• 08-01-2004, 06:39 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lumiere


    You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.
  • 08-01-2004, 06:40 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hifitommy
    good work. no waste of verbiage.

    When you have nothing to say, he is smart enough not to waste on on BS, myth, voodoo.
  • 08-01-2004, 06:44 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SteveW
    Bullseye!!!!

    Let me add - "recording practices" = Engineering.

    Poor engineering = poor sound

    Good engineering = good sound.

    I see compression discussed so many times as an "evil" or negative side effect to the recording process.

    Far from the truth.

    Compression can be a positive attribute in virtually every case. It's simply the APPLICATION of the process of compression that somethimes could have been better.

    When dealing with recorded or LIVE sound, compression is used almost universally - not only to deal with shortcomings in the dynamic range of equipment but to add to the overall output.

    Want to hear uncompressed and reinforced live sound? Go to a beer bar or low end club and watch a local garage band playing through a Peavy PA mixing head - when operated properly, fair to good results can be obtained and when operated incorrectly (overloaded) the results are horrible sounding.

    Virtually any live reinforced musical "Event" will use a degree of compression somewhere in the overall mix - much the same as the boys in the studio. After all, a reinforcement sound system also has limitations and can be overloaded. Compression is what allows the vocals to cut through the music and not tear your head off.

    Compression is a tool and should be considered as an integral part of sound engineering. Any discussion of "Compression" should be a sub part of the larger topic of "Engineering".

    With ALL recorded sound and most live sound - what you hear is the as much a result of the engineer as the artist.

    Yet, some classical productions approach 70dB dynamic range on CD. I guess you just need a good recording engineer not producing for a radio station or the average joe.
    But, that still doesn't settle the issue of hi res discs as it is not the medium that has a shortcoming.
  • 08-01-2004, 07:23 PM
    lumiere
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.

    Sorry, God, I forgot to consult you first :( . Then again, your existence hasn't been proved with DBTs.
  • 08-01-2004, 08:25 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    When you have nothing to say, he is smart enough not to waste on on BS, myth, voodoo.

    And when you have nothing new to add, just keep churning the tired myth and voodoo cliches. Been a while since you brought up psychics and UFOs, maybe you should try those instead if all you're looking to accomplish is spin inneuendo over and over.
  • 08-01-2004, 08:32 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You need a better source for audio facts than soundstage, a joker.

    I guess that the NRC measurements that they use in their product reviews are a joke too. Once again, judging a book by its cover. Maybe one of these days, you'll progress onto Cliffs Notes.
  • 08-01-2004, 09:05 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    I guess that the NRC measurements that they use in their product reviews are a joke too. Once again, judging a book by its cover. Maybe one of these days, you'll progress onto Cliffs Notes.


    Now why would they fudge those measurements? No different from Stereopile measuring and publishing such data. It all boils down to their subjective BS, hype, voodoo, that is the problem, just like the time soundstage so fondly endorsed the Belt rainbow foil. No NRC measurements there to publish though, right?
  • 08-01-2004, 09:09 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Woochifer
    And when you have nothing new to add, just keep churning the tired myth and voodoo cliches. Been a while since you brought up psychics and UFOs, maybe you should try those instead if all you're looking to accomplish is spin inneuendo over and over.


    Yep, you guys keep expecting 4+4 to have a new answer ever day? Every person?
    Oh, yes, psychics have different answers, don't they?
    Stick to what you know and is a safe bet.
  • 08-01-2004, 09:10 PM
    Dual-500
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Yet, some classical productions approach 70dB dynamic range on CD. I guess you just need a good recording engineer not producing for a radio station or the average joe.
    But, that still doesn't settle the issue of hi res discs as it is not the medium that has a shortcoming.

    That is true - my comments were on a side discussion regarding compression in general and it's place/use in the audio chain.

    SACD is a more capable medium for audio. All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

    With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.
  • 08-01-2004, 09:13 PM
    mtrycraft

    SACD is a more capable medium for audio.


    Because?

