[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"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

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
to what me must in order to get the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
situations.

and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
cloth.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
cloth.


Funny, never happened to me.

All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?

OK, that's it. You're outta the Hive. Return your Krooble, your
eye-gouger, and any unopened jars of Hivie Earwax.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?

Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy said:


All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?


Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)



And you'll never hear me complain about them.
However, some tone controls are more useful than others.

I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
preamps.
It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[dizzy]

Sander deWaal wrote:

dizzy said:

All my stuff sounds wonderful to me, because I like to listen to music
on it.

Not accurate? No hifi? Why should anyone care, as long as it sounds
good to me?

Yes! Like using tone controls! 8)

And you'll never hear me complain about them.
However, some tone controls are more useful than others.

I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
preamps.
It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.

Are you thinking tubed or SS?

[Sander deWaal]

dizzy said:


I still think you should try to get hold of one of those old Lux
preamps.
It shouldn't be too difficult to DIY a remote control for it, IMO.


Are you thinking tubed or SS?


The units I am thinking about, are all silicon solid state.
Though they may be 20 to 30 years old, they are built like tanks and
the tone controls are very effective and useful IMO.

The only drawback being that you most likely must recap the entire
amp, and check for bad solderings, switches and pots.

I'm a DIY-er, so I'm not very afraid of such problems.

If you're not, the cost of having this done may be considerable.
Apart from that, there are too many bad techs out there that don't
understand discrete analog electronics anymore.

If you're not familiar with a soldering iron and a multimeter, find
yourself a good (older) tech who knows his analog stuff.

I don't have a model number at hand right now, but with some googling,
you might come up with more than enough information.

As far as rempte controlling goes, this will depend on whether there
are (rotary) switches or pots in there for tone controls.
The switch functions can be emulated by relays, remote controlling a
potmeter may be a bit more difficult (but not impossible!).

I'd program a PIC or AVR to drive a couple of relays, with RC5 encoded
and an IR receiver attached.


If all this sounds like Chinese to you, forget about it all.
There are probably plenty of commercial remote-controlled preamps with
tone controls available, I don't know about that.
You might look at brands like Onkyo, Denon and Yamaha (if they still
make stereo gear).
I honestly don't know, since I build nearly all my electronics myself,
so I am not interested in commercial amplifiers.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
to what me must in order to get the job done.

Man aint that the truth! Nothin' like a long day of bad rap just to pay the
bills. I'm glad I get called in to mix for people I know, and I'm happy to
pay my engineers for my own projects so I don't have to do that.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
situations.

Hey! ... Buuuurp! .... Ya'll know any Skynnerd!!! and you gotta do it to
keep 'em happy. I actually like a lot of Lynnerd Skynnerd but after you've
played "Sweet Home Alabama" 1000 times ...

and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and
can hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal
ears can easily hear what they claim to hear.

Is that anything like someone reading something and then deciding that the
person who was writing it was saying something that they weren't?

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
cloth.
That's all fine Arny-poo but if you didn't notice (and you most obviously
didn't) I never claimed to have exceptional hearing. It may be that I do,
because I am asked very often to sit in on sessions and mix for people
because the respect my ear, but I don't claim it. As far as sight goes, I
use a variety of different tools to help with spectrum analysis,
normalization and other forms of level adjustment. I use tools for
dynamic/geometric effects like reverb, compression and delay. I do look at
those when I am using them, but my bet is that is not what you mean by
sighted. My thinking (and you can correct me if I am wrong) is that by
sighted you mean that I make my evaluations on what I hear at first listen
through what ever it is playing through? Try some Yamaha NS 10's before you
pipe it through the big Genelec's baby! The cruels! If you can make it sound
good through those you can make it sound good on anything!

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message
et
That's all fine Arny-poo but if you didn't notice (and
you most obviously didn't) I never claimed to have
exceptional hearing.

Sure you did.

You claimed to hear difference that have never been reliably heard by any
known human, such as:

"The truth is that for whatever reason, it sounds netter to me if I record
at 32/96 and dither down, though the average
listener doesn't usually notice."

Not only doesn't the average listener not notice, but neither will you, in a
proper listening test.

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 1, 1:16 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices
No doubt. We listen to what we like.Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
to what me must in order to get the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
situations.

and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
cloth.

I hope I'm not drifting off topic, but speaker cables prove your point.
Those with golden ears hear differences in speaker cables. In
actuality, here are no audible differences in speaker cables.

