Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM...
No, it isn't. Though quantization is a form of sampling, it is not generally referred to that way. When people say "sample rate", they're talking about temporal sampling. |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
We already have Blu-Ray audio...
... and DVD for years with that capability. Right and SACD, which at least proves the point that you can fool some of the people all the time, but not all the people all of the time. :-) And your opinion is based on listening to how many SACDs? Two? Three? SACDs do, generally, sound different -- and "better" than CDs. WHY is another matter. |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than
the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. Simple to resample those Blu-Ray recordings to 16/44 to compare them properly. I can't hear a difference, and never met anyone who *claims* they can who could prove it. You may be the exception of course, but I wouldn't bet money on it. :-) Tracking at 24/96 is another matter of course. It would be useful if you actually read and understood what I wrote. The CD layer of most SACDs is derived from the DSD recording, and thus tells us nothing about what went on prior to the recorder. Had you read what I actually wrote -- rather than what you wanted to read -- you'd know this. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:58:04 +1200, "geoff"
wrote: Sean Conolly wrote: "James T" wrote in message Higher bit rates have a real benefit, but for me higher sample rates do not. I have so many other factors that audibly compromise my recordings, sample rate is the least of my concerns. Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM, which is what we end up recording and playing back for the most part. Or did you mean "bit-depths" ? geoff To get the bit rate in linear PCM, you multiply the sample rate by the number of bits (bit depth), and then by the number of channels. d |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:58:04 +1200, "geoff" wrote: Sean Conolly wrote: "James T" wrote in message Higher bit rates have a real benefit, but for me higher sample rates do not. I have so many other factors that audibly compromise my recordings, sample rate is the least of my concerns. Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM, which is what we end up recording and playing back for the most part. Or did you mean "bit-depths" ? geoff To get the bit rate in linear PCM, you multiply the sample rate by the number of bits (bit depth), and then by the number of channels. .... which is nowhere near as concise and instantly appreciable a spec as SR/Bits/chans . geoff |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"geoff" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. There is some suggestion that the difference is only in different mastering. That's only one possible explanation. There are others. Could you define what you mean by "mastering"? Anything from minimal processing through different equipment (level changes and associated dithering), through to eq and dynamic tweaks, maybe very subtle, or not. geoff |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:07:33 +1200, "geoff"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:58:04 +1200, "geoff" wrote: Sean Conolly wrote: "James T" wrote in message Higher bit rates have a real benefit, but for me higher sample rates do not. I have so many other factors that audibly compromise my recordings, sample rate is the least of my concerns. Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM, which is what we end up recording and playing back for the most part. Or did you mean "bit-depths" ? geoff To get the bit rate in linear PCM, you multiply the sample rate by the number of bits (bit depth), and then by the number of channels. ... which is nowhere near as concise and instantly appreciable a spec as SR/Bits/chans . But it is at least correct, as opposed to yours in which you divide instead of multiply. The results are a bit different, you will appreciate. d |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
Of course transients will correspond to ability to reproduce equivalent frequencies. I understand that. But I was wondering to what extent that type of information would be likely to exceed ye olde 20-20khz spec that is regarded as the baseline for human perception. Not at all. All of the transient timing information is contained in the bandwidth. People in the audiophile community keep bringing up the subject of timing as if somehow it's independent of bandwidth and if a higher sample rate could improve timing accuracy through some mechanism other than higher bandwidth. Now.... some argument has been made that the higher channel bandwidth might be a good thing in that it could allow us to hear more accurate timing cues. However, nobody who has looked for such a thing in actual listening tests have ever found it. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but nobody has found it. There seems to be a lot of gray area there. IOW, did the A/D/A tests done with the 16-44.1 loop adequately test perception of that aspect of human hearing. Do you know of any relevant test data? Check the AES preprint list... there were dozens of papers in the nineties. Ignore any of the ones from anyone associated with the Kanagawa Institute. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... 24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits headroom. There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can still be worthwhile. You're looking on the wrong of the scale. You can't bring the noise floor down, so just run the thing on kilovolt rails.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
In article , Trevor wrote:
