Old 18th April 2006, 15:08   #1
3ngel
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 32
24/32 Bit support on Winamp Equalizer

I don't see this in the wishlist, and dont' see a thread with so i request now.

These are the reason:
1) More and more DVD-A or DVD-LPCM 24/96 tracks are nowadays commons, so it's a real pity these wonderful tracks can't be equalized properly
2) The in.wave has the 32bit output support, but that has no much sense if i can't equalize it
3) Many upsampler (like SSRC) take a great advantage in doing a 24 bit upsampling (in order to correct the sometime crappy soundcard hardware routine), and this upsampled tracks cannot be equalized
4) Every lossy decoder (mp3, aac, etc...) take advantage of a 24 bit decoding (sound results much more breathing)
5) In a DSP environment, professional DSP output in 24/32 bits, and this tracks cannot be simply equalized.
6) 24 bit nowadays is a standard of ALL soundcards
7) With 24 bit support, winamp sound would result unmatchable

Regards
3ngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2006, 15:22   #2
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
Re: 24/32 Bit support on Winamp Equalizer

Quote:
Originally posted by 3ngel
4) Every lossy decoder (mp3, aac, etc...) take advantage of a 24 bit decoding (sound results much more breathing)
zOMG ABX plz!

Seriously, it might make sense, but mostly because equalizer and DSPs working at 16bit resolution cause additional errors that might be audible (though afaik nobody ever did a proper test to find out if they really are).
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2006, 15:39   #3
3ngel
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 32
If you only consider the degradation 'caused by the internal hardware upsampling from 16 to 24 bit, you realize how much an upsampler + 24bit equalizer would make sound very much less distorted and more precise.
Concerning the lossy 24 bit, without an abx it's obvious that in a "more defined" canvas (24bit) a picture (sound) can be depicted (decoded) with much more accuracy than a "lower resolution" canvas (16 bit).
This because a lossy decoding, is never mathematic like a lossless one. That is, the decoder takes the input and in some sense "creates" and "interpretate" the resulting sound basing on many calculations, whose fundamentals are on subjective rules (pseudoacustic) unlike a lossless decoding where there are simply math formulas.
So, because of the rules of a lossy decoding are not strictly mathematics, a high resolution "on which to paint" can be only of benefit.
3ngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2006, 15:51   #4
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,424
But the question still remains whether that benefit is actually audible (let alone obvious, if it's so obvious it should be easy to notice it in a blind test, or not?).

Printing a picture at a resolution smaller than half the wavelength of light is theoretically beneficial too after all.

But that's beside the point.

It will probably be implemented one day, if only because it makes a good marketing argument.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th April 2006, 16:09   #5
3ngel
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 32
Personally, i hear very much clearly the differences between a 16 bit and a 24 bit decoded mp3, and for me there is no comparison, but i have very high-end amplifier and speakers, and i can think that in a medium-average sound system, the differences are not so clear.
But indeed the differences exist and are many.
But, apart of this specific matter, points 1,2,3,5,6 are very important.
3ngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2006, 20:47   #6
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Additionally, you are talking about the equalizer, which many people would choose to not use since the original source material is already equalized at recording.

If I were working with multichannel data, then prehaps I would want an eq on each channel so I could get an appropriate mix. But with a stereo track, already mixed at source, I find no use for the EQ.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th April 2006, 20:57   #7
3ngel
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 32
Every recording you listen about is not equalized, or at least equalized "flat" in order to be "averagelly compatibile" with all speakers out there.
The flatting mastering is done in a way that the sound is tried to be kept the same on different speakers/amplifiers/etc..
In this sense the equalizer is fundamental for an optimal listening on "your" speaker, in the opposite case you're listening to the flat mastering and you're not listening to it to the best of your sound system.
3ngel is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Wishlist

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump