is worthwhile recording at 32 bits ?

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by jmarkham

Yes indeed. Aren't there some 32bit DACs out there now?
jeff

1. no
2. 24bit refers to fixed point. 32 bit generally refers to 32bit float - and you'll NEVER have a floating point DAC or ADC !!

[jmarkham]

Originally Posted by narcoman

1. no
2. 24bit refers to fixed point. 32 bit generally refers to 32bit float - and you'll NEVER have a floating point DAC or ADC !!

I'm aware of the floating vs. fixed point on the convert path. But, I could have
sworn I was reading a product announcement by some chip maker of a
32 bit ADC... Let me see if I can find it...

jeff

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Infa

Because, here's my point that I must stand by to that gives me a HUGE hint that there is SOMETHING to what I say: if 16bit was already beyond what we can detect already, then please tell me why I can tell a difference in my 16bit recordings from my 24bit recordings when using identical audio source ? (and the difference is, 24bit sounds better). Same goes with 48k... Everyone knowledgeable in this field says 48k was/is beyond our audible detection, so 96k is just ridiculous overkill... well..... When I run my same tests I can hear a difference in my 96k recordings vs my 48k recordings.(and the difference is 96k sounds better). So WHY then if supposedly we can't detect past 16 bit 48k can I and others hear a difference when the ranges are upped past supposed "overkill" ?

I will tell you why, its the stuff you can't hear, effecting the stuff you can hear. YES it is minor, but it creates that magic "sheen" that no one can put a finger on. Almost something you feel vs something you hear.

24bit or 16 bit, 44.1 to 48k....have you done a double-blind test to prove that you really can tell the difference? If you now say "what's a double-blind test?" then you've obviously not, and unfortunately makes what you say you can or can't hear null and void. It's just not a scientific test.

A well designed, 44.1 converter will outperform a poorly designed one operating at 96, or higher. Assuming for a moment that you ARE consistently hearing an improvement at 96k, we could assume that your particular converter works better at 96k than it does at 44.1. However, I'd be prepared to bet that the Prisms on the session I'm assisting on at the moment would out perform your converter at 96 - and we're running them at 44.1 (primarily because the producer did some listening tests of his own, and concluded that they sounded just as good at 44.1).

this whole "but wouldn't 32bit recordings improve quality" argument is just demonstrating further that you have a misguided concept of how bit depth affects audio quality. once you get past the dynamic range of human hearing, it can't improve resolution - because your hearing isn't good enough to tell the difference. The step from 16 bit to 24 bit IS significant - because it allows us the headroom to track at conservative levels without losing resolution in the capture stage. But assuming a stereo file that has been mastered in a typical modern style (ie we can assume the dynamic range is somewhat limited) then there won't be any audible difference between the 16 bit master and the 24 bit master - because neither drops quiet enough to be affected by quantisation noise.

Does that make things any clearer? Quite simply, I think you're barking up the wrong tree - the reason no-one is progressing in the way you're suggesting is because it's totally the wrong area for improvement!

[Infa]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

24bit or 16 bit, 44.1 to 48k....have you done a double-blind test to prove that you really can tell the difference? If you now say "what's a double-blind test?" then you've obviously not, and unfortunately makes what you say you can or can't hear null and void. It's just not a scientific test.

A well designed, 44.1 converter will outperform a poorly designed one operating at 96, or higher. Assuming for a moment that you ARE consistently hearing an improvement at 96k, we could assume that your particular converter works better at 96k than it does at 44.1. However, I'd be prepared to bet that the Prisms on the session I'm assisting on at the moment would out perform your converter at 96 - and we're running them at 44.1 (primarily because the producer did some listening tests of his own, and concluded that they sounded just as good at 44.1).

this whole "but wouldn't 32bit recordings improve quality" argument is just demonstrating further that you have a misguided concept of how bit depth affects audio quality. once you get past the dynamic range of human hearing, it can't improve resolution - because your hearing isn't good enough to tell the difference. The step from 16 bit to 24 bit IS significant - because it allows us the headroom to track at conservative levels without losing resolution in the capture stage. But assuming a stereo file that has been mastered in a typical modern style (ie we can assume the dynamic range is somewhat limited) then there won't be any audible difference between the 16 bit master and the 24 bit master - because neither drops quiet enough to be affected by quantisation noise.