Bob Stanton

[Alan S]

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
oups.com...


On Nov 1, 1:16 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices
No doubt. We listen to what we like.Not if we're professionally
engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
to what me must in order to get the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter
similar
situations.

and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.
How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.The world is full of people
who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears
can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to
cloth.

I hope I'm not drifting off topic, but speaker cables prove your point.
Those with golden ears hear differences in speaker cables. In
actuality, here are no audible differences in speaker cables.

I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was at
a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.

Bob Stanton

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"Alan S" wrote:

I have never noticed any. Bad connections maybe, but never the speaker
cables themselves. Some folks claim they hear it, the last one I met was at
a store that sold very high end car audio products. He swore up and down
that my sound would be much better with the thirty dollar cables. I bought
the cheapies and it sounds just fine. Eric Johnson says he can tell what
kind of batteries are in his effects pedals by the tone. Sounds a little far
fetched to me, but then again, I'm not Eric. I will say this, Ray Hennig
here in Austin (he owns Heart of Texas Music) says that Eric can stand in
one room and tell you which type of Fender amp you are playing in another
room just by tone. Maybe if everything was set flat or something, I dunno.
Ray says he has seen him do it.

The battery thing has an explanation, something about a reduced output
after a certain period of use.

Eric does put his wallet where his ears are, aside from the guitars,
gear, and home studio, he remixed "Ah Via Musicom" when his record
company issued a substandard DVD release.

Stephen

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with sound. Then, we listen
to what me must in order to get the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily encounter similar
situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home hi-fi,
however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have exceptional hearing and can
hear all sorts of things, or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which is sighted
evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or mismatched synch between the
alternatives being listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to
cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds better to me' is
just a statement of your prejudices and desire to be perceived as
having exceptional hearing"? Sounds to me like the OP simply made a
statement of preference.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily
encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the whole
enchelada:

"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."

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily
encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the whole
enchelada:

"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."

Point taken, but I don't see that as a claim of greater hearing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being
listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"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."

Point taken, but I don't see that as a claim of greater
hearing.

Let me paraphrase a bit:

"I usually notice that it sounds better to me though the average listener
doesn't usually notice"

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.com

"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being
listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"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."

Point taken, but I don't see that as a claim of greater
hearing.

Let me paraphrase a bit:

"I usually notice that it sounds better to me though the average listener
doesn't usually notice"

"Listener" not "hearer". There's an obvious difference.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily
encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the
whole enchelada:

"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."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
would be just fine to record it at that resolution. So far the best
explanation is that in the dithering process certain frequencies are
averaged because of the need to reduce the sampling rate and this averaging
eliminates noise. To this day, I have never heard a 16/44 recording sound
like a 32/96 recording. It's not as warm. It's not enough to make a
difference for an enjoyable listening experience when listening to digitally
produced music. In short, I hear it, it doesn't bother me. Most of my
friends that visit me when I am in session do not hear the difference. This
in no way makes me superior, where Arny got on that bus, I don't know.

Listening to an excellent performance recorded on 2" tape from a well mixed,
even handed band of good players, in tune, in an acoustically tuned studio
through Genelec 1038B's blows any CD I have ever heard out of the water even
if it is played through the same system. The headroom makes a huge
difference. Because of that, the image that is created from dynamics is much
more accessible, and the overtones that you hear are much more present which
gives the music a warmer tone and bigger feel.

My general observation about the quality of recorded music these days is
that a lot of it suffers from over compression, and processing done through
low dollar digital gear that tries as hard as it can to emulate the effects
of high dollar analog gear. It's a blow and go world these days and music
production has kept up with the pace.

That being said, I am a digital advocate. The convenience and cost of
production has made opportunities for talent to get their material into a
market that has been railroaded by dollar oriented record companies for
years. I am just looking forward to the day when CD's sound better.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Alan S" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

.com

"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could easily
encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about home
hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things, or
they say that anybody that has normal ears can easily
hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch, which
is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being listened
to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context quote. Here's the
whole enchelada:

"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."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
would be just fine to record it at that resolution. So far the best
explanation is that in the dithering process certain frequencies are
averaged because of the need to reduce the sampling rate and this averaging
eliminates noise. To this day, I have never heard a 16/44 recording sound
like a 32/96 recording. It's not as warm. It's not enough to make a
difference for an enjoyable listening experience when listening to digitally
produced music. In short, I hear it, it doesn't bother me. Most of my
friends that visit me when I am in session do not hear the difference. This
in no way makes me superior, where Arny got on that bus, I don't know.

