or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded! - Page 231

post #3451 of 3455
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

1. PCM editor would go to show how compressed are commercial recordings ( classical, from premiunm brands, most of the time including audiophile labels ) compared to something that was allowed to be left intact. It would have been visible from across the room !

 

2. I will have to look up for the exact model #, but there is a Neumann mike with noise low enough to be on the same order of magnitude as air molecules impigning on its membrane. It can not get better than that.  It is covered in the Neumann book ( Jubilee X0 years ? ) from approx 5 years or so ago. No, I do not have it or have seen it in flesh so far - but it does exist. This means it has a good chance of exceeding the 96 dB dynamic range. There might be others as well - but I am not familiar with them.

 

2a. Not true in all cases. Certainly not in the one cited. I am aware if and when pushing the level is detrimental to SQ - and act accordingly. It usually has to do with less than optimal analogue stages; ADC and DAC work just fine, only to "highlight" the cost cutting measures of the analogue parts of the recording chain.

 

3. I know VERY well how DSD works. By recording as hot as it goes the CONSTANT ULTRASONIC NOISE FLOOR is kept as low as possible - that much you should understand. Ultimately, it will take DSD256 - or even DSD512 - to allow for > 100 dB S/N up to at least 100 kHz ; with DSD64 and less so, DSD128, the ultrasonic noise can quickly become a problem if the recording level is low(er) than it could be. IIRC, you get 6 dB lower ultrasonic noise floor for each doubling of the sampling frequency, which also starts twice higher in frequency compared to half the sampling rate frequency. It is a tradeoff . Korg recorders I use (with TI ADCs ) are noise -wise decent to approx 50 kHz, then the noise starts going up - regardless if it is DSD or PCM mode(s). With faster DSD ( better processors ) , the need to push levels should get reduced. I am eyeing Mytek Brooklyn ADC ( a recorder ) at the moment; DSD256. But will only go for it if I get a spectral analysis of its actual performance up to at least 100 khz. Last resort is Mytek*s 30 days return policy - but I would prefer to know this important spec/fact in advance.

At least you're actually addressing the points now. Unfortunately we're still only half way there though, because you're addressing them with nonsense. :deadhorse:

 

Let's get this out of the way quickly:

 

1. Audio editors such as Audition cannot measure the amount of compression applied.

2. So that's a "no" then, you don't know any mics which are capable of a dynamic range greater than 16bit. Why then, for a "truthful" recording, do you need more than 16bit when no mic can capture a "truthful" recording with greater than 16bit?

2a. You act accordingly when you become aware that your levels are detrimental? By that time it's already too late! And, if it's due to say analogue stages and not ADC/DAC then it's obviously off-topic!

3. Huh? It's a constant digital noise floor, it doesn't matter how hot your recording is, it won't affect the digital noise floor in any way, it's "CONSTANT"! The rest of your point is nonsense as well because at 100kHz there is nothing but noise! No music mic goes anywhere near 100kHz so even if there were some music content up there (which there isn't) it can't be recorded anyway.

 

It really is quite impressive how you manage to pile nonsense on top of nonsense, apparently ad infinitum. It's quite a skill, even if I were trying deliberately, I don't think I could keep it up for so long and certainly not while maintaining the illusion that I was being serious. And of course it is an illusion right, it's all deliberate? I mean, it's inconceivable that you could be so absolutely wrong about virtually everything and actually believe it all. Even just by chance you'd have to at least occasionally come across some actual facts which you found believable. How is it even possible to ONLY believe nonsense? :confused:

 

G


Edited by gregorio - Today at 2:34 pm
post #3452 of 3455

Just doesn't seem to be an issue for me and the recordings I refer to are mostly coincidence so don't need mono type panning which we don't find as natural. I still seem to get good lateral positioning with good IEMs. I fell like crossfeed just mucks it up more for me than it helps. I get great localization from my jh13s but we are all bit different when it comes to in ears. I agree that I'd always rather hear it on speakers but I don't really think there's a great fix to your need so it comes down to preference and how your brain works the sound. We do have a natural sort of EQ/perspective engine at work where we acclimate. I suspect that certain aspects of that are more prominent in some than others. Psychoacoustics probably doesn't belong here either so I'l just say that for me, that issue falls into the no biggie range and what works for you is the way to go. :beerchug:

 

I don't know if it's timing but I do suspect that's a reasonable possibility. I do prefer the general tempo when I think things are right but I also know that's not the really same thing. May just be noise, tracking, clock or jitter. I really don't know but I do tend to prefer it when the clock is close to the dac and the supply is quiet and stiff.  Stupidly? Only if it's proven to not matter.:wink_face: If you're ever in Chicago. PM me and we'll spend an afternoon having some good spirited fun listening. 

 

I'm really out this time. It genuinely seems I should stay away from this forum, LOL. The invite was sincere. I've got things like quad panels etc that I could pull apart for you and some great kit to hear.

post #3453 of 3455
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregorio View Post
 

At least you're actually addressing the points now. Unfortunately we're still only half way there though, because you're addressing them with nonsense. :deadhorse:

 

Let's get this out of the way quickly:

 

1. Audio editors such as Audition cannot measure the amount of compression applied.

2. So that's a "no" then, you don't know any mics which are capable of a dynamic range greater than 16bit. Why then, for a "truthful" recording, do you need more than 16bit when no mic can capture a "truthful" recording with greater than 16bit?

2a. You act accordingly when you become aware that your levels are detrimental? By that time it's already too late! And, if it's due to say analogue stages and not ADC/DAC then it's obviously off-topic!

3. Huh? It's a constant digital noise floor, it doesn't matter how hot your recording is, it won't affect the digital noise floor in any way, it's "CONSTANT"! The rest of your point is nonsense as well because at 100kHz there is nothing but noise! No music mic goes anywhere near 100kHz so even if there were some music content up there (which there isn't) it can't be recorded anyway.

 

It really is quite impressive how you manage to pile nonsense on top of nonsense, apparently ad infinitum. It's quite a skill, even if I were trying deliberately, I don't think I could keep it up for so long and certainly not while maintaining the illusion that I was being serious. And of course it is an illusion right, it's all deliberate? I mean, it's inconceivable that you could be so absolutely wrong about virtually everything and actually believe it all. Even just by chance you'd have to at least occasionally come across some actual facts which you found believable. How is it even possible to ONLY believe nonsense? :confused:

 

G

Your constant dismisal is equally impressive.

 

How nowhere near 100 kHz goes a music mike you can check here :  

http://www.sanken-mic.com/en/product/product.cfm/3.1000400

 

Not quite so high go some of modified Bruel & Kjaer mikes, otherwise meant for measurements but found to be of low enough noise to be used for music.

 

Up to "only" 50 kHz ( mightily flat .... ) go Eartworks* mikes

http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/qtc-series-2/qtc50/

http://www.earthworksaudio.com/microphones/m-series/m50/

 

I will dig up the EXACT Model/number of that low noise Neumann mike in a day or two - no idea where exactly is the book at the moment, other than it is at my place. Just because I did not instantly provide the model # of the Neumann mike, it does NOT mean it does not exist. Actually, I believe people will ask Neumann more for a "as low noise mike you have in programme" than for "XYZ-561NR ( or whatever might the true mike be called ). And, yes, at self noise around or below 15dB(A), maximum SPL at least 120 dB, that means it has at very least more than 96 dB dynamic range.

 

OK, found something online - interpret it as you wish, a 7dB(A) microphone has dynamic range of 96 dB or more if the source has 103 dB  SPL or more. Therefore, at least one microphone that under entirely realistic conditions exceeds RBCD dynamic range :

http://www.neumann.com/homestudio/en/what-is-self-noise-or-equivalent-noise-level

 

Has it ever occured to you that somebody else might actually be right in his/hers claims - regardless how ludicrous they might appear to you at first ? 

post #3454 of 3455
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodvibes View Post
 

 You can disagree but your assumptions of my experience are completely erroneous. 

 

Tried dozens of USB DACs including DAVE and DCS via asio or wasapi and Wavelab, Foobar, J River and some Hi-End memory buffer type players. Found Wavelab setup correctly sounds the best to me though not really friendly as a library player. None sounded as good via USB as they did with a Firewire interface of a Weiss INT 202 or Konnekt interface (either linear supplied)(Dave wouldn't interface with the Weiss for some reason but we didn't troubleshoot very long. Those don't sound as good as what I can get streaming from a selected dedicated server and steamer. I'm plenty experienced so chill. I work with an award winning recording engineer and constantly hear transfers of both analog and digital sources and have been at the venues during the process. Not our main thing of which includes some tech repair. Mostly simple mic'd 2 track acoustic recordings in real space. We are always trying to improve the PC interface to have a better presentation when editing. Quality or price of equipment isn't an issue. Difficult to prove audibility on the interwebs. Measurements are always lacking IMO. Never told me much about the sound of anything. That we can disagree on and perhaps it's the bridge you can never cross but in a science forum, I think it would be better to find out why something exists that to simple dismiss its existence because it cannot be explained to your satisfaction. That existence is based on experience as you stated and ours are obviously different. I can't change you mind without a demonstrations so perhaps we could agree to disagree but I suspect you can't accept that. I truly believe you are as misguided as you think I am.

 

I know how this goes, you don't accept anything by anyone that doesn't want to play by your specific rules and continue to attack to get someone defending himself when it shouldn't be part of a discussion. I'm out. Have at it and remember that when you stick your head in the sand, those ears need a good cleaning.


This highlights why you are getting a poor reception here.  You tell me of all the high dollar gear you have tried.  All the hands on experience.  As if that amounts to credentials to your views. Well in this forum that is not much of a benefit in convincing people.  In this forum we prefer for some careful testing with unsighted listening, or some measurements of the pertinent signals or some explanation that fits with how things work electrically, perceptibly and psychologically.  You offer that if we drop by you could play your system for us and that is going to illustrate your views and perhaps convince us of your opinions about things.  Sorry, that is the conventional audiophile approach, and not one that holds much sway in the Sound Science forum.

 

I listen to electrostat panel speakers and might describe the sound as fast, quick, catches transients.  Yet I would understand transient ability and actual physical speed is not the reason for what I am hearing. You listen to CD and say the timing sounds insufficient (without fleshing out why you say that) and want to proceed as if you have solid data that CD has insufficient timing. Sorry, we know that isn't the case.  Though you may be hearing something real the timing isn't the problem.  Jumping to other formats at higher sample rates from the influence of marketing and saying timing is better is not convincing in this forum either.  Yes we have different rules to play by which is the whole reason for this forum separate from the others.

 

You say measurements are always lacking in your opinion and expect to get a great reception based upon such a premise in this sub-forum?  Really, your feelings are hurt and it is our fault?

 

You say USB is lacking, yet asyncrhonous USB lets the clock sitting right at the DAC to do the clocking.  This is the lowest jitter, best timing possible for playback and you dislike it.  Maybe what you think is timing isn't timing at all.  Yes, measurements are for real and do show this to be the case.  If your ears say one thing and the timing of the DAC says another your ears aren't going to be believed as an accurate measurement of timing. 

 

Sorry, but the problem isn't a lack of open mindedness on this forum, it is you insisting on an ears first primacy which according to science has been shown to be false.

post #3455 of 3455

One more because it was my error.

I wasn't trying to convince anyone and just relaying my thoughts. The list of kit and credentials was a mistaken response to this.

 

"You really need to get better sources for technical subjects."

 

I now understand that you meant written sources as opposed to listening sources so my response was not to the point you intended. Apologies. Just trying to show I'm not a novice in reply to inexperience which was not your intent but really, I think anyone can hear these things when presented properly so feel free to ignore it and to all the agnostics here:

 

Have a great holiday!:beerchug:


Edited by goodvibes - Today at 3:55 pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › 24bit vs 16bit, the myth exploded!