Does that make things any clearer? Quite simply, I think you're barking up the wrong tree - the reason no-one is progressing in the way you're suggesting is because it's totally the wrong area for improvement!

I can see your point, and thanks for talking about all this. Its pretty cool for us all to debate this, I like it.

Ummm, lets see, first answer first. Double blind,, yes, I know what you mean, and we did. As a matter of fact, that is how I like to run all my tests. Which BTW is a pain, but doable. And we/I got a real cool system to achieve it rather headache free. BUT that is why I did mention the words "most of the time".. Admitingly a few of us ended up being either wrong, and or not coming up with the same opinions/results ear wise over SEVERAL double blind runs switched up every which way till sunday, etc... BUT I must tell you, this was/has been an ongoing thing over the years for us, and the other point is what I said too, which is "MOST of the time" a difference could be heard in the direction I was saying. BUT to be honest, it was never a unanimous thing 100% of the time. BUT I feel once the majority of times was revealed to be a similar realization, then damn, that proved something right ? We also do A vs B with a X in there that is one of the A or B just to make sure people don't have their heads lodged in their a$$es.. Of coarse sometime or another we all happened to prove out head was in our a$$ !! LOL -- but it was seldom.

Converters used were several (like I said years in the making bro !!).. Never low end or even medium end. Unfortunately never used Prism's. I am thinking about switching over my main SSL HD room with all Prism's soon though !! I do like them. Over the years we have tried this (when ever possible) with HEDD's, Lavry's, and Apogee 16x's.

I hope that answers you questions.... let me know if not.

Man, one thing I would say though dude, is, with all due respect, you seem to be really hung up on this statistic of what the World Health Organization has deemed the human ears frequency range... Which is fine, and ultimately right if you are a robot thinker... But man, What I am trying to say is dig your head out of the tech and white paper long enough to have a soul and realize some things you can't hear, but you FEEL them. This is big. This is true, and it is possible. And the biggest thing is somethings you just can NOT explain or find a mathematic equation/answer for. For the last time, it is called "Neighboring frequencies" -- and it can work with dynamics too. The more of "overkill" room something has, the more comfortable it will "feel" in the space doing its thing.

Kinda like this -- Imagine a trampolinist (hence audio) bouncing on a trampoline (hence the converter). There is a ground and a ceiling (hence dynamic range). We all watched him bounce as high as he possibly ever could (the act of him bouncing is our ears range limitation). In the beginning we were tight on space, so we built the floor and ceiling only as high as they needed to be because we knew he could never, and will never bounce higher than that. Now the way the AIR (something you cant tell, hear, touch, or anything) in this room moved while he jumped was what we were all used to. We didn't really think about it because its just air, and it also was all we knew that it did, because our floor and ceiling was always at that height. It was real tight, his head on the highest jump sometimes came within 3 inches of the ceiling, but as we knew, he never did or could never get higher than that. Now one day for no reason we decided to raise the ceiling height by 20 extra feet !! Man now there is a bunch of room in there and dead space we never need above his head on his highest jump. Now with the higher ceiling he is NOT jumping no higher (because he cant, hence our ears really cant hear past the deemed range). BUT what is happening is the air whipping around his body and the pressure between his head and the ceiling on his highest jump is ENTIRELY different. YES, it effected something. And ultimately something that you can tell and is rather obvious, but in a different way than seeing in his jump (hence hearing with our ears).

Then one day THANKS TO THE EXTRA ROOM, and great quality of air movement, we decided to NOW overhaul the trampoline (converter) to take advantage of the extra space we have (unused dynamic range). We designed it so that when he is at a low point and landing on the trampoline, he now sinks WAY further down in the trampolines surface. In turn that springs him up higher !! He just accomplished a higher dynamic range !! (in a sense), that we never thought was possible or even more hilariously never thought there was a reason for.

Of course that analogy doesn't work to a tee, and is not exactly correct especially in your books probably (because you are more smart than me).. BUT it is a start of a tip of a iceberg that maybe a real genius can run with to make better than real life sounding audio one day...

