Apparently the eyes of god are upon us:
//
Forum folk,
Thanks and I appreciate the gesture, but you don't have to send me warning emails when an SH poster posts unflattering stuff about me, or this place at another site. Thanks for thinking of me though.
That being said, I was emailed this from a well-meaning soul. It's a post by Thomh from another site. I don't care if you talk about me someplace else, just don't put words in my mouth!
The post:
From Thomh:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us talk a bit about bits.
Bitdepth (word size) is directly related to dynamic range, so the more bits there is available the lower the broadband noise floor and hence the potential for more information.
It is very important to keep in mind that when we talk about dynamic range we are also talking about resolution. The two are unbreakable. You increase one and you also increase the other. Think about it, it makes perfect sense.
What you also need to factor in here is that digital processing bits is different from AD and DA bits. When processing a lot of data one looses bit accuracy because of rounding errors. A lot of DSP causes some error and that is where more bits come in. This is why more bits during the recording stage is a *very* good thing. And why when you go from 16 to let's say 20 bits, you will probably hear an improvement.
Equally important is that once we have a signal with a certain dynamic range, as is the case with an analog master tape, we CANNOT IMPROVE IT. Sampling can only capture what is there.
So given a master tape where there is nothing above 15 kHz then 16 AD bits is plenty and so is 44.1 kHz sampling rate. Increasing the bitdepth or the sampling rate will do nothing.
Ryan is correct in saying that the lower the noise floor the more you are able to reveal things like echo decay and other low level details. But remember, *once a dynamic range is set then it cannot be improved upon*.
What SH wants you to believe is that a 30+ year old analog master tape which, according to him, has nothing above 15 kHz somehow exceeds the bandwidth set for Redbook. A *good* analog tape deck probably has dynamic range of around 70 - 80 dB. That is equal to about 14 bits (2^14 gives a DR of 84 dB). A 16/44.1 kHz sampling should be able to capture all the information contained on this tape including the echo.
So there is something else at work here. As noted by Krab, his CD and SACD layers used *different mastering chains*. Can we assume a less than perfect PCM conversion is culprit here? Or has he proven the sampling theorem wrong?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve responds:
I don't want you to believe anything. All I'm saying is TRY IT FOR YOURSELF.
Thomh, Krab said I use different mastering chains. I do not. I use the same chain with a split feed, as I've mentioned here many times. PLEASE, if you wish to address something with me or about me, DO IT HERE!
A mastering chain that bifurcates at the A/D stage is no longer the same chain. Any confirmed audible difference that results -- and so far, none have been confirmed properly for your recordings -- *could* be due to CD vs DSD per se, OR to equipment differences in conversion and playback.
This is an inherent problem in comparing formats. It remains even if the comparison is between an SACD layer, and a Redbook copy of the SACD layer...which is how some other hybrids are made.
So, the order of proof should be: first, prove that you actually hear the difference (this means using a bias-controlled level-matched protocol)
Second, prove that the difference is due to the formats, and not the equipment.
Lastly, I'm willing to DO IT THERE, if the draconian rules against expression of skepticism are changed, as the Gorts know.
Over to you , thomh.