Arny Is Not Listening.
"Alan S" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
oups.com
It's crap, because the premise fails to answer the
question, "compared to what"?
As bit throughput, storage space, and processing power
steadily increase each year, 192 kHz goes from being an
onerous requirement requiring great sacrifice to
something more and more trivially handled.
But, it serves no purpose. It distracts people from far
more important issues.
While I
suspect it is indeed way more than is actually required,
the downside, once serious, is now less and less so.
So what? Following your logic, I need to have my car
upgraded to over 1,000 horsepower as compared to its
current 225 horsepower, because the cost of upgrading to
over 1,000 horsepower is not as prohibitive as it once
was.
44.1 is clearly inadequate.
Assertion without proof or even supporting evidence.
My ears are evidence enough.
For you, no doubt. It's well known that people's so-called ears serve their
beliefs and ego. Hence bias-controled listening tests.
I agree that 192 kHZ is
overkill for a sampling rate and it would just complicate
an already complicated process but 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit by
nature requires that a lot of information gets left out
when dithering down.
Not at all. Ever look at the noise floor of one of your tracks or mix-downs?
It is interesting how this number nets out to be down to be in the same
range for just about everybody. Unless some special techniques are used, the
dynamic range of recorded tracks and mixes never gets up into even the 80 dB
range. That's over 10 dB shy of what 16 bits provides.
Many people can hear it clearly,
especially those of us that remember 2" tape to vinyl.
In fact 2" tape was rarely if ever transferred directly to vinyl. Vinyl was
usually cut from 1/2" 15 ips 2-track masters. I've been in a number of
mastering rooms and never seen a 2" machine in use there.
As far as tracks on 2" tape went, anything past 16 tracks involved a
performance compromise as compared to 1/2" 2-track.
The harsh treble overtone
structures many listeners report from CD vis-a-vis vinyl
and analog tape are more than figments of their
imaginations: they are almost certainly artifacts of the
necessity of having more bandwidth than the signal can
occupy
No bias-controlled listening tests confirm this. It is
well-known that people's biases can cause them to
perceive problems that don't really exist.
I hear that! (no pun intended) That's why I never
mix-down with cans.
Who said anything in this topic about mixing with heaphones?
If I mix-down with a great set of
headphones, it takes me twice as long because I always
hear stuff that's not there.
let us know when you want to get back on-topic.
The oscilloscope community figured that out in
the 40s and many in the audio field-Neve et al- have
demonstrated it over and over.
Neve demonstrated no such thing. If you understand what
Neve said, he basically said that circuitry that
resonates at say 40 KHz can have audible effects below
15 KHz. If you look at the corresponding frequency
response curve you see that his circuit components such
as input transformers did indeed have effects on the
order a few dB below 15 KHz even though they were
resonating at several times that frequency. This is just
the well-known behavior of resonant circuits.
Yet, Arny isn't listening.
Bret apparently did not pay attention to his sophomore
electrical circuits class that covered resonant
circuits, if he ever actually even took such a class. Or
maybe he can't apply what he learned to practical audio
circuits.
Those CDs that sound the best are usually those of
material from a time where the treble cutoff was 10 kHz
or less, functionally.
No such thing. In fact high-sample-rate material (24/96)
with strong harmonics right up to 20 KHz are audibly
unchanged by a proper job of downsampling to 44 KHz, and
even lower.
This is a very important aspect that this thread that
hasn't had much address. An engineer can use the best
algorythm in the world and at the end of the day they are
still tossing information in the garbage. I was recording
at 16/44 for a while simply because I figured if it was
going to get dithered down to that in the end I might as
well get all the information I could on the front side.
The problem is that there are recordings and there are recordings. I'm
addressing the best possible recordings made at 16/44. What you were using
is unknown to me.
The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds better
to me if I record at 32/96 and dither down, though the
average listener doesn't usually notice.
"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your prejudices and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
The CD is an
unfortunate example of the dumbing down of our society
and until there is a marketable improvement in
technology, it will remain. There are a lot of people out
there that have never heard amazing music and likely
never will simply because they are never around it. They
are quite happy with their iPods.
You make it sound like you're the only person in the world with access to
good recordings and the ears to hear them.
/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .
|