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Infa

I can see your point, and thanks for talking about all this. Its pretty cool for us all to debate this, I like it.

Ummm, lets see, first answer first. Double blind,, yes, I know what you mean, and we did. As a matter of fact, that is how I like to run all my tests. Which BTW is a pain, but doable. And we/I got a real cool system to achieve it rather headache free. BUT that is why I did mention the words "most of the time".. Admitingly a few of us ended up being either wrong, and or not coming up with the same opinions/results ear wise over SEVERAL double blind runs switched up every which way till sunday, etc... BUT I must tell you, this was/has been an ongoing thing over the years for us, and the other point is what I said too, which is "MOST of the time" a difference could be heard in the direction I was saying. BUT to be honest, it was never a unanimous thing 100% of the time. BUT I feel once the majority of times was revealed to be a similar realization, then damn, that proved something right ? We also do A vs B with a X in there that is one of the A or B just to make sure people don't have their heads lodged in their a$$es.. Of coarse sometime or another we all happened to prove out head was in our a$$ !! LOL -- but it was seldom.

Converters used were several (like I said years in the making bro !!).. Never low end or even medium end. Unfortunately never used Prism's. I am thinking about switching over my main SSL HD room with all Prism's soon though !! I do like them. Over the years we have tried this (when ever possible) with HEDD's, Lavry's, and Apogee 16x's.

I hope that answers you questions.... let me know if not.

Man, one thing I would say though dude, is, with all due respect, you seem to be really hung up on this statistic of what the World Health Organization has deemed the human ears frequency range... Which is fine, and ultimately right if you are a robot thinker... But man, What I am trying to say is dig your head out of the tech and white paper long enough to have a soul and realize some things you can't hear, but you FEEL them. This is big. This is true, and it is possible. And the biggest thing is somethings you just can NOT explain or find a mathematic equation/answer for. For the last time, it is called "Neighboring frequencies" -- and it can work with dynamics too. The more of "overkill" room something has, the more comfortable it will "feel" in the space doing its thing.

Kinda like this -- Imagine a trampolinist (hence audio) bouncing on a trampoline (hence the converter). There is a ground and a ceiling (hence dynamic range). We all watched him bounce as high as he possibly ever could (the act of him bouncing is our ears range limitation). In the beginning we were tight on space, so we built the floor and ceiling only as high as they needed to be because we knew he could never, and will never bounce higher than that. Now the way the AIR (something you cant tell, hear, touch, or anything) in this room moved while he jumped was what we were all used to. We didn't really think about it because its just air, and it also was all we knew that it did, because our floor and ceiling was always at that height. It was real tight, his head on the highest jump sometimes came within 3 inches of the ceiling, but as we knew, he never did or could never get higher than that. Now one day for no reason we decided to raise the ceiling height by 20 extra feet !! Man now there is a bunch of room in there and dead space we never need above his head on his highest jump. Now with the higher ceiling he is NOT jumping no higher (because he cant, hence our ears really cant hear past the deemed range). BUT what is happening is the air whipping around his body and the pressure between his head and the ceiling on his highest jump is ENTIRELY different. YES, it effected something. And ultimately something that you can tell and is rather obvious, but in a different way than seeing in his jump (hence hearing with our ears).

Then one day THANKS TO THE EXTRA ROOM, and great quality of air movement, we decided to NOW overhaul the trampoline (converter) to take advantage of the extra space we have (unused dynamic range). We designed it so that when he is at a low point and landing on the trampoline, he now sinks WAY further down in the trampolines surface. In turn that springs him up higher !! He just accomplished a higher dynamic range !! (in a sense), that we never thought was possible or even more hilariously never thought there was a reason for.

Of course that analogy doesn't work to a tee, and is not exactly correct especially in your books probably (because you are more smart than me).. BUT it is a start of a tip of a iceberg that maybe a real genius can run with to make better than real life sounding audio one day...

Infa, if anything I gotta give you credit for coming up with some fun analogies.

When something in audio isn't measurable either via the ear or via the scope then I would submit that it is of no relevance.

