[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message
t
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Alan S" wrote in message


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.

The day your ears stop serving your ego is the day you
will either be deaf or dead Arny, lighten up there big
fella. If you don't hear a difference between tape, vinyl
and cd's then you don't hear it. I do.

As usual you're throwing irrelevant and false claims into the discussion
because you basically know that you're losing it.

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?

And what math determines whether or not the algorythm is
tossing noise or overtones?

There is no such selectivity.

Dithering is dithering.

Exactly.

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.

C'mon Arny, don't be a smart ass. You know exactly what I
was talking about, niggling is not necessary. Why do you
want to be adversarial?

Because you've already set the stage for being adversarial with all your
silly irrelevent comments.

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 you notice, Mr. let's argue, (which I am not
interested in I might add) you stated "that people's
biases can cause them to perceive problems that don't
really exist." I was just agreeing and sharing my
experience with that.

No way does that justify mentioning headphones.

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.

HUP-two-three-four ...

OK, you just want to blather irrelevant trash.

End of discussion.