Forums dot lukpac.org

A place to discuss music and Mallard Fillmore
It is currently Sun Feb 18, 2018 5:13 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm
Posts: 1615
finally, a 'tech guy' blows the whistle on an 'ear guy' pretending to be a 'tech guy'. Mastering 'engineers' who endorse nonsense like the Hallograph, take note --


http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... /0/0/4549/

_________________
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:26 am 
Offline
Top Dog and Sellout
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Posts: 4584
Location: Madison, WI
Call me confused, I guess...

Yes, more bits would mean you could produce a lower level than with less bits. I.e., more dynamic range. But doesn't it also enable greater sampling precision everywhere? Larvy points out that between "no signal" ("0") and the smallest possible signal with 16-bit ("1"), you'll now have 256 new intermediate samples. I get that. But isn't that also the case between every other set of samples? I.e., instead of either "65,535" or "65,534", you now have an additional 256 values between those two.

I don't know how much of an audible *difference* that makes, but isn't it true? What am I missing? I guess I don't understand what dither and noise has to do with things when you aren't near the noise floor...

_________________
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:26 am
Posts: 396
Location: Capitol City, Minn.
Telling. And familiar.

Dan Lavry wrote:
I once saw a world renowned singer speak as a special guest for some audio tech award dinner. He decided to "explain" why he liked a certain process and not the other. He talked about analog having more bits then digital and all sorts of ridicules stuff. It was really "unbelievable". Needless to say, he received a standing ovation. No one said a thing. Of course most people did not know he was out to lunch technically. What about those that knew? No one wanted to confront a "guest speaker" that is a real "star".

_________________
We were right about Vietnam. We were right about Nixon. We were right about Reaganomics. Trust us -- we're right about Bush, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm
Posts: 1615
lukpac wrote:
Call me confused, I guess...

Yes, more bits would mean you could produce a lower level than with less bits. I.e., more dynamic range. But doesn't it also enable greater sampling precision everywhere? Larvy points out that between "no signal" ("0") and the smallest possible signal with 16-bit ("1"), you'll now have 256 new intermediate samples. I get that. But isn't that also the case between every other set of samples? I.e., instead of either "65,535" or "65,534", you now have an additional 256 values between those two.



Not sure what you're getting at. The point was whether the claims in Nichols article -- which was about things he said he could hear --are actually supported by the technical claims he makes. If you want to read an argument about the ssame article, in a much longer thread and in more detail, refer to the Sound on Sound forum thread where 'undertow' brought up the issue in the first place. What's amusing about that there is that Undertow is attacked from several sides but even the editor eventially agrees that he's right and Nichols' article is dodgy...it jsut takes forever to get there.




it starts here

http://www.soundonsound.com/forum/showf ... art=1&vc=1

and ends with, among other things , the editor writing:

Quote:

The article was simply Roger's attempt to justify his entirely subjective impression that bass sounded better when recorded with 24 bit systems than with 16 bit system


First, I'm not sure we have any agreement that this is an impression shared with anyone else. "4 bit systems certainly sound better than 16 bit ones, but whether the bass is markedly better than the treble I'm not so sure.

Secondly, as we have agreed, his attempts to find a technical justification have been shown to be deeply flawed, both in fundamental concept and its argument. It's probably best to just draw a line there and move on...


The PSW thread is still open as far as I can tell...you can post questions directly to Lavry there if you like.

_________________
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group