[Codifus]

On Jun 30, 8:31 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
codifus wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:57 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Simonel wrote:
line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you
cannot get the whole picture. It takes time.
I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point
about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads
me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled
circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It
takes time.

So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences,
to your own satisfaction.

*Then* do an ABX.

Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or
impossible at first, should now be easy.

Right?

However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio
recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form
the high rez version.

Then there is no intrinsic audible difference.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
What I think that tells us is that something in the A/D conversion
when running at 44.1 Khz is not quite getting as much detail as an A/D
converter running at 96 Khz. In other words it's in the analog section
for both converters that really differentiates them.

That may be, but the reported anecdote doesn't tell us that.

So, whenever this issue of 96 or 44.1 comes up, people should really
clarify the comparison. I would clarify it by saying that a 96 Khz
audio file that was digitally converted to 44/16 shows no difference.
But a 96 Khz recorded file vs a 44.1 recorded file? Everyone will
eventually come to agree that there is a difference. It may be subtle
and appreciated by a precious few, but it's there.

Prove it. Should be easy, if you're sure it's there.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

It's much easier said than done as I don't have all of the required
equipment to valid my point. For the most part, I would need a studio,
a band, and two independantly setup recording equipment. One set of
recording at 96 Khz and the other recording at 44.1.

CD

[bookplatemuseum.com]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
codifus wrote:
On Jun 19, 11:57 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Simonel wrote:
line: even under the controlled circumstances of an ABX test you
cannot get the whole picture. It takes time.
I don?t have such extensive hands-on experience with your first point
about amplifiers, but my experience with red book vs. high rez leads
me to believe that the same point applies: even under the controlled
circumstances of an ABX test you cannot get the whole picture. It
takes time.
So, take your time. Make 'sure' you're hearing the differences,
to your own satisfaction.

*Then* do an ABX.

Passing it should be a snap at that point. What was difficult or
impossible at first, should now be easy.

Right?

However, with the best software you can convert a high rez audio
recording to red book and get a product that I cannot tell apart form
the high rez version.
Then there is no intrinsic audible difference.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

What I think that tells us is that something in the A/D conversion
when running at 44.1 Khz is not quite getting as much detail as an A/D
converter running at 96 Khz. In other words it's in the analog section
for both converters that really differentiates them.

That may be, but the reported anecdote doesn't tell us that.

So, whenever this issue of 96 or 44.1 comes up, people should really
clarify the comparison. I would clarify it by saying that a 96 Khz
audio file that was digitally converted to 44/16 shows no difference.
But a 96 Khz recorded file vs a 44.1 recorded file? Everyone will
eventually come to agree that there is a difference. It may be subtle
and appreciated by a precious few, but it's there.

Prove it. Should be easy, if you're sure it's there.

I have about a dozen SACDs. Most of them are pretty average with only
three exceptions.... Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd) , Brothers In
Arms (Dire Straits), and Downard Spiral (Nine Inch Nails). Obviously
each of these are remastered from the original but they are absolute
standouts. Worth paying the thousands for the hi-fi upgrade.
Unfortunately I can't hear any benefit from the other SACDs.

But there is more to the hi-rez formats than just the recording
frequency. One can not do an ABX comparison because there is a
difference in mastering every different format.

I personally think that DTS tracks are almost always a standout
recording. There is something that makes them clearer and more
enjoyable to listen to than the normal recordings. Does anybody have
any real experience in DTS mastering in this NG?

[Codifus]

Sonnova wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:29:20 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

codifus wrote:
On Jun 19, 8:43 pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:53:19 -0700, codifus wrote
(in article ):

On Jun 18, 11:55 pm, Sonnova wrote:
Our hobby, it seems if fraught with mythology and misconceptions at every
level.
As they say, cuss and discuss. I hope this tome stirs up some activity on
this NG!
For the most part I completely agree with you, BUT, high rez recording
do have one advantage . . . .hi rez
Well yes, but that's not really my point. If competently recorded 16-bit,
44.1 KHz ALREADY perfectly captures everything that the microphones
pick-up,
then adding more resolution is like transferring 8mm home movies to
high-definition DVD. I.E, no matter what the resolution of the recording
device, its not going to resolve more than what's there already. In sound
recording its the microphones and mixer that's the limiting factors and
you're never going to get more music than what's available at the output of
the mixer (or mic preamps) no matter what the bit depth or the sample rate.
I think a better analogy would be 35 mm motion pictures.
That would be a terrible analogy, because home video technology has
only just begun to encroach on limits of human visual perception, while
were were already *there* when CD was introduced, with 16/44.1.