You purport that some of these things are "feel". We can assume that in order "to feel" anything there would need to be some change in the audio to illicit the "feel" in the first place, yet the the scope and the properly executed double blind study would tell us otherwise.

You still don't understand what bits are and what they do. You want more than 24 bits? What are you trying to capture a butterfly landing 10 seconds before a space shuttle launch???

1 bit = 6.02db

more bits does not make the dynamic transitions "smoother" or better or more accurate.

24bits = 144db of dynamic range. PHYSICS TELLS US THAT A PHYSICAL CONVERTER BOX CAN NOT ACHIEVE MORE RANGE THAN THIS EVEN IN A PERFECT WORLD.

The thermal noise of electrons bumping against each other in a resistor is louder than -144db.

Again, even if you could achieve this perfect converter with 144db of dynamic range or more, what are you trying to capture? A soul escaping a body followed by a tsunami?????

I eagerly await your next analogy.

[ssaudio]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

I eagerly await your next analogy.

I'd rather nail water to a sponge

[jmarkham]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

\
I eagerly await your next analogy.

I think one analogy that might prove more useful would be
the difference between 24bit color and 32bit truecolor in
displays. The luminance of each of the pixels (from their
darkest to brightest) is the same across from 0 to max. What's
different is the subtly of the hues which can be created because
the quantized values are much finer in 32 bit color. Even though
most humans are only capable of distiguishing between 20 or
so (some artists can distinguish up to 50 or so simultaneously).
I do a lot of video and I can totally tell a 32 bit display vs a 24
bit display .. even with a 4:2:2 chromatic encoding.

The same could be true of 32bit ADCs ... 6db per bit is a bit course.
6.1db is roughly 50% louder (depending where you're at on the
equal loudness curve). That's quite a jump .. what if the discrete
interval where 4.5db per bit?

That's one of the knocks on digital is that it lacks the continuous
response of analog .. perhaps finer quantization would bring
digital a bit closer.

Perhaps the analogy of visual response vs. audio response is a
non-sequitur.. but I'd sure like to hear it ;-)

jeff

[PDC]

Originally Posted by narcoman

1. no
2. 24bit refers to fixed point. 32 bit generally refers to 32bit float - and you'll NEVER have a floating point DAC or ADC !!

Yes. There are 32-bit convertors. Teac employs them in the Esoteric line of products.

[Infa]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

Infa, if anything I gotta give you credit for coming up with some fun analogies.

When something in audio isn't measurable either via the ear or via the scope then I would submit that it is of no relevance.

You purport that some of these things are "feel". We can assume that in order "to feel" anything there would need to be some change in the audio to illicit the "feel" in the first place, yet the the scope and the properly executed double blind study would tell us otherwise.

You still don't understand what bits are and what they do. You want more than 24 bits? What are you trying to capture a butterfly landing 10 seconds before a space shuttle launch???

1 bit = 6.02db

more bits does not make the dynamic transitions "smoother" or better or more accurate.

24bits = 144db of dynamic range. PHYSICS TELLS US THAT A PHYSICAL CONVERTER BOX CAN NOT ACHIEVE MORE RANGE THAN THIS EVEN IN A PERFECT WORLD.

The thermal noise of electrons bumping against each other in a resistor is louder than -144db.

Again, even if you could achieve this perfect converter with 144db of dynamic range or more, what are you trying to capture? A soul escaping a body followed by a tsunami?????

I eagerly await your next analogy.

LOL -- Wuuuu Huuuuu !!! I do see the point you guys are making. Just am wondering why others don't have a open enough mind to see mine ? At LEAST ponder it for a second... What do you guys not believe in God either because the subject is not a proven science ?

This is ALL I am saying in one way or another, I just can't get the exact pinpoint example for you folks... Looking through history, I have learned I will NOT do this: Think that we are at the "final point", "thats it", "it can't get no better", "wrap it up guys, lets look for another way because this one is at its plateau".

One thing I can say for sure from learning from history is, things NEVER really reach their plateau. When they have for many years, then a break through happens, the "plateau" point was always because no one "believed" there was a way. It was logic itself that damaged them. To me, it seems science and logic itself is damaging some of your viewpoints on this subject.