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message Through the years of emerging technology I have concluded that usually it is possible to store more information than current reproducers can recover. There's more in the groove of an old 'record' than we could play/hear with a sharpend nail hooked to a megaphone. Since it was originally recorded to a disk master with a "sharpened nail" as well, any extra "information" is likely to be just as innacurate. Not at all. Listen to an acoustic photograph vs. a modern transcription of the same disc some time. Lower distortion, not so many internal horn resonances today. Technology got a lot better and it still keeps getting better. I'm not sure that this applies in the digital world, because for the first time with digital conversion systems, the recorder and the medium itself are no longer the bottleneck in terms of sound quality. But ask me in fifty years, I'll have a better idea then. I would not be surprised to discover that in fifty years, transducers are a whole hell of a lot better than they are today and recorders are mostly unchanged in concept and performance. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM... No, it isn't. Though quantization is a form of sampling, it is not generally referred to that way. When people say "sample rate", they're talking about temporal sampling. BIT RATE (bits/sec) = SAMPLE RATE (samples/sec) * WORD LENGTH (bits/sample) If there's one thing I learned in engineering school, it's to always do the dimensional analysis even when you think you know what the units are. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
|
#53
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On 6/17/2012 4:31 AM, James T wrote:
Mike, Do you happen to have any references to those tests? That's what I'm trying to find. Nope, just me. Either trust me or not, or go Googling. ?? Primarily a theoretical question. I've been curious about the prevalence of 24/96 and associated controversy. I haven't found much info that addresses that conclusively. There are no conclusions. It's too much of an individual thing. Is this so hard to accept? Several years ago my friendly local dealer set up a demonstration. I, and most of the listeners, had a preference for the straight-through path, some preferred the 44.1 kHz path, some preferred the 96 kHz path, but nobody would have always picked one sample rate over the other every time. These were pro engineers, which doesn't necessarily make them any more qualified than anyone else, And they'd have an idea what to listen for. Useful info, Mike. It isn't really a matter of what to listen for, because not all of the differences can be verbalized, and our hearing isn't that consistent. I can say that I think that the low end sounds "fuller" through one path than another, but yet I can measure frequency response of both paths and find them to be identical to some pretty small limits. What I can't measure accurately, though, is what actually gets to my ear, and what my brain does with it. If you remember where you saw that, [positional cues] please post! My memory is much worse than my hearing. It may have been a discussion on a forum rather than a scientific study. If you haven't got my drift by now, let me put it to you plainly: I JUST DON'T CARE what technology was used to make a recording unless it sounds bad. Then I might be curious. I don't know that anyone has ever returned a recording for a refund on the basis that it was made at 44.1 kHz instead of 96 kHz. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Trevor" writes:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? We already have Blu-Ray audio at higher bit rates than CD. They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. My feeling exactly! I believe 24/96 was also an option on the older DVD-Audio format. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Trevor" writes:
"geoff" wrote in message ... Trevor wrote: "Randy Yates" wrote in message ... When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? We already have Blu-Ray audio ... and DVD for years with that capability. Right and SACD, which at least proves the point that you can fool some of the people all the time, but not all the people all of the time. :-) Right, and DVD-Audio (as I just posted in a twin thread). -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
All of the transient timing information is contained in the
bandwidth. If "bandwidth" includes phase, then I agree. Flat response does not automatically equate to zero phase shift. I'm surprised no one has included all-pass phase equalization in digital controllers. I suspect that adding leading phase shift above 1kHz (or so) would significantly improve the sound. Unfortunately, I have no way to test this. |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM...
No, it isn't. Right. I wrote too quickly. I meant bit depth. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"geoff" writes:
William Sommerwerck wrote: To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. There is some suggestion that the difference is only in different mastering. Several years back, I purchased a DVD-Audio player and disks with the intention to check out the new format. I can't remember the exact disk, but I distinctly remember finding this to be the case, i.e., that at least one of the disks had changed the mixdown (e.g., brought the vocals forward, used some different reverb, or somesuch)! NOT apples-to-apples! And I was NOT happy about it musically either - it distinctly changed the sound of that disk, and I wanted the "original." -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
All of the transient timing information is contained in the bandwidth. If "bandwidth" includes phase, then I agree. Flat response does not automatically equate to zero phase shift. I'm surprised no one has included all-pass phase equalization in digital controllers. I suspect that adding leading phase shift above 1kHz (or so) would significantly improve the sound. William, The "hard" filtering is done digitally these days (thanks to fast converters which greatly oversample at the analog end), and such filtering is done with linear-phase FIRs, so there is no significant phase shift. This is been true since the early 90s or so. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD.
