: the human ear actually can only hear up to this and that quality.
>>51709540
>4k legitimately adds detail to the picture
>>51709591
example: literally any film transferred + remastered in 4k. we're hitting heavy diminishing returns after 4k restoration though.
>>51709575
Bullshart. I mean you and anon are right about the ear thing but there is more to music. You have to have speakers that replicate the live experience. That means they have to be able to rattle your organs. The 4k of audio is a setup that can play some Boris in such a way that your vomiting from the sheer skullfucking noise is in no way different from the live experience.
>>51709722
the goal of your audio setup should be to reproduce the source as neutrally as possible to let the intended mastering shine.
and Feedbacker sounds great on my studio monitors.
>>51709722
>You have to have speakers that replicate the live experience.
Have you ever been to a concert? The sound is shit. We want to be on concerts because of the metaphorical fellatio we do to musicians by being at his concert, by seeing him live and giving him more money (that most of the times he/she/it doesn't deserve).
>>51709483
>What is the 4K of Audio?
B I N A U R A L A U D I O
>>51709483
The real answer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.1_surround_sound
FLAC tbqh family
>>51709819
>Have you ever been to a concert? The sound is shit.
Not the good ones.
>>51710007
>unironically comparing concerts to listening to a 320kbps mp3 on a 5$ headphone
>>51710099
concerts are more of a physical experience than one to pursue some sort of audiophile bliss. you're usually at the whims of the house sound guy, and even the best bands can get shafted by mediocre sound.
>>51710139
I know. See: >>51709819
>>51709483
Digital audio is already audibly transparent. It covers the entire human hearing range. We're done with audio.
4K video is the equivalent of maybe a 64kb/s mp3. We have a long way to go with video. For video to be as good as modern audio formats, it will have to cover your entire field of vision while being so dense that it is impossible to perceive a difference in sharpness between a video and a real life object, and it needs to have a frame rate high enough that there is no visible motion blur, even when your eye is tracking a fast-moving object. The transition from 1080p to 4K is a baby step. We need to get much better with video.
7.1?
>>51709483
>>51711513
Oh, and it also needs to have a dynamic range that matches your eyes and it needs to reproduce the directionality of the light so you can focus your eyes on close and distant objects. We're nowhere near even being able to record video data like that, yet alone reproduce it.
>>51709557
>so while there are very slight possibilities of hearing better than 16/44.1
no
>>51709986
>>51711535
Here is your reply
>>51709483
>What is the 4K of Audio?
It's idiotphily, placebophile or autism
>>51711577
And here is your reply, friend.
>>51711554
Opus is great if you like converting all of your 44.1khz audio to 48khz. Was sad when I found out Opus only supports 48khz. Or just stick with AAC for 44.1
>>51711600
>huge cabinet
>a single tiny driver
What? What does this achieve?
>>51711639
Yeah, you can't actually hear the difference. The built-in Opus resampler is really good.
>>51711643
autism
>>51709591
It does, if you're nearsighted like me and literally sit 1 foot away from a curved 50 inch.
Although I admit that at that range I'm only getting the full detail of probably a 30 degree cone in the center of my vision, the rest could be 1080p, 720p or even lower with no loss of percieved quality.
Sort of like how the oculus works by devoting most pixels to the center of vision and much less to the outsides.
>>51709483
Audio formats are about as high as they ever will be. The only thing that will improve the quality is the physical side of things.
>>51711639
>encoding lossy
>worried about the completely-insignificant-by-comparison rate resampling
also protip: a lot of hardware will internally use 48KHz or above anyway because it's just easier to handle than 44.1KHz, so you could practically be getting better output by using a nice resampler when making the opus than leaving it and potentially using a crappier hardware one
What is the 4k of audio?
96k/24 PCM.
Doesn't add much (if anything), and is primarily pushed as an excuse to peddle expensive hardware.
Particularly true as 4k native content is rare as hens teeth.
>>51709483
Mastering music for a good dynamic range rather than loudness.
>>51709483
> ITT: niggers who think 4k/UHD is for consumer video only
>>51709591
>what are pixels
As far as retail format, nothing (available to your average consumer anyways) has surpassed vinyl. Regarding recording medium, analog tape still reigns supreme. Even tube amp technology can't be beat for staying faithful to the original sound. What has changed for the better as far as quality goes are mics and speakers (headphones as well). With newer tech, quality has gone down (I'm looking at you protools et al and dynamic range compression), but the ability to record your music on a budget and share it easily to the masses had greatly increased. Also, if you're talking about 4k as if it's a high benchmark for quality, don't forget that film projected through a lens will still dominate any digital medium.
>>51709986
2013 called
>>51712762
I had a 7.1 setup for a short time.
it sounded great when compared to headphones, but the mess of wires was a huge pain, its really no wonder it didn't take off.
>>51712531
>As far as retail format, nothing (available to your average consumer anyways) has surpassed vinyl. Regarding recording medium, analog tape still reigns supreme. Even tube amp technology can't be beat for staying faithful to the original sound.
gr8 b8 m8.
>What has changed for the better as far as quality goes are mics and speakers (headphones as well). With newer tech, quality has gone down
Confirmed for born in the 90s or later.
>>51712531
Tube amps aren't the most accurate they color the sound you retard
>>51709483
Anything above 320 kbps
>>51713394
relax m8. Don't h8 the b8.
>>51712531
>muh film grain
Go to a theatre with a high quality laser projector some time.
>>51713421
ok but with wut, I mean you can do ~320 kbps with PCM, just have to drop the sample rate and bit depth down to nothing.
