[dazzerfong]

  Of course not - but what highs is there, gets recorded with reduced amplitude and delayed in time - smearing the original.

This is getting into the recording side of business. No-one's fussed about the recording being greater than Red Book: we're talking about the product that comes to our hands now. Only an idiot would claim that recording in 44/16 is enough for production. That's not what we're talking about here though.

 

[analogsurviver]

  This is getting into the recording side of business. No-one's fussed about the recording being greater than Red Book: we're talking about the product that comes to our hands now. Only an idiot would claim that recording in 44/16 is enough for production. That's not what we're talking about here though.

No.
 
It has the same effect if >44,1/16 is bounced down to 44.1/16. Particularly true if original recording is DSD128 or even higher.

 

[dazzerfong]

  No.
 
It has the same effect if >44,1/16 is bounced down to 44.1/16. Particularly true if original recording is DSD128 or even higher.

And what effect would that be? Aliasing?

 

[StanD]

  No.
 
It has the same effect if >44,1/16 is bounced down to 44.1/16. Particularly true if original recording is DSD128 or even higher.

 
 

 
And what effect would that be? Aliasing?

Dreaming.

 

[Don Hills]

I am VERY aware of the fact that it does not sound unusually loud - yet it requires 120 dB + SPL capability on playback. It also means that any "average" music that would otherwise get recorded close to 0 dB is by now at -20 to - 30 dB down in level - decreasing the bit depth available for "music without rimshots" by 4 or 5 bit - which IS objectionable - and is a case for 24 bit recording and not only extended frequency response.

 
I agree that it makes sense to capture at 24 bit - it gives you the headroom to make sure you don't clip the ADC - but playing those peaks at 120+ dB SPL still puts your "average" level in the 90 to 100 dB range which is louder than most people listen on a sustained basis. Regularly hitting 120+ dB will quickly do enough hearing damage to ensure that capturing signal above 20 KHz becomes moot. Ask any drummer...
And "decreasing the bit depth" is not objectionable, It does not reduce the resolution, it just raises the noise floor. There is the potential for the noise floor to become audible, but you have to get pathological with your dynamic range and playback levels to hit that.

 

[StanD]

   
I agree that it makes sense to capture at 24 bit - it gives you the headroom to make sure you don't clip the ADC - but playing those peaks at 120+ dB SPL still puts your "average" level in the 90 to 100 dB range which is louder than most people listen on a sustained basis. Regularly hitting 120+ dB will quickly do enough hearing damage to ensure that capturing signal above 20 KHz becomes moot. Ask any drummer...
And "decreasing the bit depth" is not objectionable, It does not reduce the resolution, it just raises the noise floor. There is the potential for the noise floor to become audible, but you have to get pathological with your dynamic range and playback levels to hit that.

+1 Our friend will never admit to the practical realities of life on Earth.

 

[dazzerfong]

   
 
Dreaming.

Here's the way I think about it: in reality, if you use a low-pass filter to chop off the higher-band stuff when recording, you're never going to anti-alias perfectly because filters are not perfectly cutoff. But, when you use a digital system to lop off the extra frequency range, it's perfect, because it's digital. If we're, say, going from 192 to 48, you're skipping (in the digital world) to every 4th sample. Unless I'm completely mistaken in this.

 

[castleofargh]

well analogsurvy does make the sound science section very much alive. you rarely see so many posts in one day.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
I agree that it makes sense to capture at 24 bit - it gives you the headroom to make sure you don't clip the ADC - but playing those peaks at 120+ dB SPL still puts your "average" level in the 90 to 100 dB range which is louder than most people listen on a sustained basis. Regularly hitting 120+ dB will quickly do enough hearing damage to ensure that capturing signal above 20 KHz becomes moot. Ask any drummer...
And "decreasing the bit depth" is not objectionable, It does not reduce the resolution, it just raises the noise floor. There is the potential for the noise floor to become audible, but you have to get pathological with your dynamic range and playback levels to hit that.

Fair enough. I merely wanted to present case where 16 bit does run out of steam - but it is an extreme rarely encountered.
 