I think so as well.
I also think we're already there, but not quite the same way you may be
thinking. Why does an XRCD sound better than a standard CD? My issue is
that, yes, ideally, 44.1/16 is perfect for sound reproduction, but
imperfections like brick wall filtering, having to use 24 bits to
produce the 16 bits nicely etc all have to do with the limitations of
16/44.1 as a recording medium.

I mentioned XRCD because even though it is also a 16/44.1 CD, the
processing is done in 24 bit in a very high quality digital
environment,like using a ridiculously accurate Rubidium master clock
etc, all to make up for the "inadequecies" of straight 16/44.1,
recording to final CD.

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording? Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
..hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going
into that final CD.

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are 48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even 24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be
at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

So there

CD

[Angus Stewart Pinkerton]

Originally Posted by Codifus

Sonnova wrote:[color=blue][i]

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording? Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
..hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going
into that final CD.

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are 48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even 24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be
at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

So thep

CD

There is one 'minor' matter regarding XRCDs that you failed to note - they are all made from original *analogue* master tapes, so there will have been no more than 80-85dB (at the very most) dynamic range in the original recording.

So there

[Steven Sullivan]

bookplatemuseum.com wrote:
I have about a dozen SACDs. Most of them are pretty average with only
three exceptions.... Dark Side of the Moon (Pink Floyd) , Brothers In
Arms (Dire Straits), and Downard Spiral (Nine Inch Nails). Obviously
each of these are remastered from the original but they are absolute
standouts. Worth paying the thousands for the hi-fi upgrade.
Unfortunately I can't hear any benefit from the other SACDs.

But there is more to the hi-rez formats than just the recording
frequency. One can not do an ABX comparison because there is a
difference in mastering every different format.

Yes indeed. But that doesn't stop the 'hi rez' cheerleaders from
jumping to the conclusion that the difference they hear is due to
the format.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Steven Sullivan]

Codifus wrote:
I think so as well.
I also think we're already there, but not quite the same way you may be
thinking. Why does an XRCD sound better than a standard CD? My issue is
that, yes, ideally, 44.1/16 is perfect for sound reproduction, but
imperfections like brick wall filtering, having to use 24 bits to
produce the 16 bits nicely etc all have to do with the limitations of
16/44.1 as a recording medium.

I mentioned XRCD because even though it is also a 16/44.1 CD, the
processing is done in 24 bit in a very high quality digital
environment,like using a ridiculously accurate Rubidium master clock
etc, all to make up for the "inadequecies" of straight 16/44.1,
recording to final CD.

Virtually all processing is done in high-bit domains now, for
standard CDs.

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording?

No, I specifically excluded live recording.

Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
.hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going
into that final CD.

Again, the benefit of having headroom (more bits per sample) for a live
recording is not in doubt, where peak levels can't be predicted in advance.

Intrinsic benefit of 24 bits for a transfer of an old analog tape is far
less clear. There, more than 96 dB of dynamic range will not be needed, and
one can usually know what the loudest part will be, and
adjust recording level accordingly. The only practical benefit is
avoiding one conversion step, when downstream processing will be digital.

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are 48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even 24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be
at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

You're leaving out the massive role of mastering EQ, level, noise
reduction -- change any of that
from release to release and you have probably overwhelmed whatever
difference is due to 'rubidinum master clocks' or 'K2 super coding'
(which IIRC is just a variety of bit mapping of 24 to 16 -- in use for years
and years now, at least since Sony's 'Super Bit Mapping' hype).

Also factor in things like careful head alignment and choice of source tapes.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[Arny Krueger]

"bookplatemuseum.com" wrote
in message

But there is more to the hi-rez formats than just the
recording frequency. One can not do an ABX comparison
because there is a difference in mastering every
different format.

ABX comparison of hi-rez formats versus 44/16 is relatively easy to do. Brad
Meyer and David Moran used a method that has been suggested for years by
several people myself included, in their JAES paper.

The basic methodology is to use the output of a so-called hi-rez recording
playing on a hi-rez player as one alternative, and routing that signal
through back-to-back low-rez converters for the second alternative.

