Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
PC Audio foobar2k Q&A, Guides, help & comments are welcome...
|
andrekua
|
Oct 15 2008, 06:27 PM
|
|
First time I heard about Rabbit Code and its SECRET.
Anyway, just tried it and its pretty good at reducing sibilance. Thanks for letting know. Havent read much about audiophile stuffs lately. But it consume 25% of my P4 2.26GHz. Holy god...
|
|
|
|
|
|
andrekua
|
Oct 15 2008, 10:17 PM
|
|
QUOTE(gac @ Oct 15 2008, 09:58 PM) Is WMP11 producing 24bit output or even resampling???..... i wanted to see what WMP11 can do.... the point here is both WMP & foobar2k quality is almost matching. **** I bought some good CDs 24bit 192Khz remastering one.... but why foobar2k only indicating it is a 44.1khz format???? this is suck! but one thing i admit....foobar2k look nicer & consume lesser memory, 200% different at least  LOL... Bro, Remastering is like it said, altering/refining the original audio signal. However, audio files stored in Audio CD format is still bound to 44.1KHz. You can resample it as much as you like all the way to 96KHz but the original audio cd format is 44.1KHz which is what Foobar is displaying. Get your info right first. That is the reason why many doubt that 24bit have any benefit over 16bit as the original audio CD format is 16bit 44.1KHz. Upsampling 16bit to 24bit would only introduce 0's for the remaining extra 8bits which is why so many people critise manufacturers saying 24bit will sound better as the original sound is just 16bit. There is no way for it to recover the loss data for the remaining 8bits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
andrekua
|
Oct 20 2008, 12:39 AM
|
|
Not placebo. It does sound different.
I too have tested 96KHz 24bit. Somehow it sound different from 24bit 48KHz. The difference is very subtle, it make it sound a little bit airy. Vocal and instruments are all the same. White noise due to resampling again? Who knows...
|
|
|
|
|
|
andrekua
|
Oct 20 2008, 01:31 PM
|
|
QUOTE(fariz @ Oct 20 2008, 07:11 AM) do a blind test.. ask someone else to change the setting for you No need la. Basically I didnt say there is improvement, just that it sound more airy like got white noise in the background. The rest sounds the same. As for 16bit vs 24bit, I wont say got audible improvement nor will I rule out possible improvement. But what I can say is mp3 are bitless, thus having 24bit playback allow it to store more data after the conversion through the decoder compared to 16bit. Regardless what kind of source it was originally encoded with, because the original sound was already altered, having it refined for a smoother wave through 24bit isnt really a bad idea because there is not bit conversion in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
andrekua
|
Oct 24 2008, 09:53 AM
|
|
Yes, oversampling != resampling.
I'm not pro or against resampling but when its needed, its needed. I had to resample to 48KHz as my USB Digital SX cant support 44.1KHz natively. Typical of Creative.
|
|
|
|
|