[Arny Krueger]

http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf


"
Conclusion:
There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling on one hand and a
loss of accuracy,
increased data size and much additional processing requirement on the other
hand.
AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz speeds, yet they
often utilize a circuit
yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making many bits at
lower speeds.

The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and
scientific
reality.

Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal
rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.

While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are
further disadvantages:

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage
and data
transmission speed requirements).

2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required
processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio
quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal
bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The
promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more
detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the
wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.
"

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf


"
Conclusion:
There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling
on one hand and a
loss of accuracy,
increased data size and much additional processing
requirement on the other
hand.
AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz
speeds, yet they
often utilize a circuit
yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making
many bits at
lower speeds.

The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent
engineering and
scientific
reality.

Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
than the optimal
rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio
distortions.

While there is no up side to operation at excessive
speeds, there are
further disadvantages:

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data
(impacting data storage
and data
transmission speed requirements).

2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase
in the required
processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further
compromise in audio
quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the
required signal
bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal
rates. The
promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more
accuracy and/or more
detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading
the industry in the
wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.
"


So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution doesn't
that therefore overcome this problem with PCM? It would
have been great if this article had of touched on that.

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf


"
Conclusion:
There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling
on one hand and a loss of accuracy,
increased data size and much additional processing
requirement on the other hand.
AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz
speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit
yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards
making many bits at lower speeds.

The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent
engineering and scientific
reality.

Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
than the optimal rate.
It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio
distortions.

While there is no up side to operation at excessive
speeds, there are further disadvantages:

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data
(impacting data storage and data
transmission speed requirements).

2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant
increase in the required processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further
compromise in audio quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the
required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than
optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more
accuracy and/or more detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading
the industry in the wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.
"


So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution doesn't
that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?

Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in this regard. Remember
that the basic message is that 96 KHz sampling is already more than enough
for the best possible sounding audio.

It would have been great if this article had of touched on that.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

: So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution
doesn't
: that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?
:
: Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in this
regard. Remember
: that the basic message is that 96 KHz sampling is already
more than enough
: for the best possible sounding audio.
:
From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

Quote: "There is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy" and
"Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster
than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which
ends up as audio distortions."

So surely if higher sample rates lose bits then *IF* you
only have 1 bit to start with it would be very hard to lose
it. Or if you did then that would be very sad indeed ;-)

I read this as higher sample rates are good *if* you had the
processing power not to lose bits. So like I said I would
have been more interested in the comparison with SACD/DSD as
it would seem it overcomes the problems as presented in the
article.

BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals at
192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate" so it
would appear he says the optimal rate is approx 64kHz. So
where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is perfect in your
opinion? I believe I could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely
;-)

Regards TT

[eric]

44.1 is clearly inadequate. 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. The
oscilloscope community figured that out in the 40s and many in the
audio field-Neve et al- have demonstrated it over and over. Yet, Arny
isn't listening.

I think that it is more the 16 bits that is inadaquate. The dynamic range
this presents covers basic listening requirements if everything in the
mastering chain is done perfectly. 24 would be much better.

As far as 44.1, I think that these 'harsh treble overtones' are not due to
any flaw in the basic specification. They are either due to the rolloffs
that occur in analog reproduction wear and tear making users un-used to
hearing flat reproduction, or poor implementations of anti-alias filters.

MAYBE there is an advantage to going to 48 or 50 KHz, but anything more is
gross overkill.

The analogy to oscilloscopes is, to anyone who has owned and used
oscilloscopes, hogwash. So long as your flat frequency response covers
the range of interest there is no problem. If there is a requirement
to have a higher bandwidth scope than the signal you are measuring it
arises from the usual practice of scope manufacturer specifying the
frequency range at the -3 db response point. If you are working with 20
MHz signals a 20 MHz scope (down 3db at 20 MHz) is not going to be
satisfactory.

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.

I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios use 24/96 and now 192
as well.

Graham

[TT]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
:
:
: Bret Ludwig wrote:
:
: We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
will but use it.
:
: I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios
use 24/96 and now 192
: as well.
:
: Graham
:
I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time now.
So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.

Regards TT

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

So with SACDs 2.8MHz sampling and 1 bit resolution
doesn't that therefore overcome this problem with PCM?

Doesn't seem like SACD makes much of a difference in
this regard. Remember that the basic message is that 96
KHz sampling is already more than enough for the best
possible sounding audio.

From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

In fact there are no practical converters operating at any sample rate that
would be appropriate for audio, that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.

The way I interpret Lavry's statement is that all other things being equal,
operations at 192 KHz will be signficicantly degraded compared to operation
at about 1/3 that rate.

Quote: "There is a tradeoff between speed and accuracy"
and "Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times
faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy
which ends up as audio distortions."

IOW a given converter that operates at 192 KHz will not have the high
resolution it has when operating in the 64 KHz range.

So surely if higher sample rates lose bits then *IF* you
only have 1 bit to start with it would be very hard to
lose it. Or if you did then that would be very sad
indeed ;-)

Don't confuse the terminology "1 bit converter" with the effective
resolution of the converter being in the range from 14 to 20 bits for audio.
The terminology "1 bit converter" related to some internal operational
details.

I read this as higher sample rates are good *if* you had
the processing power not to lose bits.

It is not really about processing power as much as it is about the
effectiveness of various elements of the converter itself. 1 bit convertors
work with pulses. As the sample rate goes up, elements of the converter lose
accuracy, and the pulses start getting a little mangled and prone to being
slightly misinterpreted.

So like I said I
would have been more interested in the comparison with
SACD/DSD as it would seem it overcomes the problems as
presented in the article.

Unlikely. SACD uses some of the same kinds of circuit elements as a
so-called "1 Bit" ADC or SACD. As the SACD converter treis to run faster and
faster, these same circuit elements also lose accuracy in a similar fashion
as they do inside the 1-bit converter.

BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals
at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate"
so it would appear he says the optimal rate is approx
64kHz. So where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is
perfect in your opinion? I believe I could live with
64/24 CDs quite nicely ;-)

It is a fact that converter accuracy and price/performance are no longer the
stumbling blocks to sound quality that they once were.

There is no reliable evidence that the 16/44 data format is a stumbling
block to the sonically-accurate reproduction of music thqat is distributed
to end-users. However, not all of the market that Lavry sells to is
sufficiently aware of this. Lavry's problem is that some of the people in
the market he serves, think that very high sample rates have a practical
justification.

[Eeyore]

TT wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...
:
:
: Bret Ludwig wrote:
:
: We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
: will but use it.
:
: I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording studios
: use 24/96 and now 192 as well.
:
: Graham
:
I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time now.
So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.

Absolutely not. There would be no point. In fact 20 bit would be fine. Since
data tends to be stored by the byte, 24 bits is more convenient though.

They do use 32 bit processors in the PCs of course ( since the i486 ) and decent
DSP chips typically have 56 bit or better MAC registers.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Bret Ludwig wrote:


BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio signals at
192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate" so it
would appear he says the optimal rate is approx 64kHz. So
where does that leave your 44.1kHz which is perfect in your
opinion? I believe I could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely

64 would put the Nyquist limit at 30 kHz and that IMO would be a big
improvement over CD, and in fact, 96 really is probably enough. The
primary point is that 44 is NOT.

44.1 is at best *questionable*.

It's a real shame they didn't choose 48 since that would have made such
discussion much more academic.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"TT" wrote in message

From my limited understanding I gained the impression that
192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

In fact there are no practical converters operating at any sample rate that
would be appropriate for audio, that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.

None deliver true 24 bit for sure. The reason for 24 bit converters is to ensure
that the bits 'really doing the work' are accurate. 20 accurate bits is hunky
dory.

Older ( 16 bit ) converters typically had serious non-linearity problems with
the bottom few bits which were clearly audible ( and measurable ).


Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"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.

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.

. 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 should tell us something too.
Unless, like Arny, we are quite literally not listening.

Obviously Bret you are listening to what I say, and quite irritated by it.
Too bad you can't rise to the occasion and share some wise words.

The CD was a serious compromise made in the early 80s to
put all of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one single-sided
optical disc easily producible at then-current technology
at a diameter a drive accomodating it could fit in a 5
1/4" floppy drive bay. And, in all fairness, it could
have been worse-a lot worse. But to uphold it as the gold
standard is idiocy.

Show us your bias-controlled listening tests that support your claims, Bret.
My friends and I did our homework. We subjected high-quality musical signals
from live performances to 16/44 coding, in one of the finest studios in the
Detroit area, which was under the direction of Robert Dennis who is still
working professionally to this day. We used over a dozen musicians, audio
engineers, and experienced audiophiles as our listening panel. No
distinguishable differences were found.

We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.

It is true that I have dozens of channels of converters that are capable of
running at 24/96 and 24/192. I've used them to record music from broadband
sources and compared the results to what happens when the signal is further
downsampled to 16/44. No audible difference for either myself or my friends.

Anybody with high sample rate converters, who wants to listen to examples of
this issue being played out with broadband musical sounds can do so by
downloading files from http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm
..

[Arny Krueger]

"TT" wrote in message

"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


Bret Ludwig wrote:

We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we
will but use it.

I'm sure it's no accident that many top recording
studios use 24/96 and now 192 as well.

That they have the capability is a slam dunk. Do they use it? I suspect that
a lot of work, most work, is being done at lower sample rates. The word is
out. Well-known quality-conscious recording engineers like Katz and
Massenburg have said that going higher than 44 KHz has no audible benefits,
in their experience.

One of the dirty little secrets of the failed introductions of SACD and
DVD-A was the fact that a lot of the recordings they distributed were
actually based on masters that were sampled at 44 or 48 KHz. Higher sample
rate masters simply did not exist.

I understood they have been using 32 bit for some time
now. So it would be 32/96 or 32/192.

Heck, I use 32 bits for mixing, but that's a different issue.

In fact it is practically impossible to create an audio signal from an
acoustical source under the most favorable conditions in a real-world studio
or concert hall that has more than about 13 bits resolution. There are just
too many sources of incidental noise, starting with the musicians
themselves.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message
ups.com
BTW to quote from the above again "Sampling audio
signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the
optimal rate" so it would appear he says the optimal
rate is approx 64kHz. So where does that leave your
44.1kHz which is perfect in your opinion? I believe I
could live with 64/24 CDs quite nicely


64 would put the Nyquist limit at 30 kHz and that IMO
would be a big improvement over CD, and in fact, 96
really is probably enough. The primary point is that 44
is NOT.

Baseless assertions are just cheap shots.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

"TT" wrote in message

From my limited understanding I gained the impression
that 192kHz was losing the 24 bit resolution.

In fact there are no practical converters operating at
any sample rate that would be appropriate for audio,
that also deliver true 24 bit resolution.

None deliver true 24 bit for sure. The reason for 24 bit
converters is to ensure that the bits 'really doing the
work' are accurate. 20 accurate bits is hunky dory.

Older ( 16 bit ) converters typically had serious
non-linearity problems with the bottom few bits which
were clearly audible ( and measurable ).

Actually, some of the older converters had nonlinearity problems at mid
levels and even high levels.

In the early days converters were based on networks of discrete resistors
whose temperature didn't necessarily track perfectly. If they had tracked,
then changes in temperature would results in just a change in over-all scale
factor. But since the discrete resistors might drift separately, there would
missing steps and steps that were too high. These kinds of errors might be
more likely for bits with low absolute magnitude, but they could be at high
levels as well. Monolythic resistor networks intially lacked the required
precision needed for the finest converters.

One of the most common early digital recorders was made by 3M, and had
field-adjustable converters. They were field-adjustable becauase they tended
to drift. If they weren't kept properly adjusted, the results were pretty
predictable. There were missing steps and wrong-sized steps. This is the
recorder of "Bop 'Till You Drop" infamy.

A number of early converters, including the converters in the CDP 101 were
based on 8 bit converters. The converter would do two conversions per
sample. On the first conversion it would be fed the 8 low order bits, and be
attenuated by a factor of 256. The second conversion would be based on the 8
high-order bits, but it would not be attenuated. Both conversions were
stored in a sort of a sample/hold circuit that effectively added them and
held them, and then clocked out the correct voltage when both conversions
were complete. This system had the potential to have larger errors at 256
step intervals.

However, highly effective converters have been available since the first
days of the CD format. In 1972 I worked with a hybrid computer that had 16
bit converters that were accurate down to the LSB and ran at something like
200,000 conversions per second.

So-called Sigma-Delta converters became popular in the early 1990s. They are
inherently incapable of having missing codes or steps that are significantly
outsized or undersized. They manifest their inaccuracies in the form that
seems to be more like random noise. IME these converters have very little
sample-to-sample variation. They are designed to have a certain amount of
resolution, and that's what they all deliver.

[Alan S]

"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. 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. Many people can hear it clearly, especially those of us
that remember 2" tape to vinyl.


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. 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.


. 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 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. 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.


This should tell us something too.
Unless, like Arny, we are quite literally not listening.

Obviously Bret you are listening to what I say, and quite irritated by it.
Too bad you can't rise to the occasion and share some wise words.

