-=> Quoting Gordon Gilbert to T Owen <=-
 GG> I can tell instantly that you don't understand digital
 GG> technology.
Actually, I am quite familiar with digital audio technology.
 GG> I've said before, it doesn't work that way.  Resolution
 GG> in audio is DEFINED by Nyquist's thereom.
In that case, Nyquist was wrong.
 GG> Higher sampling rates
 GG> get you absolutely positively *nothing* but higher frequency response.
Precisely why we need higher sampling rates.
 GG> There is *NO* higher resolution at lower frequencies by using higher
 GG> sampling rates.
I didn't claim that there was.
 GG> Adding more bits *only* adds more dynamic range.  That's it.
True.
 GG> There are no other benefits to adding more bits.  If 96dB is more than
 GG> you'll ever use (to even realize 96 dB, you MUST be playing your
 GG> stereo louder at 96dB+room noise, which will give you ear damaging
 GG> levels.
Well, I don't exactly *have* a stereo, but this is true.
 GG> The average room has 60dB of noise.  One can treat a room to
 GG> reduce room noise, but short of playing your stereo in a lab chamber,
 GG> you're not likely to need more than 18-bits before you hit the 120dB
 GG> "no more dynamic range possible in human hearing" range, not to
 GG> mention it's the instant damage range.
My living room has a lot more than 60dB of background noise, especially
in the winter when I'm running the blower on the woodstove. 
Anechoic chambers have their uses, but I wouldn't want to listen to
music in one.
 TO> there yet in terms of processing and storage. The 16/44 standard
 TO> was adopted in order to get CDs into production, and start making
 TO> money for the record companies. :( 
 GG> This is not true either.  Most audio hardware today doesn't
 GG> have low enough noise levels to get even 18 bits of resolution, let
 GG> alone 20-bit, 24-bit, or "10 times" 16-bit resolution, as you suggest.
 GG> 20 and 24-bit word lengths *are* useful in the studio because
 GG> it will allow a recording engineer a *large* leeway in recording
 GG> levels before they red-line (clip) it.
Yes, that's what I have been saying. I don't know about consumer audio
hardware, since I don't listen to it, but you are probably right that
most of it has a higher than acceptable noise floor. 24 bits is enough
for me, and we all know that when it's "over" it's over. 
 GG> This makes sure one will get
 GG> the maximum range when shaped down to 16-bits.  It is not really
 GG> needed in the average home environment.  This is in no way saying that
 GG> digital is perfect.  But word length and sampling rate are not the big
 GG> problem areas.  Internal noise, jitter, and studio recording and
 GG> mixing techiques are the reason everyone isn't happy with CDs.
An engineer can certainly ruin things in short order, and noise and
jitter are insignificant when the engineer does a poor job, but I will
still not be happy with digital until it sounds as good as analog tape.
 GG> Even big fat analog
 GG> tape has higher noise levels than CD and can bias the sound more.
Absoloutely.
 GG> Also, really good A/D converters and recording equipment is
 GG> *expensive*.
I know, I've rented Apogee converters in the past, because I couldn't
justify the expense of buying them when I use digital so seldom.
 GG> A typical DAT deck isn't going to offer the extra
 GG> recording range of a Pro Studio setup.
This is unfortunately true.
 GG> Therefore, recordings that
 GG> don't push right up to the red line without crossing aren't being
 GG> optimally recorded.
Yes, the resoloution suffers. 
 GG> You can red line analog, you *can't* redline
 GG> digital without seriously screwing up the sound.
Quite so. I actually *like* to red-line analog tape in certain situations.
 GG> I'm all for 24-bit recorders.  I'm not concerned about 24-bit CD
 GG> Players.
I'm not really interested in CD players at all; I don't like the way
they sound, although I do have one that I use for intermissions during
live performances.
 GG> With a really good DAC and noise-shaping, you can get almost
 GG> 18-bits out of a regular CD.  I think this is more than adequate
 GG> for almost everyone on the consumer side.
Probably right; I've never been much of a consumer. 
 GG> The trick is to improve the recording side.
 GG> Better microphones, lower noise equipment, less mixing after the
 GG> recording, less multi-mic recordings, better quality digital
 GG> recorders.  No messing with the digital master after it's sent to the
 GG> CD factory, etc.
Agreed. My favorite mic would have to be the Soundfield, and paired with
4 tracks of fat analog with Dolby SR, there is nothing that can compare.
 GG> No, I think anyone with ears can hear the inadequacies in a
 GG> given CD recording.  I've heard many CDs that have no significant
 GG> problems what-so-ever, short of the natural problems associated with
 GG> the STEREO format itself. 
Yes, stereo is in itself a bit flawed, but we have learned to live with
the phase problems.  Take care.
... Posted by the committee to outlaw BAD VENUES!
--- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20
---------------