Listening to an excellent performance recorded on 2" tape from a well mixed,
even handed band of good players, in tune, in an acoustically tuned studio
through Genelec 1038B's blows any CD I have ever heard out of the water even
if it is played through the same system. The headroom makes a huge
difference. Because of that, the image that is created from dynamics is much
more accessible, and the overtones that you hear are much more present which
gives the music a warmer tone and bigger feel.

My general observation about the quality of recorded music these days is
that a lot of it suffers from over compression, and processing done through
low dollar digital gear that tries as hard as it can to emulate the effects
of high dollar analog gear. It's a blow and go world these days and music
production has kept up with the pace.

That being said, I am a digital advocate. The convenience and cost of
production has made opportunities for talent to get their material into a
market that has been railroaded by dollar oriented record companies for
years. I am just looking forward to the day when CD's sound better.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being
listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"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."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?

Probably because you think you should.

I don't know, big deal.

No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

I do know that I hear a difference
in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.

OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound clip of one of your
32/96 files and I'll see if people can really hear a difference when it is
downsampled to 16/44.

Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Alan S" wrote in message
news
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message


"sounds better to me" is just a statement of your
prejudices

No doubt. We listen to what we like.

Not if we're professionally engaged in working with
sound. Then, we listen to what me must in order to get
the job done.

I submit that being a professional musician could
easily encounter similar situations.

Of course. I thought that discussion here was about
home hi-fi, however.


and desire to
be perceived as having exceptional hearing.

How you reach that conclusion is a mystery.

The world is full of people who claim they have
exceptional hearing and can hear all sorts of things,
or they say that anybody that has normal ears can
easily hear what they claim to hear.

Then you knock out their one-size-fits-all crutch,
which is sighted evaluation, mismatched levels, and/or
mismatched synch between the alternatives being
listened to. Likely as not, their ears suddenly turn
to cloth.

How does this relate to your statement that "'sounds
better to me' is just a statement of your prejudices and
desire to be perceived as having exceptional hearing"?
Sounds to me like the OP simply made a statement of
preference.

Good work Jenn, you just made another out-of-context
quote. Here's the whole enchelada:

"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."

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why?

Probably because you think you should.

That is your assumption, believe what you wish.

I don't know, big deal.

No different from saying that you can run a 2 minute mile.

Yes it is very different. You could prove one way or another whether or not
I could run a 2 minute mile, you could never prove how red looks to me.

I do know that I hear a difference
in music that I record at 32/96 and music I record at
16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me
why, and I have talked with a lot of engineers about it.

OK, I've got an open mind. By some means send me a sound clip of one of
your 32/96 files and I'll see if people can really hear a difference when
it is downsampled to 16/44.

Here's your chance to make your point very unambigiously.

Thank you for the offer, but I don't care enough to bother with it. The
stuff I hear at 32/96 is in a mix that is multi-tracked on a hard drive in a
proprietary format that will ultimately be mixed down to 44.1 kHZ 16 bit
stereo for CD. (I know, the .wav files aren't anything special but I would
have to export them and upload them and all that). If I get a wild hair,
I'll let you know, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Beside that, my point has been proven to me already since sound is
subjective, and it's my ears I am using to draw my conclusions about what I
am hearing. Anything else would just be an effort to get you to agree. I
would rather spend my time in the studio either making money or spending it.
Cheers!

[dizzy]

Alan S wrote:

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big deal.
I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and music
I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why, and
I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if the
music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
would be just fine to record it at that resolution.

This shows your utter ignorance. Best to keep quiet.

[Alan S]

"dizzy" wrote in message
...
Alan S wrote:

Sheeesh. I explained this. I hear a difference, why? I don't know, big
deal.
I do know that I hear a difference in music that I record at 32/96 and
music
I record at 16/44, and to this day I have had no one explain to me why,
and
I have talked with a lot of engineers about it. You would think that if
the
music is going to be dithered down to 44.1 kHZ at 16 bit anyway then it
would be just fine to record it at that resolution.

This shows your utter ignorance. Best to keep quiet.


Now ditzy, you know you can do better than that. C'mon ... try a little
harder.