    All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

    And you know this because? If that engineer cannot use the 96dB dynamic range of a CD, how in the world he will use more? LOL, too funny.
    Resolution? To do what? Even further exceed the hearing capacity of humans?


    With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.

    Really? Or, is that just the speculated guesses ?
    Or, there is some evidence after all?
  • 08-01-2004, 09:25 PM
    Dual-500
    Read the Red Book specification (CDA) and then compare to the Scarlet Book specification (SACD).

    Do you know the difference between film and VHS video or DVD in terms of color, texture, contrast and resolution?

    To argue this is pointless.
  • 08-01-2004, 09:31 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SteveW
    Read the Red Book specification (CDA) and then compare to the Scarlet Book specification (SACD).

    Do you know the difference between film and VHS video or DVD in terms of color, texture, contrast and resolution?

    To argue this is pointless.


    Ah, your comparison is so straw man, not even close. Please, try something that is relevant to compare it.

    Besides the numbers, what impresses you about SACD? Oh, perhaps that there is no component that can do 24 bit resolution? that you cannot hear ultrasonic information? that the recording engineers are not even filling the capability of the Red Book CD?

    You are rtight, it is poinless as you don't have any evidence that someone can hear ultrasonic, or, any recording is pressed better that 16 bit dynamic range? LOL. too funny, again.
  • 08-01-2004, 09:47 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SteveW
    That is true - my comments were on a side discussion regarding compression in general and it's place/use in the audio chain.

    SACD is a more capable medium for audio. All things equal, having SACD offers the engineer more latitude both in terms of resolution and dynamics.

    With SACD the engineer has a wider, richer, more dymanic palette to work with.

    Based on the several examinatinos of the avaiable technologies for recording, I can not conclude SACD is offering anything of benefit. PCM format is the main basis of most digital audio technology in recording studios, or so it seems. It is not compatilbel with DSD(SACD). Requiring redundant DSD equipment along with high-res PCM equipment is not cost effective, especially consideirng it has not been proven to be superior to PCM systems in practical recording/mastering situations that I am aware(please correct me if you aware of some DSD specific proven advantage(s)). Why should DSD replace PCM, which is already established, versatile and understood by the majority? The main advantages for recording in my perspective for both SACD and hi-res PCM are a wider tolerance for recording levels without risk of clipping. The levels are then adjusted to fit within the 16 bit space of RBCD later when mastering. But, since most work has less then 20dB of average range in it's released form...or many modern POP music having less then 10dB of average dynamic range...the CD format has magnitudes greater dynamic range then needed for most music. However, RBCD has more then adequate S:N ratio for playback when properly dithered even with uncompressed classical music in almost all circumstances; provided the amplifiers and speakers can support these levels(rare). An average quiet room is approx. 35dB. In order to resolve 96dB of CD to it's full potential above this noisfloor, a SPL of 131 dB would be required, starting -96 at the noisefloor. In reality, the noisefloor of RBCD is used well under the ambient room noise floor since most amp/speaker combinations struggle to do little over 100dB at the listening position without gross distortion levels. As for bandwidth resolution; in recording it 'may' be beneficial in some cases to capture at a high resolution so that the downsample to RBCD can have a customized(potentially) anti-alias filter performed with software/hardware. If captured at the old 48kHz standard, the flexibility in later signficnat modification of the anti-alias filter is not possible. FOr purposes of plaback; I can not still not find any conclusions supporting that bandwidth exceeding that of RBCD is audibly signficant.


    -Chris
  • 08-02-2004, 11:34 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    Based on the several examinatinos of the avaiable technologies for recording, I can not conclude SACD is offering anything of benefit.

    Have you ever WORKED with DSD? Better yet, have you even recorded anything? No you haven't, so you don't know what benefits it brings to the engineer. You have not even heard it, so what basis can you make any conclusions. There you have it ladies and gents, the professional opinion of somebody who has never recorded, mix, mastered, or for that matter even heard SACD.

