[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 13:38:16 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say,
20 or 16-bit instead of �24-bit) and lower sampling rates
(say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will yield sound
indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.

This is a clear case of someone trying to establish their opinon by fiat as
being the only valid opinion, in the face of a world of evidence that is
seemingly far more compelling than the limited and questionable data which
he himself has presented.

Not an opinion. Absolute fact.

Just to repeat the obvious, there is considerable evidence, gathered under
highly controlled circumstances by a large number of independent qualified
and amateur observers that says that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit
instead of �24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1
KHz) will yield sound
indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz.

Uh, no it doesn't. Sorry that you (and perhaps others) can't hear (or perhaps
recognize) the improvement to imaging, ambience retrieval, space around the
instruments, etc. But that's not my problem.

Understanding this puts you are in total agreement with the best information
that is currently available, both theoretical and real-world.

Reliable and up-to-date knowlege of the real world performance of recording
setups and psychoacoutics, predicts this result. �IOW, if you know how
listeners perform and you know what kind of results you obtain when you
actually record acoustic music, the above real-world results are no surprise
to you at all.

Even when the results are different from what your view predicts?


high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better
localization cues, more "air" around the instruments, and
much better low-level detail and ambience than is
possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz.

This is one of those effects, like the benefits of talking to plants, that
disappers under reasonble experimental controls.

Sure, that's why so much of the recording industry masters at the higher
sampling frequencies and 24 or 32-bit.

Granted, normal CD
resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and
longer word lengths are much better yet. They gild the
lily in such a way as to make the argument of analog vs
digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital
skeptics completely.

Intreresting that so many (probably thousands) have done comparisons �like
this and been reduced to random guessing, once the statistical results are
known.

And I have done several such tests and the 24/192 recordings always sound
better and can be easily distinguished from the lower sample rate and shorter
word-length version.

Unfortunately our correspondent's approach to this problem has seemingly
been to simply avoid gathering enough data for a proper statistical
analysis.

Most working, professional recording engineers, especially those recording
classical music tend to agree with me. That's why most modern
digital recording is done at 24/192 or at least 24/96.