Needless to say, no significant differences were found, which is the point
of the JAES paper.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:28:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"codifus" wrote in message


I agree with you here. In a studio recording, 1 mic is
used to record, say, a trumpet. one for vocals etc.

Probably true much of the time.

I wish that 2 mics were used for each instrument so as
to establish the 3rd dimension in a stereo recording. 2
mics for the vocal, 2 for the drums etc.

I've done recordings like that - used several coincident
pairs for each of several small groups of instruments.

I've tried this too, and I don't see that it works.

I've done it regularly for years.

The problem is that when you highlight an instrument using a
stereo pair (Coincident, X-Y, M-S, ORTF, whatever) you
more-or-less have to pan the mikes right right and left
to get stereo.

We have different styles of mixing. I just moderately elevate an instrument
that I wish to highlight, or let the music do it for me. I leave it panned
where it is.

The only time I would change the panning of an instrument would be if the
recording is a video, and I was trying to match the visual image with the
sonic image.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:26:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:28:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"codifus" wrote in message


I agree with you here. In a studio recording, 1 mic is
used to record, say, a trumpet. one for vocals etc.

Probably true much of the time.

I wish that 2 mics were used for each instrument so as
to establish the 3rd dimension in a stereo recording. 2
mics for the vocal, 2 for the drums etc.

I've done recordings like that - used several coincident
pairs for each of several small groups of instruments.

I've tried this too, and I don't see that it works.

I've done it regularly for years.

The problem is that when you highlight an instrument using a
stereo pair (Coincident, X-Y, M-S, ORTF, whatever) you
more-or-less have to pan the mikes right right and left
to get stereo.

We have different styles of mixing. I just moderately elevate an instrument
that I wish to highlight, or let the music do it for me. I leave it panned
where it is.

The only time I would change the panning of an instrument would be if the
recording is a video, and I was trying to match the visual image with the
sonic image.


I see. What you are saying is that by only moderately elevating the level of
the accent mike, the accent still remains subordinate to the overall stereo
pair, keeping the "sonic" location of the highlighted instrument intact while
still adding an increased volume to that instrument of group of instruments.
Is that correct?

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:24:19 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Codifus wrote:
I think so as well.
I also think we're already there, but not quite the same way you may be
thinking. Why does an XRCD sound better than a standard CD? My issue is
that, yes, ideally, 44.1/16 is perfect for sound reproduction, but
imperfections like brick wall filtering, having to use 24 bits to
produce the 16 bits nicely etc all have to do with the limitations of
16/44.1 as a recording medium.

I mentioned XRCD because even though it is also a 16/44.1 CD, the
processing is done in 24 bit in a very high quality digital
environment,like using a ridiculously accurate Rubidium master clock
etc, all to make up for the "inadequecies" of straight 16/44.1,
recording to final CD.

Virtually all processing is done in high-bit domains now, for
standard CDs.

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording?

No, I specifically excluded live recording.

Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
.hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going
into that final CD.

Again, the benefit of having headroom (more bits per sample) for a live
recording is not in doubt, where peak levels can't be predicted in advance.

Intrinsic benefit of 24 bits for a transfer of an old analog tape is far
less clear. There, more than 96 dB of dynamic range will not be needed, and
one can usually know what the loudest part will be, and
adjust recording level accordingly. The only practical benefit is
avoiding one conversion step, when downstream processing will be digital.

Of course, there's always the "laziness factor"! Copy the tape in 24-bit and
let the peaks fall where they may. G

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are 48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even 24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be
at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

You're leaving out the massive role of mastering EQ, level, noise
reduction -- change any of that
from release to release and you have probably overwhelmed whatever
difference is due to 'rubidinum master clocks' or 'K2 super coding'
(which IIRC is just a variety of bit mapping of 24 to 16 -- in use for years
and years now, at least since Sony's 'Super Bit Mapping' hype).

Also factor in things like careful head alignment and choice of source tapes.

The results are still pretty variable. While the XRCD re-masterings of Rudy
Van Gelder's analog Jazz recordings from the early sixties are uniformly very
good, some of the Classical stuff is not. For instance, the British Decca
(London Records) recording of the LA Philharmonic/ Zubin Mehta doing
"The Planets" by Holst sounds just as bad on XRCD as it sounded on LP.

