[pinnahertz]

  Early synthesizers were analog computers and ring modulators were four quadrant multipliers. I have an ARP 2600 somewhere in my attic.

And I'll pay for shipping on your 2600 plus $200.

 

[pinnahertz]

   
3. OK, this is way off topic but generally they tend not to "record lower". Location sound guys are usually taught to try and get a peak level of -6dBFS, they could/should easily go much lower still and not affect the noise floor. The mic-pres on industry standard location kit (Sound Devices) are very good but at the standard film reference level (-20dBFS = 0VU) there is no benefit in trying to peak at -6dBFS, -12dB would be better.

I checked with my friend who does location sound, and confirmed the -20dBFS reference, and he meters with PPMs (and true peak).
 
I know and have owned Sound Devices stuff.  Great stuff.  If they use one of the field recorders it's probably fine, but the stand alone mic pres can easily be miscalibrated relative to the system.  Only when all clipping points are aligned in the system do you get maximum DR. 
 
Why would you want max peaks at -12dBFS?  Talking Maximum now, not typical.

 

[pinnahertz]

  I remember when CDs were introduced the slogan for the medium was perfect sound, forever perfect. Now, if that statement was true, then how can todays hi-res be more perfect? I know that I can't distinguish 16/44 from 24/96 so all of these bigger files seem to do nothing more than fill up library space. I remember when digital was just an idea and the idea was that 16/44 was all that was necessary to assure the best possible outcome.

You know what marketing is, right?  The terms "perfect" and "forever" are marketing terms.
 
16/44.1 was chosen because it formatted well within a frame of NTSC video, and video recorders were the affordable solution to recording all that digital audio data.  Soundstream was already doing 16/50.  Limits were in data recording an reproducing, and sampling frequencies were considered to be high enough to capture all the necessary audio, but also it wasn't really possible to go higher initially.  44.1, in particular, caused a problem: the anti-aliasing and reconstruction filters were complex (analog), and pretty radical beasts, hard to make well and cheap.  A lot of fingers were pointed at those filters, even spawning an "upgrade" industry. 

 

[StanD]

  Of course they were.  But we're talking digits here aren't we?  So, the digital realization of a ring modulator.

I was stating that for the historical record. Kind of like making a reference to vinyl.

 

[StanD]

  And I'll pay for shipping on your 2600 plus $200.

Sorry, I'm keeping that for the historical record, along with my Moog Sonic 6. I should've kept a Mini-Moog .I have a Roland SH-32 Midi/Digital simulation of an analog synth, think it lacks a ring modulator.

 

[watchnerd]

  This video will answer all your questions concerning audio from 16bit to 24bit audio...Lot of laughs starting at 20 minute mark.
 

 
This video is so comprehensive, and addresses so many of the points that get continually restated here, that we should make a sticky post at the top of the forum for it.

 

[gzubeck]

   
This video is so comprehensive, and addresses so many of the points that get continually restated here, that we should make a sticky post at the top of the forum for it.

Sounds good to me and here"s the recording engineers website...
 
http://www.realhd-audio.com/?cat=45
 
http://www.aixrecords.com/

 

[Traveller]

This video is so comprehensive, and addresses so many of the points that get continually restated here, that we should make a sticky post at the top of the forum for it.

I watched it from beginning to end - excellent presentation.
 
So my take, as I tried to present in the AptX thread (with little success) is that while I have no problem whatsoever understanding:
1. "garbage in, garbage out"
2. We can't hear above ~20K (and in my case, probably much less than that)
 
I was nevertheless very pleased to hear him state hi-res in, hi-res out:
 
(link goes directly to 29:10)

 
Which is why I am (still) aiming for gear capable of  ~24b96K playback.
 
And no, I doubt I could prove it makes a difference via A/B but when I see the "data" above 20KHz then I feel okay having spent a little more for so-called hi-res playback HW...

 
 

 

 

[watchnerd]

And no, I doubt I could prove it makes a difference via A/B but when I see the "data" above 20KHz then I feel okay having spent a little more for so-called hi-res playback HW...

 
What hi-res playback hardware would that be?

 

[StanD]

   
What hi-res playback hardware would that be?

This is my rig.
 

 

[U-3C]

This is my rig.

XD

 

[Traveller]

 

And no, I doubt I could prove it makes a difference via A/B but when I see the "data" above 20KHz then I feel okay having spent a little more for so-called hi-res playback HW...

 
What hi-res playback hardware would that be?

 
Rats. It's late here... . So Reset.
The answer to your question is listed in my signature.
 
But given that 24b96K DACs are a dime a dozen and even my T5p.2's 5-50KHz specs will not pass muster I'm sure you've managed to make your point with the one question

 

 

[sonitus mirus]

  This is my rig.
 

 
Sweet!  You should be using an Entreq Olympus Tellus ground to really get the most out of your system.  

 

[Brooko]

   
Rats. It's late here... . So Reset.
The answer to your question is listed in my signature.
 
But given that 24b96K DACs are a dime a dozen and even my T5p.2's 5-50KHz specs will not pass muster I'm sure you've managed to make your point with the one question

 

 
Personally I find it refreshing to see someone acknowledges that there is no real audible difference - but acknowledges that they can feel better listening to 24/96.  That's simply humanity at work. Everyone knows I try to be as objective as possible.  I know that aac256 is pretty much transparent - so I use it pretty much exclusively for portable use.  But if I'm home, I use FLAC, and I even sometimes upsample to DSD (even though I know from an audible point of view it isn't making things any better - actually could be worse).  But it lights the little blue light on my iDSD - and sometimes it just sounds better to me with the little light on.  Pure placebo - but if it makes me happy, and doesn't hurt anyone - then why not?
 
If only more people would do the proper research, and be open to the science, we could demystify it a lot.  Then the claims that one res is audibly better than the other would stop.  And we could be left with personal preference - and a lot less debates 

 
As per usual though - the quality is in the mastering/recording.  I had a listen to some of Mark's catalogue.  They are indeed excellent quality.  My thanks to gzubeck for posting the video - more music for me to explore.  Fun!

 

[StanD]

  This is my rig.
 

 
 

   
Sweet!  You should be using an Entreq Olympus Tellus ground to really get the most out of your system.  

I'm trying to work in a Tesla Coil and a Jacob's Ladder but I think that might result in too much RFI.