The CD was a serious compromise made in the early 80s to
put all of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony on one single-sided
optical disc easily producible at then-current technology
at a diameter a drive accomodating it could fit in a 5
1/4" floppy drive bay. And, in all fairness, it could
have been worse-a lot worse. But to uphold it as the gold
standard is idiocy.

Show us your bias-controlled listening tests that support your claims,
Bret. My friends and I did our homework. We subjected high-quality musical
signals from live performances to 16/44 coding, in one of the finest
studios in the Detroit area, which was under the direction of Robert
Dennis who is still working professionally to this day. We used over a
dozen musicians, audio engineers, and experienced audiophiles as our
listening panel. No distinguishable differences were found.

We now can and should do better. And, we have, if we will but use it.

It is true that I have dozens of channels of converters that are capable
of running at 24/96 and 24/192. I've used them to record music from
broadband sources and compared the results to what happens when the signal
is further downsampled to 16/44. No audible difference for either myself
or my friends.

Anybody with high sample rate converters, who wants to listen to examples
of this issue being played out with broadband musical sounds can do so by
downloading files from
http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in messagenews:abWdnTc2bpSb49XYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comca st.com...



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 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. 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.



When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44 sound as good as
the original 32/96?

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"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 .

[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]

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" wrote:


When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44
sound as good as the original 32/96?


He's doing sighted evaluations. It sounds however he thinks it should sound,
provided it doesn't sound really bad.

[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."

[Alan S]

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

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.

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? Dithering is dithering.

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?

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.

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 ...

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.

I've done it with several different tools, Nuendo, Cubase, Pro-Tools on both
Mac and PC. Interestingly enough some of the better tracks came off an old
Roland VS-880. Must have been a good day.

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.

No, now you are just being nasty. I said nothing about my desires or
perceiving myself as having exceptional hearing. Sound is as subjective as
color. I simply stated that I preferred to record at a higher resolution and
dither down, and that when I play recorded tracks for people, they don't
usually notice the difference. The comparison is between the recording
artist and the listener, not the superior listening man and the peons below
him. Come down here with the rest of us Arny, your ass is showing.

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.

Once again, I am not making it sound like anything, you are taking it a way
of your choice, and not a very nice one at that. I was simply pointing out
that ... and let me clarify this so you don't get all upset .... In my
opinion (this is my opinion Arny whether you agree or not) There is a big
difference between tape, vinyl, cd's and mp3's. Many times in my life I have
taken people into the studio and they have come out and said that they had
never heard music sound like that. These are every day people that do not
work in the audio profession or profess to be audiophiles.

With the level of audio technology available these days there is the
potential for better sounding music (I know, you will stick to your bad ass
cd's) whether that potential will be utilized or not depends on demand. If
everyone is happy with their mp3's, then why change?

That's all I was saying Arny. Relax man. Take a minute, take your nipple
chafing pocket protector out of your pocket, loosen up your shirt, open a
nice cold beer and listen to your favorite cd. It can be a great day!

Oh, and beyond the rhetorical bull****, interesting post.

/technical/sample_rates/index.htm .

[Alan S]

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


On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in
messagenews:abWdnTc2bpSb49XYnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@comca st.com...



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 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. 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.



When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44 sound as good as
the original 32/96?

No, not with the same gear. After mastering it sounds good on the systems
it's played on and at the end of the day, that's all that I really care
about, so it all works out fine in the end.

Bob Stanton

[Alan S]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" wrote:


When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44
sound as good as the original 32/96?


He's doing sighted evaluations. It sounds however he thinks it should
sound, provided it doesn't sound really bad.

Gee Unca Arny, how'd you get that fancy science to teach you to hear through
your eyes? Would that be nearsighted or farsighted evaluations?

[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.

[Arny Krueger]

"Alan S" wrote in message
et
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Nov 1, 12:04 pm, "Alan S" wrote:


When you convert 32/96 down to 16/44, does the 16/44
sound as good as the original 32/96?


He's doing sighted evaluations. It sounds however he
thinks it should sound, provided it doesn't sound really
bad.

Gee Unca Arny, how'd you get that fancy science to teach
you to hear through your eyes? Would that be nearsighted
or farsighted evaluations?

Those would be shortsighted evaluations, with a clear potential for
self-aggrandizement. Feel free to do whatever you need to do to get you
through the day in this regard.

[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.

[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!

[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]

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


snip

End of discussion.

That is your concept of a discussion? It felt more like I was being
attacked for no reason. Very sad display there Arny-poo.

[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

[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]

"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.

[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.