    Quote:

    PCM format is the main basis of most digital audio technology in recording studios, or so it seems. It is not compatilbel with DSD(SACD). Requiring redundant DSD equipment along with high-res PCM equipment is not cost effective, especially consideirng it has not been proven to be superior to PCM systems in practical recording/mastering situations that I am aware(please correct me if you aware of some DSD specific proven advantage(s))
    Analog used to be the main basis for recording and storage, it however got replaced by digital. Studio's decide themselves if it is cost effective for them to have both, not some guy posting on a amateur audio board, and certainly not a non engineer or studio owner. The advantages or disadvantages are soley decided on by the purchaser of the equipment. It has been seen as an advantage to someone, because almost every major record label is producing DSD recordings.

    Quote:

    . Why should DSD replace PCM, which is already established, versatile and understood by the majority?
    Well its really up to the engineers isn't it. And many of the top grammy award winning engineers choose(or have already chosen) DSD. So who was this question for, engineers, or the average consumer?


    Quote:

    The main advantages for recording in my perspective for both SACD and hi-res PCM are a wider tolerance for recording levels without risk of clipping.
    What perspective? You never even heard it!!!!. You have never recorded, mixed, or mastered in it as well. I would say your perspective is lacking quite a bit. Music formats are for listening to, not reading about.

    From a recording end, that is a huge advantage. Other advantages would be capturing ALL of the fundemental and harmonic textures, improved imaging, and better resolution of fine details. Also, less eq, less processing, no dither, no downsampling, and no downconversion. In other words no bandaids.

    Quote:

    The levels are then adjusted to fit within the 16 bit space of RBCD later when mastering.
    There is more than that going on. It has to be compressed, heavily equalized(remember you are downmixing many microphone inputs into only two channels, levels and frequencies must be balanced) downconverted, downsampled, dithered and then passed on to CD. Like Michael Bishop told you, redbook is hardly pristine when it arrives on the disc itself.


    Quote:

    But, since most work has less then 20dB of average range in it's released form...or many modern POP music having less then 10dB of average dynamic range...the CD format has magnitudes greater dynamic range then needed for most music.
    You are looking at this from purely theoritical terms. Hardly reality on the real world. Quite a bit of classical music(and some jazz) have more than 20db average dynamic range, you are correct about pop(but that is not my forte anyway). The CD may have the necessary dynamic range, but how does redbook stack up against the master tape? That is the question, and why redbook is not good enough. It doesn't stack up very well in my(hands on) experience. If it did, then I( and many others) would not have invested in DSD technology or 24/96/192khz. Sometime statistics and specifications alone do not tell the whole story.

    Quote:

    However, RBCD has more then adequate S:N ratio for playback when properly dithered even with uncompressed classical music in almost all circumstances; provided the amplifiers and speakers can support these levels(rare).
    But you have conviently skipped what Michael has told you. No amount of dither will(in reality using real world equipment not theory) repair the damage of downconverting the audio. Also dither in most DAW software is all over the place in terms of quality. Unless the audio engineer is VERY careful, the dither he uses can cover the low level detail he(or she) is trying to flesh out. This is not needed at all when you record at 24 bits, mix and master at 24bit, and release to format at 24 bits unfortunately you can't do this with redbook



    Quote:

    An average quiet room is approx. 35dB.
    Where did you get this figure from? Can your provide studies that make this a fact, and not a number you pulled out of your bum? I have installed hundreds of hometheaters and custom listening rooms, and not one of them even approached 35db background noise before extensive structural work had been done. Most people do not have the infrastructure that lends to such a low background level. Do you want to try this again?




    Quote:

    In order to resolve 96dB of CD to it's full potential above this noisfloor, a SPL of 131 dB would be required, starting -96 at the noisefloor. In reality, the noisefloor of RBCD is used well under the ambient room noise floor since most amp/speaker combinations struggle to do little over 100dB at the listening position without gross distortion levels
    Yes, but this tells nothing about the sound quality when compared to the high rez digital or analog source. The whole story is not be told when simply quoting specifications. That would assume that everything else is perfect, and it is not.





    Quote:

    . As for bandwidth resolution; in recording it 'may' be beneficial in some cases to capture at a high resolution so that the downsample to RBCD can have a customized(potentially) anti-alias filter performed with software/hardware.
    Few audio engineers would agree with your inexperienced assumptions. Why bother to capture at high resolution only to have some of that thrown away to a lesser format. Any engineer worth his salt would tell that if your product was headed for the redbook format, it is better to record, mix and master at 44.1khz, because you gain nothing by working at any higher sampling rate than that. If you want to archive at a higher resolution, that's a different animal altogether. The redbook standard does not allow "customizing " of the anti aliasing filters, and no software I know of can do such a thing. Redbook standard REQUIRES that you filter above 22,050khz or aliasing will occur. So there isn't anything to customize.

    Quote:

    If captured at the old 48kHz standard, the flexibility in later signficnat modification of the anti-alias filter is not possible. FOr purposes of plaback; I can not still not find any conclusions supporting that bandwidth exceeding that of RBCD is audibly signficant.

    -Chris
    48khz is not a "standard" for redbook CD or high rez. The "standard" is 44.1khz. For DVD-A the "standard" would be 24/96khz, not 48khz. DVD-V has the only standard based on 48khz sampling rate. I do not know of anybody who would use 48khz as a "standard" for recording in either high rez, or redbook.
  • 08-02-2004, 11:38 AM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SteveW
    Read the Red Book specification (CDA) and then compare to the Scarlet Book specification (SACD).

    Do you know the difference between film and VHS video or DVD in terms of color, texture, contrast and resolution?

    To argue this is pointless.

    Steve, no use in trying to convince these two individuals of anything. Neither have even heard SACD, let alone comment about sound quality.
  • 08-02-2004, 12:26 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Yep, you guys keep expecting 4+4 to have a new answer ever day? Every person?

    Right on cue, talking in circles and bringing irrelevant tangents into the discussion. Do you ever say anything, or is every reply just another riddle?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Oh, yes, psychics have different answers, don't they?

    At least they come up with answers (whether or not they have value is another question). Endless questions and inneuendo seem good enough for you.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Stick to what you know and is a safe bet.

    Obviously, you've done just that. The only time you deviated and actually made an assertion, turned out that all you could provide was spurious drivel. So, I will agree, stick to what you know -- conjuring up repetitive inneuendo and spinning questions -- since it's obvious you can't contribute anything else.
  • 08-02-2004, 12:31 PM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Now why would they fudge those measurements? No different from Stereopile measuring and publishing such data. It all boils down to their subjective BS, hype, voodoo, that is the problem, just like the time soundstage so fondly endorsed the Belt rainbow foil. No NRC measurements there to publish though, right?

    Just another straw man argument from you. I was responding to your generalized blanket statement about Soundstage, not the article in question. So tell me again, how the NRC measurements make them "a joker"? Glad to see though that the word "hype" has now entered your ever expanding vocabulary, but I guess you're still having a difficult time letting go of "voodoo."
  • 08-02-2004, 06:41 PM
    WmAx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the TerribleHave
    you ever WORKED with DSD? Better yet, have you even recorded anything? No you haven't, so you don't know what benefits it brings to the engineer. You have not even heard it, so what basis can you make any conclusions.

    I asked for substantiation that DSD is beneficial compared to PCM. Have any?

    Quote:

    It has been seen as an advantage to someone, because almost every major record label is producing DSD recordings.
    A technical advantage? A marketing advantage? I am prepared to accept the later.


    Quote:

    Well its really up to the engineers isn't it. And many of the top grammy award winning engineers choose(or have already chosen) DSD. So who was this question for, engineers, or the average consumer?
    For anyone who can substantiate their answer(s).

    Quote:

    What perspective? You never even heard it!!!!. You have never recorded, mixed, or mastered in it as well. I would say your perspective is lacking quite a bit. Music formats are for listening to, not reading about.
    Irrelevant what I have or not have heard. This is about substantiating, not speculating.

    Quote:

    From a recording end, that is a huge advantage. Other advantages would be capturing ALL of the fundemental and harmonic textures, improved imaging, and better resolution of fine details. Also, less eq, less processing, no dither, no downsampling, and no downconversion. In other words no bandaids.
    I never made an assertion that hi-resoluiotn was not beneficial from the recording end.


    Quote:

    The CD may have the necessary dynamic range, but how does redbook stack up against the master tape?
    Master tape? I could not find reference to studio analogue tape that was measured at more then an approximate 75dB S:N ratio range. At the upper limits of this range, THD rapidly increased to single digit values. Actually, at around the -17dB range, I see most being specced at about 3% THD. I am not sure what it ultimately rises to at the upper level(near 0). These are based on the manufacturer specs I have seen on analogu studio tape. If you have references with signficantly better specifications I would be glad to see these. According to the specifications published, the mater tape will audibly color recorded material by a subtle margin, audibly, when correlated with established perceptual thresholds of distortion. Perhaps their is analogue tape exists that does not audibly color a recording. Please specify one if it exists. Either way, analogue tape I can not conclude is a transparent method for recording in any normal studio situation.

    Quote:

    But you have conviently skipped what Michael has told you.
    Mr. Bishop did not substantiate his statements concerning RBCD and it's supposed audible inferior quality. I have to disregard.

    Quote:

    No amount of dither will(in reality using real world equipment not theory) repair the damage of downconverting the audio
    Damage? Do you mean audibly? Please specify how a properly downconverted/sampled file will be audibly damaged. Citations?

    Quote:

    Also dither in most DAW software is all over the place in terms of quality. Unless the audio engineer is VERY careful, the dither he uses can cover the low level detail he(or she) is trying to flesh out.
    I agree. High quality dithering algorythem needs to be used. But when one of good quality is used, what is the problem?


    Quote:

    Where did you get this figure from? Can your provide studies that make this a fact, and not a number you pulled out of your bum? I have installed hundreds of hometheaters and custom listening rooms, and not one of them even approached 35db background noise before extensive structural work had been done.
    Actually, I was quoting a figure that is worst case scenario for RBCD, and assuming a quiet(as in a quiet interior room out in the middle of the country away from public road, or specially built, etc.). The average room, I do not cosider quiet by any means. However, the quieter a room the less ideal RBCD would be, that is why I quoated a lowball figure. For example, let's say someone had a room with 10dB noise floor(virtually impossible), then the 96dB range of RBCD would not be ideal in some cases, theoretically.


    Quote:

    The redbook standard does not allow "customizing " of the anti aliasing filters, and no software I know of can do such a thing. Redbook standard REQUIRES that you filter above 22,050khz or aliasing will occur. So there isn't anything to customize.
    As I sated, 'potentially'. THe software applies a preset filter, but the curve of this filter can be customized, theoretically. Because no current software allows a custome curve does not equal 'not technically possible'. This is what I was referring. Two anti-alias filters are implemtned in digital audio. One at the stage of recording(or software downsampling) and one upon playback(in the D-A stage of the player).


    Quote:

    48khz is not a "standard" for redbook CD or high rez.
    As I sated, 48Khz was the OLD/PREVIOUS professional standard. I did not state it was a current standard. It was chosen and used due to it's integer relation to multiple end use samling rates and it's easy resampling to those rates. Refer to: Letters To The Editor, AES Journal, July/August 1978, Volume 26, Number 7/8, page 562

    Are you the one accusing some people of failure to read in prior posts? Perhaps you should learn to read the stuff before replying before accusing others. Your accusation of me 'pullilng something out of my bum' is hilarious, too. Your the one with the many speculations and testimonials but no substantion(s). If I did make an error or two, that would be me being guilty of being human. One only need point out my error. You on the other hand continously talk and talk about nothing more then your speculations. My thread is only concerned about substaniatable issues in regards to hi-resolution audibility and the like, not what someone thinks or has concluded based on a test done with poor protocol/methodology/no scrutiny.

    -Chris
  • 08-02-2004, 08:03 PM
    mtrycraft
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Steve, no use in trying to convince these two individuals of anything. Neither have even heard SACD, let alone comment about sound quality.


    You mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with his analogy witht he VHS tape and audio? I hope you are smarter than that, If you don't, that would explain a lot too.
  • 08-03-2004, 10:03 AM
    Woochifer
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with his analogy witht he VHS tape and audio? I hope you are smarter than that, If you don't, that would explain a lot too.

    Once again, I see that you've resorted to talking in circular riddles that have no bearing to Terrence's reply whatsoever. So what do YOU see that's wrong with the analogy? Rather than spin the question, offer up something substantive for a change. Asking someone else to bail you out when you can't offer up a substantive reply of your own doesn't speak too well for your level of know how either. I thought you were smarter than that, but then that might be just as illusory as the voodoo and myths that you seem to obsess over.
  • 08-03-2004, 02:22 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by WmAx
    I asked for substantiation that DSD is beneficial compared to PCM. Have any?

    You and I both know this answer is lame as hell. You made a statement, better yet, an authoritive statement as if you have been WORKING with DSD. The fact that you made this statement and have never heard DSD kills you credibility on the issue entirely. The reason the top audio engineers prefer DSD is because it sounds more "analog" like than PCM. Even 24/96khz has a "digital" edge to its sound. How in the heck does one make the statements you do without even HEARING anything? This doesn't show any intelligence whatsoever, just the same spin Mtry put on. Are you guys the same person?

    Quote:

    A technical advantage? A marketing advantage? I am prepared to accept the later.
    I guess someone who has never heard it is prepared to accept anything. I call it the not so educated guess


    Quote:

    For anyone who can substantiate their answer(s).
    Come on Chris, no one owes you any answers. Beside, how would you know if they are wrong or right, you have never recorded, mixed or mastered ANYTHING let alone in DSD.

    Quote:

    Irrelevant what I have or not have heard. This is about substantiating, not speculating.
    Since you have never heard it, then everything you say is speculation when it comes to DSD. All you are basing your opinions on is specifications. If you looked at specifications alone, Sony's film codec SDDS looks great, but if performs poorly in the field. That is the danger of looking at stat's alone. These formats are for the ears, not the eyes. Unless you buy into Mtry way of listening to music, with the eyes.

    Quote:

    I never made an assertion that hi-resoluiotn was not beneficial from the recording end.
    If it is beneficial from the recording end, what makes it less beneficial from the reproduction end.? If you stick with hi rez from the front of the process to the end, there is no need for downsampling, downconverting, dither, steep slope anti aliasing filters, less need for compression, less eq, and less post processing. How is this a bad thing?


    Quote:

    Master tape? I could not find reference to studio analogue tape that was measured at more then an approximate 75dB S:N ratio range.
    Are you referring to 1/2" 1" or 2" magnetic tape? 2" does considerable better than that. And when you add noise reduction, it does WAY better than that.

    Quote:

    At the upper limits of this range, THD rapidly increased to single digit values. Actually, at around the -17dB range, I see most being specced at about 3% THD. I am not sure what it ultimately rises to at the upper level(near 0). These are based on the manufacturer specs I have seen on analogu studio tape. If you have references with signficantly better specifications I would be glad to see these. According to the specifications published, the mater tape will audibly color recorded material by a subtle margin, audibly, when correlated with established perceptual thresholds of distortion. Perhaps their is analogue tape exists that does not audibly color a recording. Please specify one if it exists. Either way, analogue tape I can not conclude is a transparent method for recording in any normal studio situation.
    Meaningless. You have not stated what size tape you describe as having these specs, and you are quoting specs from a unknown manufacturer. How is this helpful??? More rhetorical bull.

    I have a heavily modified Studer A 827 that is configurable from 2 to 24 tracks. 2" tape with only two tracks and Dolby SR yields a dynamic range of about 110db which is considerably better than the 96db redbook offers. It uses direct drive technology so wow and flutter are almost unmeasureable and definately inaudible. With the modified head unit I can record signals up to 40-50khz without any audible distortion. I have used Ampex 2" metal oxide tape and it doesn't measure in any way as you describe. As a matter of fact I know of no tape currently in use that has the characteristic you mention.

    Perhaps you need to read what Bob Katz(someone you quoted from as word) on this issue

    http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule...er_page_id=37/

    Quote:

    Mr. Bishop did not substantiate his statements concerning RBCD and it's supposed audible inferior quality. I have to disregard.
    How could he have, it would require you to listen with your ears. You listen with your eyes, so it is impossible to substantiate anything in audio with your approach until it changes.

    Quote:

    Damage? Do you mean audibly? Please specify how a properly downconverted/sampled file will be audibly damaged. Citations?
    A file downcoverted from 24/88.2 to 16/44.1khz will not have the dynamic range of the original even with dither. A file downsampled from 88.2khz to 44.1khz will make instruments with high frequency harmonics sound very different than the original(especially muted brass, cymbals, glocks, chimes, triangles). If you hearing is not terribly damaged, hearing this is not that difficult. But it requires that you listen, and not read.

    Quote:

    I agree. High quality dithering algorythem needs to be used. But when one of good quality is used, what is the problem?
    If you had any studio experience whatsoever you would find that 80% of the time good dither is NOT used. And that is the problem. Even if good dither is used, it cannot make 16 bits behave like 24 bits, even on a good day.


    Quote:

    Actually, I was quoting a figure that is worst case scenario for RBCD, and assuming a quiet(as in a quiet interior room out in the middle of the country away from public road, or specially built, etc.).
    You are skewing and fudging to bolster your point. Not in good form. Just how many people live in the above conditions? Rediculous, plain rediculous. You ARE pulling this from your bum

    Quote:

    The average room, I do not cosider quiet by any means. However, the quieter a room the less ideal RBCD would be, that is why I quoated a lowball figure. For example, let's say someone had a room with 10dB noise floor(virtually impossible), then the 96dB range of RBCD would not be ideal in some cases, theoretically.
    I do not think the arguement is dynamic range. Its how redbook sonically compares to a 24/176.8khz master. It not about spec, its how it sounds. I say this for the hundreth time. And you comment on my reading skills!!!!


    Quote:

    As I sated, 'potentially'. THe software applies a preset filter, but the curve of this filter can be customized, theoretically.
    You cannot create a customized curve on a redbook CD period. The filter must cutoff all frequencies above 22,050khz period. Either the player oversamples and a gentle filter can be used, or you must use a brickwall filter to do the job. You CANNOT customize anything from the recording end period!!! So there is no potential for anything.



    Quote:

    Because no current software allows a custome curve does not equal 'not technically possible'. This is what I was referring. Two anti-alias filters are implemtned in digital audio. One at the stage of recording(or software downsampling) and one upon playback(in the D-A stage of the player).
    Because no current studies have proven conclusively that increased bandwidth is the reason that 24/96khz sounds better than redbook CD, doesn't mean that it doesn't. You are attempting to play this from both sides, and picking and choosing information once again. If we follow the logic you have set forth, then I want to see peer reviewed, published studies that prove customize curves are possible with the redbook format. Absent of that, I will chalk this statement up to wishful thinking.

    Why does one need two anti alias filters? Why advocate more processing in the audio chain? So let me get this straight, you would downconvert, downsample, dither, and send the signal through two anti aliasing filters??? Are you interested in transparent high quality audio, or just a bunch of signal altering devices??? This is where some recording experience comes in handy, something you don't have. Why apply more bandaids to a format full of them?


    Quote:

    As I sated, 48Khz was the OLD/PREVIOUS professional standard. I did not state it was a current standard. It was chosen and used due to it's integer relation to multiple end use samling rates and it's easy resampling to those rates. Refer to: Letters To The Editor, AES Journal, July/August 1978, Volume 26, Number 7/8, page 562
    I am sorry Chris, but 48khz has NEVER been a standard, EVER!!! What format would 48khz have been associated with may I ask? Other than the DVD-V based formats 48khz has had no relationship with any digital format I know of. Couldn't be redbook standard because that is 44.1. That is the only other digital format we have had in the last 20 years(aside from Dolby Digital, Dts, SDDS) Could this be another pull out of the bum job??
    It is not easy processing to downsample from 48khz to 44.1khz. We know this. That is the reason engineers choose to downsample from 176.4 to 44.1khz, or 88.2khz to 44.1khz. No engineer worth a dime would choose 48khz sample rate to record in when releasing to redbook CD, there is the possibility of amplitude modulation and distortion that can creep in if not carefully done.

    Quote:

    Are you the one accusing some people of failure to read in prior posts? Perhaps you should learn to read the stuff before replying before accusing others. Your accusation of me 'pullilng something out of my bum' is hilarious, too. Your the one with the many speculations and testimonials but no substantion(s). If I did make an error or two, that would be me being guilty of being human. One only need point out my error. You on the other hand continously talk and talk about nothing more then your speculations. My thread is only concerned about substaniatable issues in regards to hi-resolution audibility and the like, not what someone thinks or has concluded based on a test done with poor protocol/methodology/no scrutiny.
    This crap means nothing. You have never recorded, mixed, mastered or even heard hi rez, so nothing you say holds water. You are only going by what you have read from someone elses words and studies, but you have nothing to press that information against. You quote specs left and right, but that has no correlation with sonic QUALITY.
    You are a inexperienced know it all(or think you do) who has no hands on audio experience at all. What the hell do you think you could teach me?

    No one would point out any of your errors if you didn't behave in such a know it all arrogant way. You have no idea how silly you look trying to cover you sorry butt point after point. Your approach to this topic is sophomoric, lacks any profound knowledge of the fundimentals of recording, not much clarity(which makes you respond in circles), shows your inexperience, and lacks the fundimental understanding of how decisions are made in choosing sample rates, compression amounts, or basic studio functions. You are somewhat bookwise, but format and sample foolish. Like Thomas your premise of what makes good audio is full of signal altering conversions, downsamplings, filters and unnecessary processing.
    What might be helpful to you rather than sitting at your computer pretending to know what you are talking about, is to take a trip to a high end studio, and actually listen to what you have been talking about. Otherwise your lack of experience makes any point you attempt to make pointless.
  • 08-03-2004, 03:43 PM
    Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    You mean to tell me that you see nothing wrong with his analogy witht he VHS tape and audio? I hope you are smarter than that, If you don't, that would explain a lot too.

    I am not impressed with veiled insults. I am even less impressed with individuals who make feeble attempts to gain noteriety on a amateur audio forum by opposing every argument, making stupid asinine demands, spinning facts or totally ignoring them to support their position, and arguing just for the sake of it. Get a life Mtry, I have one.
  • 08-03-2004, 04:58 PM
    Dual-500
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    I am not impressed with veiled insults. I am even less impressed with individuals who make feeble attempts to gain noteriety on a amateur audio forum by opposing every argument, making stupid asinine demands, spinning facts or totally ignoring them to support their position, and arguing just for the sake of it. Get a life Mtry, I have one.

    Thanks. I think you understood my point.

    My analogy was to compare film to other types of video medium is similar to a comparison of SACD to other audio medium.

    Then came the distorted rhetoric.

    Oh well - aside from the insults, and personal attacks, this actually is an interesting thread.
  • 08-03-2004, 07:42 PM
    mtrycraft
    My analogy was to compare film to other types of video medium is similar to a comparison of SACD to other audio medium.

    Perhaps you should have compared vinyl to SACD then. Vinyl is about a VHS type audio equivalent.

    Then came the distorted rhetoric.

    No. Then came some further analysis and discussion of your post.
  • 08-03-2004, 08:04 PM
    Dual-500
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    My analogy was to compare film to other types of video medium is similar to a comparison of SACD to other audio medium.

    Perhaps you should have compared vinyl to SACD then. Vinyl is about a VHS type audio equivalent.

    The examples I used for comparison in my analogy are valid and stand as such.

    Try playing a DVD on a screen the size of an average Loews or AMC cinema and tell me how it looks compared to film.