A big part of my inclination towards absolute desire to record at or very close to 0 dB stems from the use of Marantz DR-6000 CD-R recorder. That thing is seriously affected in SQ if its recording level is lowered by - a single dB, let alone - horror of horrors - 20. I will look into its service manual/circuit, my hunch is that it has digital recording level volume control - and we all know what that means. But make no mistake - each and every one of my friends I used to test this audibility of 0 vs -1 dB, -1 vs -2 dB etc thing , ALWAYS, invariably, responded to the difference : WHAT did you do - now it is so much better (or worse ) than the first sample (depending on what was played first, higher or lower gain recording ). Of course, playback level was adjusted for that 1 dB difference, it was NOT playback level cheating.
 
And guess what, it turned out that, although to a lesser degree, this decision to record as close to 0 dB as possible turned out to sound better with DSD recorders as well.  Bob Katz and his recording level etc notwithstanding. Yes, nice - in case digital recorders did not lose resolution at lower levels. But, in real life - they do.  
 
What I do agree some DR/playback scheme, something like Replay Gain in Foobar2000 SHOULD be provided with each and every recording. Those of you who have downloaded Linn's 24Bits of Christmas will be familiar with the problem; classical uncompressed tracks, if replay gain set to normal listening level, produce downright deafening playback levels on compressed pop-ish tracks - and vice versa, if volume set to be correct even for VERY loud playback of compessed pop-ish, the uncompressed classical stuff is next to inaudible.

 

[castleofargh]

  What I do agree some DR/playback scheme, something like Replay Gain in Foobar2000 SHOULD be provided with each and every recording. Those of you who have downloaded Linn's 24Bits of Christmas will be familiar with the problem; classical uncompressed tracks, if replay gain set to normal listening level, produce downright deafening playback levels on compressed pop-ish tracks - and vice versa, if volume set to be correct even for VERY loud playback of compessed pop-ish, the uncompressed classical stuff is next to inaudible.

did you try something that use the R128 norm I find that it deals pretty well with the perceived loudness.

 

[analogsurviver]

  did you try something that use the R128 norm I find that it deals pretty well with the perceived loudness.

No, not yet. But I will look into it, thank you for mentioning it.

 

[kraken2109]

Can't believe this thread is still going.

 

[Opportunist]

It's living on borrowed time...

 

[James-uk]

It's completely mental! Head and brick wall come to mind! I realise reading survivors posts that it's no wonder the world is so messed up! At least his bizarre sense of reality is hopefully limited to audio, imagine if it was important stuff and he was in a position of power! Its very worrying!

 

[MacacoDoSom]

  What is truly embarassing ?
 
Once musicians, who listen ( mainly, mostly, with very few exceptions far in between ) without technical knowledge, WILL start to "thank" for "the perfect sound forever" - not only privately, but publicly so.
 
No amount of real world or virtual ink - or how I call it - chicken squawking - will do the trick. Getting the musician to listen to his/hers recording does - every time.
But it has to be made well and played back on quality enough gear. And it IS tedious to the max - you have to start with each individual person from the start. It is only a smidge less difficult to convince and work with a musician #(n+1) after being recommended to him/her by the musician #(n).
 
Guess what ? About a week ago, the artistic director of a vocal group, a female, most definitely without any technical background, asked me in a caffe if I know "those tiny black discs you put on the CD to make it sound better" ? Of course, they are called CD mats, usually made from carbon fibre - I use them for approx 7 years now - and told her to come by to collect hers the next day, as I always happen to have a few samples in stock. 
 
Musicians LISTEN - and they WILL go to reasonable lengths when they discover that something is representing their efforts better. Whatever it takes. And although I have been recording with said person numerous times by now, direct to CD-R with the obligatory CD mat included, I never specifically pointed out the use of the CD mat. But it DID come around - because she DOES care about how she listens to music - even if it is still from the CD.
 
For now...

Simply place the Ultima HD Mat on top of an optical disc, with the gold side against the disc in a transport drawer or top loading mechanism. A micro-thin metallic coating dissipates static build-up, while a proprietary composite material made of an embedded carbon nano-tube structure dramatically reduces the level of disc vibration. Subtle resonances which were previously impossible to effectively control will now be completely eliminated, 16-bit/44.1K recordings will resemble 24-bit/192K recordings - instrumental timbres, harmonic density, and minimal ambient information will demand your attention in ways you never thought possible. ($239)
 
uauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu......... this must be what every one is looking for...