I just know that maybe years down the road (1 - 100) converters and DAW's and Plug Ins will FIND A WAY to utilize a higher bit rate. I don't know how and (obviously) neither do some of you guys, BUT it will one day. Maybe the bits wont be for dynamic range because we don't need that as you say, but maybe it will be for some other audio quality. (if dynamic range lets say is up and down, how about in and out [3D] range and side to side range and the whole cubical circle of range ?) -- Man we never know until it happens, and thats my point.

Dude, the advancements in Nanotechnology alone are mind boggling to the point of you wouldn't believe (because 10 years ago you didn't) --- They are manipulating matter on a molecular level now.... That means serious BIG sh*t... That can ruin the world or make it better... I mean they can turn a dirt clod into Gold now with nanotechnology... That would ruin the outlook of our monetary system, so they will never let that out. BUT point is, is that is the kind of serious sh*t that nanotechnology is capable of. (ONE VERY SMALL PART)..

Now imagine when they bring nanotechnology into our industry ? WHEEEEWW !!!! Things we can not fathom will happen. Watch. They already are talking about introducing it into the video realm. I heard it will make HD TV's look like bowel movements...

Trip on that -- is ALL I am saying. Converters, DAW's, and Plug Ins will utilize 128bits one day (24 for up and down, 24 for left and right, 24 for in and out, etc..)... Or maybe it wont even be bits anymore... it will be some new Nano Bit that kicks A$$...

[jmarkham]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Not really. The best converters can only put out around 21 or 22 bits. Digital signal processing turns that 21 to 22 bits into between 56 and 80 bits. At that point 32 bit or even 64 bit float files are worthwhile for intermediate storage of the processed audio.

Isn't that really just a limitation of the delta-sigma architecture? The
current based converters should have finer resolution .. at least
in-theory.

jeff

[JMWS]

Infa, amen brother! I hate people´s attitudes, when it comes to progress. To me we are still living in the freaking stoneage! I wish, that people could think more beyond the "walls" they are living...

...Oh and, let´s get this 64bit thing going, I want a full symphonic orchestra and many VSTis in one computer in midi realtime.

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Infa

LOL -- Wuuuu Huuuuu !!! I do see the point you guys are making. Just am wondering why others don't have a open enough mind to see mine ? At LEAST ponder it for a second... What do you guys not believe in God either because the subject is not a proven science ?

This is ALL I am saying in one way or another, I just can't get the exact pinpoint example for you folks... Looking through history, I have learned I will NOT do this: Think that we are at the "final point", "thats it", "it can't get no better", "wrap it up guys, lets look for another way because this one is at its plateau".

One thing I can say for sure from learning from history is, things NEVER really reach their plateau. When they have for many years, then a break through happens, the "plateau" point was always because no one "believed" there was a way. It was logic itself that damaged them. To me, it seems science and logic itself is damaging some of your viewpoints on this subject.

I just know that maybe years down the road (1 - 100) converters and DAW's and Plug Ins will FIND A WAY to utilize a higher bit rate. I don't know how and (obviously) neither do some of you guys, BUT it will one day. Maybe the bits wont be for dynamic range because we don't need that as you say, but maybe it will be for some other audio quality. (if dynamic range lets say is up and down, how about in and out [3D] range and side to side range and the whole cubical circle of range ?) -- Man we never know until it happens, and thats my point.

Dude, the advancements in Nanotechnology alone are mind boggling to the point of you wouldn't believe (because 10 years ago you didn't) --- They are manipulating matter on a molecular level now.... That means serious BIG sh*t... That can ruin the world or make it better... I mean they can turn a dirt clod into Gold now with nanotechnology... That would ruin the outlook of our monetary system, so they will never let that out. BUT point is, is that is the kind of serious sh*t that nanotechnology is capable of. (ONE VERY SMALL PART)..

Now imagine when they bring nanotechnology into our industry ? WHEEEEWW !!!! Things we can not fathom will happen. Watch. They already are talking about introducing it into the video realm. I heard it will make HD TV's look like bowel movements...

