Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Higher quality than CD is a pretty dubious claim. CD quality is so good, the industry had nothing better to throw into the market. As video went from VHS, to DVD, to Blu-ray, CD simply couldn't be topped.
https://www.33rdsquare.com/do-cds-sound-better-than-spotify-yes-cds-still-provide-superior-fidelity/
CD is PCM audio of 16-bit samples at 44.1khz
I have many FLACs that came as downloadable versions with vinyl records funnily enough. Some stick to CD quality, many to go to 24-bit audio at 96khz, and I think I've got a couple of 24-bit/192khz albums knocking about.
Higher quality than CD has been around for a while, it's just apart from that brief couple of years with SACD, it never made it onto physical media.
Edit: correct sample rate
44.1
Ah yeah, you're right! I should double check before posting technical specs before my morning coffee
Qobuz offers higher than CD quality, I think Tidal does too.
The difference isn't as noticeable as video though, so I expect CDs were just good enough and not worth it to upgrade for a niche market.
The main advantage of Blu-ray audio is supporting 7.1 surround, while a CD is limited to 2 channels. Unless you have the equipment to take advantage of that, though, it's a moot point.
Playing the devil's advocate, why would you need 7 channels when you only have two ears?
While this is obviously a silly question on some scenarios, it's quite valid for the headphone use case.
Your ears can tell if something is coming from:
In front
Behind
Front right
Back left
etc
We don't just percieve audio from left right so with 7.1 support an artist can take advantage of it and make different sounds come from different areas for a more full listening experience (though i doubt many actually do that)
Even some headphones can emulate 3d audio pretty well so it's not an exclusive use for surround sound speakers
If course it can, and it can do better for certain frequencies than for others I think.
However, the point is that this is not because you have more than two "sensors" for sound, but rather because of some clever processing of the signals in the brain. The information that the brain uses however can be coded into the stereo signal, under the assumption that it will be listened to with a controlled setup like headphones.
That's not related to quality though. Perfectly possible to have 7.1 audio sound like a tin can. Surround CDs exist, just not common.
I was talking about visual quality for video media as compared to audio quality for CD medium.