[Codifus]

Angus Stewart Pinkerton wrote:[color=blue][i]
Codifus;815772 Wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording? Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal
and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to
sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
..hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going

into that final CD.

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and
apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are
48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even
24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be

at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding
to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

So thep

CD
There is one 'minor' matter regarding XRCDs that you failed to note -
they are all made from original *analogue* master tapes, so there will
have been no more than 80-85dB (at the very most) dynamic range in the
original recording.

So there

Fair enough. But I don't think dynamic range is the issue here or else
hi rez would win hands down. 24 bit recordings have the potential of 144
db dynamic range or greater. Not that 144 db, or even 96 db dynamic
range isn't way way way more than adequete. I know that 144 db dynamic
range is something like listening to an ant crawl across your shoe AND
THEN to hear a Boeing 747 (or perhaps an A380 for you Europeans) take
off right next to you. All from the same recording without any gain
adjustment.

We don't come anywhere near to listening to music with that type of
dynamic range.

I don't think that dynamic range has ever been an issue with the CD
format. I would further that belief that CD's increased dynamic range is
also what contributed to its more unpleasant sound as compared to vinyl
or other analog source. CD delivered everything to you audibly,
harshness and all.

The issue with CD, I beleive, has been phase coherence, jitter
reduction, the type of filtering used in the analog or digital stages.
All these factors contributed to CD's harsh sound, not so clear imaging etc.

Right back at you

CD

[Codifus]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Codifus wrote:
I think so as well.
I also think we're already there, but not quite the same way you may be
thinking. Why does an XRCD sound better than a standard CD? My issue is
that, yes, ideally, 44.1/16 is perfect for sound reproduction, but
imperfections like brick wall filtering, having to use 24 bits to
produce the 16 bits nicely etc all have to do with the limitations of
16/44.1 as a recording medium.

I mentioned XRCD because even though it is also a 16/44.1 CD, the
processing is done in 24 bit in a very high quality digital
environment,like using a ridiculously accurate Rubidium master clock
etc, all to make up for the "inadequecies" of straight 16/44.1,
recording to final CD.

Virtually all processing is done in high-bit domains now, for
standard CDs.

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording?

No, I specifically excluded live recording.

Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
.hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going
into that final CD.

Again, the benefit of having headroom (more bits per sample) for a live
recording is not in doubt, where peak levels can't be predicted in advance.

Intrinsic benefit of 24 bits for a transfer of an old analog tape is far
less clear. There, more than 96 dB of dynamic range will not be needed, and
one can usually know what the loudest part will be, and
adjust recording level accordingly. The only practical benefit is
avoiding one conversion step, when downstream processing will be digital.

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are 48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even 24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be
at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

You're leaving out the massive role of mastering EQ, level, noise
reduction -- change any of that
from release to release and you have probably overwhelmed whatever
difference is due to 'rubidinum master clocks' or 'K2 super coding'
(which IIRC is just a variety of bit mapping of 24 to 16 -- in use for years
and years now, at least since Sony's 'Super Bit Mapping' hype).

Also factor in things like careful head alignment and choice of source tapes.

So then we agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but not the
best suited for the actual recording?

CD

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 15:26:26 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:28:05 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"codifus" wrote in message


I agree with you here. In a studio recording, 1 mic is
used to record, say, a trumpet. one for vocals etc.

Probably true much of the time.

I wish that 2 mics were used for each instrument so
as to establish the 3rd dimension in a stereo
recording. 2 mics for the vocal, 2 for the drums etc.

I've done recordings like that - used several
coincident pairs for each of several small groups of
instruments.

I've tried this too, and I don't see that it works.

I've done it regularly for years.

The problem is that when you highlight an instrument
using a stereo pair (Coincident, X-Y, M-S, ORTF,
whatever) you more-or-less have to pan the mikes right
right and left
to get stereo.

We have different styles of mixing. I just moderately
elevate an instrument that I wish to highlight, or let
the music do it for me. I leave it panned where it is.

The only time I would change the panning of an
instrument would be if the recording is a video, and I
was trying to match the visual image with the sonic
image.

I see. What you are saying is that by only moderately
elevating the level of the accent mike, the accent still
remains subordinate to the overall stereo pair, keeping
the "sonic" location of the highlighted instrument intact
while still adding an increased volume to that instrument
of group of instruments. Is that correct?