Trip on that -- is ALL I am saying. Converters, DAW's, and Plug Ins will utilize 128bits one day (24 for up and down, 24 for left and right, 24 for in and out, etc..)... Or maybe it wont even be bits anymore... it will be some new Nano Bit that kicks A$$...

LoL. Every post gets better.. dude you crack me up.

I don't know what else to tell you.

You might as well barge into a Boeing exec meeting and tell them their airplanes need more wings. Clearly if 2 wings get if off the ground 4 wings should be sufficient for time travel.

You're asking for more bits and you don't even know what they do! What do you think a higher bit rate capture is going to get you? Better audio? It won't!! If you disagree with this, please explain why... as in technically why...

It's good that you want progress. But it's also good to know where to look to find the real hallmarks of progress. Any marketer reading this thread would have half a mind to create the worlds first 48 bit converter just to sell to you! Don't let them take advantage of you. Educate yourself!

We certainly don't know everything there is to know about audio and we certainly haven't hit the ceiling in terms of fidelity but we have come a long way in perfecting the existing technology of digital audio.

IMO the next big change will be a process change. Something fundamental to the way in which we capture, recreate and handle audio will have to be invented/altered if we expect to see a significant difference in results.

One of my biggest "ah ha" moments in audio was to realize that what specs well on paper does not always sound superior to the ears. People expect technology to aid in creating better sounds... but "better" is subjective and much of the old, "outdated' and "technologically inferior" gear of the 60's and 70's is fetching insane amounts on ebay right now because people want that sound.

So here you are asking for more with the assumption that more is better when in fact it isn't. And even if you were asking for cleaner, better specing, technologically superior gear with the assumption it will sound better you're forgetting that "better" is subjective. This is the technology of art, not bridge building.

So I salute your zest for change. I just advise hanging up the phone the next time Sweetwater calls to inform you of their new 128bit converter.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by PDC

Yes. There are 32-bit convertors. Teac employs them in the Esoteric line of products.

From what I can see Teac are doing a bit of misleading here. The D05 seems to be a 24bit converter with 32bit processing of CD and DVD (etc) data streams. So I don't think you can smoke your victory cigar just yet I've emailed Esoteric-Teac to ask. The literature is very veiled and the three reviews are by idiophiles.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by JMWS

Infa, amen brother! I hate people´s attitudes, when it comes to progress. To me we are still living in the freaking stoneage! I wish, that people could think more beyond the "walls" they are living...

...Oh and, let´s get this 64bit thing going, I want a full symphonic orchestra and many VSTis in one computer in midi realtime.

Mathematics hasnt suffered from this - when maths places a limit on something, you'd better believe it. Inductive proof, for one thing.....

(An aside - it's only ever those who don't understand something that stamp their feet about how everyone's wrong - why can't you see etc etc etc..... There are very few liberators of unknown knowledge. And I suspect Infa, even with his great open mind and fab avatar, isn't the next one).

[3rd world order]

32 bit A/Ds... haha, there is no such animal.

there's really no point in anything over 20bit for A/D.. there isnt a mic pre that can give you that much s/n... sure, you can STORE 32bits.. but the bottom 12 bits will be noise so you're not gaining anything.

if you build it they will buy, i guess

INSANITY

[Infa]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

LoL. Every post gets better.. dude you crack me up.

I don't know what else to tell you.

You might as well barge into a Boeing exec meeting and tell them their airplanes need more wings. Clearly if 2 wings get if off the ground 4 wings should be sufficient for time travel.

You're asking for more bits and you don't even know what they do! What do you think a higher bit rate capture is going to get you? Better audio? It won't!! If you disagree with this, please explain why... as in technically why...

It's good that you want progress. But it's also good to know where to look to find the real hallmarks of progress. Any marketer reading this thread would have half a mind to create the worlds first 48 bit converter just to sell to you! Don't let them take advantage of you. Educate yourself!

We certainly don't know everything there is to know about audio and we certainly haven't hit the ceiling in terms of fidelity but we have come a long way in perfecting the existing technology of digital audio.

IMO the next big change will be a process change. Something fundamental to the way in which we capture, recreate and handle audio will have to be invented/altered if we expect to see a significant difference in results.

