[[email protected]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Yes

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.

I'm not quite clear what you mean.

Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the
subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that
one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given
title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to
move back to the real issue confused you.




It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?"




The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't
conducted this sort of test.

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why should I when I
hear differences between 16 and 24?




(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get
cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at
16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices.

Not *my* choices, pal.


My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves


Scott