Right, but sometimes I don't even do that. I let the music director and/or
the artist do it for me.

[Arny Krueger]

"Codifus" wrote in message


We don't come anywhere near to listening to music with
that type of dynamic range.

I don't think that dynamic range has ever been an issue
with the CD format. I would further that belief that CD's increased
dynamic range is also what contributed to its more
unpleasant sound as compared to vinyl or other analog source. CD delivered
everything to you
audibly, harshness and all.

Ironically, the harshness may have been generated by the local system or
even the user's ears. The acuity of human hearing goes down pretty fast once
listening levels pass a fairly modest 80-85 dB.

The issue with CD, I beleive, has been phase coherence,

Nope, as we've had phase linear reconstruction filters for more than a
decade, and the complainers keep complaining.

jitter reduction,

Actually never a problem in the mainstream, as even the first CD players had
jitter was far lower than had ever been experienced with analog.

the type of filtering used in the analog or digital stages.

Please see former comments about phase linear filtering, and its widespread
use, especially in the past decade or so.

All these factors contributed to CD's harsh sound, not so clear imaging
etc.

CDs don't inherently have harsh sound. In fact many times they are in the
center part of a digital transmission channel (such as a CD player that is
being used via its digital output) and is therefore totally distortionless.
Furthermore, the outside edges of that digital transmission channel (the
converters) have been tested against straight wire and found
to be audibly blameless.

[Steven Sullivan]

Codifus wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Codifus wrote:
I think so as well.
I also think we're already there, but not quite the same way you may be
thinking. Why does an XRCD sound better than a standard CD? My issue is
that, yes, ideally, 44.1/16 is perfect for sound reproduction, but
imperfections like brick wall filtering, having to use 24 bits to
produce the 16 bits nicely etc all have to do with the limitations of
16/44.1 as a recording medium.

I mentioned XRCD because even though it is also a 16/44.1 CD, the
processing is done in 24 bit in a very high quality digital
environment,like using a ridiculously accurate Rubidium master clock
etc, all to make up for the "inadequecies" of straight 16/44.1,
recording to final CD.

Virtually all processing is done in high-bit domains now, for
standard CDs.

I agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but for straight
recording?

No, I specifically excluded live recording.

Perhaps for simple acoustic sessions like maybe one vocal and
3 instruments live. You get the idea. But when it comes to sophisticated
recordings, give me hi-rez, baby. 24/96 or perhaps 24/44.1 of XRCD (I
noticed that XRCD NEVER mentions sample rate in their process .. . .
.hmmmm) The final may be a CD, but I want some quality massaging going
into that final CD.

Again, the benefit of having headroom (more bits per sample) for a live
recording is not in doubt, where peak levels can't be predicted in advance.

Intrinsic benefit of 24 bits for a transfer of an old analog tape is far
less clear. There, more than 96 dB of dynamic range will not be needed, and
one can usually know what the loudest part will be, and
adjust recording level accordingly. The only practical benefit is
avoiding one conversion step, when downstream processing will be digital.

OK, you know what? I looked further into the XRCD process and apparently
they use a Sony PCM 9000 optical disc recorder. It's sample rates are 48
and 44.1, so it seems that the XRCD process is 24/44.1 or maybe even 24/48

So, 16/44.1 is great for playback, but the recording going in should be
at least 24/44.1 with a Rubidium master clock and use K2 super coding to
accurately convert the 24 bits down a true 16 bit of dynamic range

You're leaving out the massive role of mastering EQ, level, noise
reduction -- change any of that
from release to release and you have probably overwhelmed whatever
difference is due to 'rubidinum master clocks' or 'K2 super coding'
(which IIRC is just a variety of bit mapping of 24 to 16 -- in use for years
and years now, at least since Sony's 'Super Bit Mapping' hype).

Also factor in things like careful head alignment and choice of source tapes.

So then we agree that 16/44.1 is a great delivery medium, but not the
best suited for the actual recording?

Given a good enough recorder, 44.1 khz will be sufficient. 16 bits will
be sufficient for tape transfers, but for live recording, you might want
to allow more headroom for a worst-case scenario. And since you'll
almost certainly be post-processing in 24 bits, you might as well start
there too.

--
-S
Poe's Law: Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humorous
intent, it is impossible to create a parody of a religious Fundamentalist that
SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.