One of my biggest "ah ha" moments in audio was to realize that what specs well on paper does not always sound superior to the ears. People expect technology to aid in creating better sounds... but "better" is subjective and much of the old, "outdated' and "technologically inferior" gear of the 60's and 70's is fetching insane amounts on ebay right now because people want that sound.

So here you are asking for more with the assumption that more is better when in fact it isn't. And even if you were asking for cleaner, better specing, technologically superior gear with the assumption it will sound better you're forgetting that "better" is subjective. This is the technolog of art, not bridge building.

So I salute your zest for change. I just advise hanging up the phone the next time Sweetwater calls to inform you of their new 128bit converter.

Thank you for your kind words. I know, I sound like a kid - lol

Yea, actually I see what you are getting at. HA ha, and I definitely wont go and buy a 128bit converter just because its 128 bits. I would buy it if it sounded better though.

You are completely right about me not being educated completely in "bit depth".

My question then is this... why can't they apply bits to other things in the audio ? (like I suggested in my above post). Why is it subject to only dynamic range ? Is this where our "mind block" is ? Maybe they should figure out how to apply bits better.

Man I really like what you said about what you feel the next big advancement should be. Funny thing is you mentioned "capture", and well, I thought thats what I been talking about this whole time.

I feel ya on the Vintage gear. And how "better" is soooo subject to opinion. I myself mix on a SSL. Love my HD rig. And buy up Vintage synths like they are hottttt women. So I have my own definite feelings of "better", and I do notice it differs from some others. I will tell ya, I do feel SOME of them recordings in the 70's and 80's have yet to be topped. But the difference in them I think MAINLY lies NOT in the sonic recording of the stuff, but more on the actual playing/feeling of the ideas (drugs were better then), and mainly the MIX.... It was from a era were a good high paid engineer from a actual school was still in and highly respected. Now everyone is on a budget and wants something for nothing. The outcome, crappier sounding music that is recorded better and had better editing capabilities. Ain't NO mixes sounding like Fleetwood Mac Rumors album, or The Cars "Shake It Up" super big wide sound, or some of The Eagles stuff too. So warm, round and pillowy, but still so perfectly bright with out being harsh and big and wide sounding. That was due to days and days on one mix in some seriously expensive studio with a serious engineer that actually was good at what he did, and went to school and took it serious man.

So I am one of those guys that is looking for HONEST as possible capture and for the digital realm to not take away from the 3Dness, depth, and character of my original sound(s). The rest will be on me to go nuts on a mix... Maybe shooting lots of heroin is the only way to make a good song !! LOL -

[psycho_monkey]

infa - fair enough on the testing aspect, sorry if you found my post a bit condescending. I just struggle to see how someone who's clearly got a good knowledge in many areas can totally miss the point here! Its nothing to do with being closed minded, its just knowing where the improvements are relevant. You yourself have said you don't understand the issue properly, then in the next breath you say you don't see why a higher bit depth won't make some improvement! Well...you don't see why because you don't understand the issue! I don't see why you're still obsessing over things. As narcoman points out however open minded you are, 1+1 is never going to equal 3.

[Infa]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

infa - fair enough on the testing aspect, sorry if you found my post a bit condescending. I just struggle to see how someone who's clearly got a good knowledge in many areas can totally miss the point here! Its nothing to do with being closed minded, its just knowing where the improvements are relevant. You yourself have said you don't understand the issue properly, then in the next breath you say you don't see why a higher bit depth won't make some improvement! Well...you don't see why because you don't understand the issue! I don't see why you're still obsessing over things. As narcoman points out however open minded you are, 1+1 is never going to equal 3.

Psycho monkey, I never found your post to me condescending. We are just having a great debate. These things are good to have. I enjoy them. Thank you for clearing that up though if I was being sensitive to your post, but I was/am not. I seen your concerns and I appreciated you addressed them.

I am glad we are all mature enough to have wonderful talks like this.

[malaclypse]

great attitude infa!
unfortunately, it seems as if you're trying to come up with a better shape than the circle, in order to improve "the wheel."
sorry- i also enjoy analogies

[narcoman]

Quote: