Steven let's please not start the ludicrous lecture game here again. We all know what sample rates are and the amount of bits used.
I think you misunderstood my English, English. There is a full stop after 192 and I am concurring with the previous contributors that more bits, for the ones amongst us that can hear it, gives better realism. i.e. it sounds more natural
I think you misunderstood my English, English. There is a full stop after 192 and I am concurring with the previous contributors that more bits, for the ones amongst us that can hear it, gives better realism. i.e. it sounds more natural
And we all know what some of us (proved in tests) believe we can hear.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
192 and 48 refer to sample rates, not bits.
More bits means, in practice, more dynamic range/headroom. But every system in the real world has noise, so using more bits does not get you more and more 'realism' indefinitely, because infinite dynamic range does not exist in the real world (nor do human ears possess it). In practice, 16bits gives you 96 dB of dynamic range, and more than that if dither and noise shaping are used. As long as the signal is not recorded at a level that leads to clipping, recording digitally at 16 vs 24 bits shouldn't give an audible difference except perhaps if you play the very faintest part of a fadeout, very loudly -- a level you would never normally use for listening. (I'm talking about a simple digital recording here...there are technical reasons for using 24 or 32 bits throughout a complex recording/production chain, but that's to preventing artifacts accumulated by heavy digital processing from becoming audible.)
Also, while the audible effects of 192/24 vs 44/16 are questionable, expectation bias and other forms of psychological bias effects are quite real. So real that you can't get a scientific paper about hearing published in a reputable place, unless you account for them.
-S.
On 06/03/13 06:43, Lokkerman wrote:
I've been away so not been in this discussion. I've always found that on genuine studio masters, transferred form my own reel to reel tapes that the bass is much richer with 192. Certainly more bits means more realism.I'm never quite certain about HDtracks; get yourself a copy of this: http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/ it's free but it's great to compare sources. Lots of King Crimson stuff are 48k; some recordings are anomalous; such as "Like a Virgin" in 192k. This was one of the first true digital DDD recordings (Google it), we could do with a library that shows a sonic visualiser window for each recording.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Riky <rjdodani@gmail.com> wrote:
100% agree w/highlander :)
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 8:00 PM, RW <rlwainwright@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally agree with Highlander, I hear more improvement from the additional bit depth than I do from higher sampling rates. And I have found 24bit/48k to sound very, very good when properly done...
-RW-
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 6:20:49 PM UTC-4, Highlander wrote:My personal stance on this issue is that 16bit to 24bit has more of a noticeable improvement than the high sampling rates, like 192k. I don't mind HDtracks 24-96k downloads though, if the recordings are properly remastered. But, many of their offerings are questionable. In the end, I think 24-96k is fine for most acoustic music, like jazz, folk and classical. But, for many rock or popular music recordings, I think 24-48k works very well and sounds really good to my ears. Regarding file space, roughly speaking, a thirty minute 24-192k file we be slightly over a gig...where as a thirty minute 24-48k file will be around 350MB. With all this said though, I think capturing music and working on it in the digital domain, with high sampling rates, is generally a good idea. I just think offering 192k stereo recordings is overkill for most listeners and is a way to charge more money. I say all this listening on Krell amps with Thiel speakers, along with AKG headphones. In the end, all that matters is what we personally like to our ears at any given moment.
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:22:32 PM UTC-4, Dale wrote:This should get the conversations flowing again! Although I know this territory was covered recently, this article may not have been read by some.
http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to surroundsound+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No comments:
Post a Comment