They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Though I much prefer CD to LP, I've never been fully happy with the "sound" of CDs. Few of them come remotely close to the sound of my own live recordings -- including those made on cassette decks! SACD & BD recordings -- especially surround/multi-ch -- come much closer to what I expect a good (ie, realistic) recording to sound like. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Don Pearce wrote:
On 17 Jun 2012 08:38:14 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM... No, it isn't. Though quantization is a form of sampling, it is not generally referred to that way. When people say "sample rate", they're talking about temporal sampling. BIT RATE (bits/sec) = SAMPLE RATE (samples/sec) * WORD LENGTH (bits/sample) If there's one thing I learned in engineering school, it's to always do the dimensional analysis even when you think you know what the units are. You forgot the number of channels, Scott. Dimensionless unfortunately, so dimensional analysis doesn't warn you. Good point! --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Randy Yates writes:
(Scott Dorsey) writes: James T wrote: Of course transients will correspond to ability to reproduce equivalent frequencies. I understand that. But I was wondering to what extent that type of information would be likely to exceed ye olde 20-20khz spec that is regarded as the baseline for human perception. Not at all. All of the transient timing information is contained in the bandwidth. People in the audiophile community keep bringing up the subject of timing as if somehow it's independent of bandwidth and if a higher sample rate could improve timing accuracy through some mechanism other than higher bandwidth. I agree with your thoughs, Scott. Whoa! I was still thinking on the "bits" side - which is not the question here. Sorry! -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Don Pearce wrote: On 17 Jun 2012 08:38:14 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM... No, it isn't. Though quantization is a form of sampling, it is not generally referred to that way. When people say "sample rate", they're talking about temporal sampling. BIT RATE (bits/sec) = SAMPLE RATE (samples/sec) * WORD LENGTH (bits/sample) If there's one thing I learned in engineering school, it's to always do the dimensional analysis even when you think you know what the units are. You forgot the number of channels, Scott. Dimensionless unfortunately, so dimensional analysis doesn't warn you. Good point! Well, you could consider SAMPLE RATE as having an implied "per channel" dimension. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Randy Yates wrote:
So I would turn the question around: does adding a very low level of flat noise to a signal disturb its imaging, timing, positional, or other properties under investigating here? My suspicion is, "not at all." I don't know. BUT, my experience is that, using the Prism AD-124 converter, when I change the noise shaping of the dither, I can hear changes in the tonality of the music. All that should be changing is the frequency distribution of the noise floor, but what I perceive is a greater change. It's possible I have discovered a flaw in the converter and that there are side effects unrelated to the noise floor, too. I never looked into it in great detail, I just leave the noise shaping switch to off. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
I'm surprised no one has included all-pass phase equalization
in digital controllers. I suspect that adding leading phase shift above 1kHz (or so) would significantly improve the sound. The "hard" filtering is done digitally these days (thanks to fast converters which greatly oversample at the analog end), and such filtering is done with linear-phase FIRs, so there is no significant phase shift. This is been true since the early 90s or so. You're assuming there is no non-constant-group-delay phase shift in other parts of the recording/playback chain -- including the speakers. For example, analog sound recordings suffer from significant phase shift of that sort, but it is rarely corrected for. By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago. When I got to the Patent Office, I discovered Alan Dower Blumlein had beaten me by nearly four decades. Interestingly, the patent correctly described the principle, but as it was not "reduced to practice" in any practical manner, it was invalid. It appears the patent examiners were every bit as stupid and ignorant 80 years ago as they are now. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
... We already have Blu-ray audio at higher bit rates than CD. They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. That could be because they don't know how good a recording can be. Which leads directly to another discussion that's been had he most people have never heard a really good recording, or really good speakers, or a really good live performance... Sean |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
(Scott Dorsey) writes:
Randy Yates wrote: So I would turn the question around: does adding a very low level of flat noise to a signal disturb its imaging, timing, positional, or other properties under investigating here? My suspicion is, "not at all." I don't know. BUT, my experience is that, using the Prism AD-124 converter, when I change the noise shaping of the dither, I can hear changes in the tonality of the music. All that should be changing is the frequency distribution of the noise floor, but what I perceive is a greater change. Well, if the spectrum of the noise is changed, I wouldn't be surprised that a human might hear a different "tonality." I would expect that both the signal spectrum and the noise spectrum affect the composite perceived tonality. But you must have some damned good ears! It's possible I have discovered a flaw in the converter and that there are side effects unrelated to the noise floor, too. I never looked into it in great detail, I just leave the noise shaping switch to off. Seems a perfectly reasonable way to work. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
