muh audio
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
if you have it set lower than 192 KHz, you're a scrub
nice bloatware, famalang
>>54560750
>he uses a sound card instead of an external amp and dac
Plebiscite detected.
>>54560774
I use muh soundcard + studio monitors, and I also have a Onkyo TX-NR609 + surround speakers
>>54560750
enjoy your shit harmonics.
>>54560774
>he fell for the external dac meme
>>54561127
>shit harmonics.
eggsblane
>>54560750
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem
>>54561283
I can't into this speak. can you explain?
>>54560750
I'm trying to figure out where you found hentai with 192KHz audio tracks.
>>54561332
>he faps to cartoons
I don't like your kind
>>54561310
Basically perfect reconstruction of a continuous signal is possible if your sample rate is larger than 2x the highest frequency in your signal
so 44.1 KHz is sufficient for signals within the human hearing range of 20 Hz - 20kHz
also >>54561205
converting stuff from 44.1 kHz to 192 (since most audio sources aren't 192) is gonna fuck shit up
>Calling other people scrubs
>Not using UNi drivers
>>54561362
but what do I do? I have music @96 KHz and 44.1, and I watch movies with DTS-HD Master audio
>using anything other than 16/44.1k, 16/48k or 24/48k
K E K
S Å
M Y C K E T
can I have foobar change the settings based on the source material?
>>54561362
But if you're listening to heavily synthesized/electronic music, you want a higher sample rate. A square wave is a composition of infinitely high frequencies, so the more range you have the better you can reproduce it.
>>54561526
found it:
http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_out_wasapi
This automatically sets the samplerate so nothing gets converted.
>>54560750
You must be a bat in order to spot the difference between 44.1khz and 192khz.
>>54561684
Here we have another nigger, if you don't what you are talking about please don't join the discussion and don't spread misinformation.
What you dumb "audiophiles" are referring to is bit depth, but if the 16bit track has a good master you can hardly spot the differences between a 24bit one
Sampling rate refers instead to the reproduced spectrum of the track, if it's 44.1khz the track will have a spectrum including frequencies from 0 to roughly 22khz stereo, which is more than enough for the human hear. Anything above that is useless audiophile snake oil, except for 48khz that may be useful in certain professional environments or audio codecs
>>54562000
You don't understand how waves work.
Yes, if you have 48KHz, you can reproduce anything up to a 24KHz SINE WAVE, or anything that is a composition of sine waves <=24KHz.
Artificial waves like square, sawtooth, etc require infinitely high frequency waves to reproduce perfectly, so no time-quantized way of storing or reproducing the sound will reproduce it perfectly. But it doesn't change the fact that higher frequency still gets you closer to the original, even if just by a tiny bit.
>>54562036
But the frequency waves you can listen to are limited to 16khz, doesn't matter if they are infinite
das it mane
Using sample rates above 48khz produces interference that creeps into the audible range and gives lower quality sound.
Audiophiles are fucking stupid.