I'm surprised no one has included all-pass phase equalization in digital controllers. I suspect that adding leading phase shift above 1kHz (or so) would significantly improve the sound. The "hard" filtering is done digitally these days (thanks to fast converters which greatly oversample at the analog end), and such filtering is done with linear-phase FIRs, so there is no significant phase shift. This is been true since the early 90s or so. You're assuming there is no non-constant-group-delay phase shift in other parts of the recording/playback chain -- including the speakers. You're right. I hadn't realized the topic had changed from the how the delivery chain bandwidth and bit depth affect the overall reproduction chain to how signal processing can be used to compensate for recording/reproduction chain response errors. For example, analog sound recordings suffer from significant phase shift of that sort, but it is rarely corrected for. By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago. That's pretty neat! What was your application? -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Randy Yates wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) writes: Randy Yates wrote: So I would turn the question around: does adding a very low level of flat noise to a signal disturb its imaging, timing, positional, or other properties under investigating here? My suspicion is, "not at all." I don't know. BUT, my experience is that, using the Prism AD-124 converter, when I change the noise shaping of the dither, I can hear changes in the tonality of the music. All that should be changing is the frequency distribution of the noise floor, but what I perceive is a greater change. Well, if the spectrum of the noise is changed, I wouldn't be surprised that a human might hear a different "tonality." I would expect that both the signal spectrum and the noise spectrum affect the composite perceived tonality. But you must have some damned good ears! The noise floor that is being changed is 96 dB down... in fact it's probably lower than the noise floor of the signal going into the converter. My ears can't be that good. I think something else might be going on but I am at a loss as to what it really is. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Don Pearce wrote:
But it is at least correct, as opposed to yours in which you divide instead of multiply. The results are a bit different, you will appreciate. Um, isn't saying 44,800/24/s is pretty specific and easy, whereas 2.304Mb/s could be any number of sample rates or bit depths that you (probably) need additional information and a calcator to work out any one of the relevant paramters ? geoff |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Randy Yates wrote: So I would turn the question around: does adding a very low level of flat noise to a signal disturb its imaging, timing, positional, or other properties under investigating here? My suspicion is, "not at all." I don't know. BUT, my experience is that, using the Prism AD-124 converter, when I change the noise shaping of the dither, I can hear changes in the tonality of the music. All that should be changing is the frequency distribution of the noise floor, but what I perceive is a greater change. It's possible I have discovered a flaw in the converter and that there are side effects unrelated to the noise floor, too. I never looked into it in great detail, I just leave the noise shaping switch to off. --scott Maybe it is shaping the noise (!), which causes *a change* to which the mind is attributing greater significance than was is actually happening ? geoff |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Scott Dorsey wrote:
The noise floor that is being changed is 96 dB down... in fact it's probably lower than the noise floor of the signal going into the converter. My ears can't be that good. I think something else might be going on but I am at a loss as to what it really is. --scott I was goinfg to ask in what circumstances you where hear a signal AND the noise floor ! geoff |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
By the way, I invented the FIR filter almost 40 years ago.
That's pretty neat! What was your application? De-convolution to correct speaker phase and transient errors. Very little work has been done on this, as most EQ aims to correct only amplitude errors. The guy who developed the Apogee speakers has apparently done some work along these lines. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... SACDs do, generally, sound different -- and "better" than CDs. WHY is another matter. Of course they souind different, the why is well known, they are NOT the same. Whether they sound "better" is purely up to the individual releases and listener preference. Trevor. |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
SACDs do, generally, sound different -- and "better" than
CDs. WHY is another matter. Of course they souind different, the why is well known... And the "why" is...? Whether they sound "better" is purely up to the individual releases and listener preference. I disagree. Though SACDs vary, they are generally closer to "the real thing" than CD. |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. Simple to resample those Blu-Ray recordings to 16/44 to compare them properly. I can't hear a difference, and never met anyone who *claims* they can who could prove it. You may be the exception of course, but I wouldn't bet money on it. :-) Tracking at 24/96 is another matter of course. It would be useful if you actually read and understood what I wrote. It would be more useful if you weren't so arrogant as to assume I don't! Although I admit to not knowing what you might have thought differently but *didn't* actually write. Even more arrogant to think I should! The CD layer of most SACDs is derived from the DSD recording, and thus tells us nothing about what went on prior to the recorder. Had you read what I actually wrote -- rather than what you wanted to read -- you'd know this. Does not contradict what I said, so perhaps YOU should read what I wrote? And how does a standard CD tell us "what went on prior to the recorder" or even prior to the final master for that matter? As many others here already know, CD is fine for the *final* product, what happens before that is another matter, just as I said. Trevor. |
#78
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"geoff" wrote in message ... To get the bit rate in linear PCM, you multiply the sample rate by the number of bits (bit depth), and then by the number of channels. ... which is nowhere near as concise and instantly appreciable a spec as SR/Bits/chans . Indeed, you can get the same overall bit rate from different combinations of SR/bit depth/channels! Trevor. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:50:00 +1200, "geoff"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: But it is at least correct, as opposed to yours in which you divide instead of multiply. The results are a bit different, you will appreciate. Um, isn't saying 44,800/24/s is pretty specific and easy, whereas 2.304Mb/s could be any number of sample rates or bit depths that you (probably) need additional information and a calcator to work out any one of the relevant paramters ? geoff You are still dividing instead of multiplying. It doesn't work if you divide. d |
#80
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , Trevor wrote: "Les Cargill" wrote in message ... 24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits headroom. There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can still be worthwhile. You're looking on the wrong of the scale. You can't bring the noise floor down, so just run the thing on kilovolt rails.... Sadly you still need a preamp to get to the kilovolt signal, and it won't have 144dB of DNR either. Trevor. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DA-2496 | Pro Audio | |||
FA: AUDIOPHILE 2496 | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Aardvark Pro 2496 like new $299 | Pro Audio | |||
Samplitude 6 2496 and the 01X | Pro Audio | |||
types of sub boxes- merits of? | Car Audio |