[linux-audio-user] Re: Companies Refusing to Release/Permit Linux Drivers

[Jan Depner]

On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 01:55 +0100, fons adriaensen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 04:08:21PM -0800, Maluvia wrote:
> 
> > >Bullshit. If you can hear the difference between a 20 bit converter
> > >and a >20 bit one, what you hear is the difference between two
> > >converters, regardless of the number of bits they use.
> > 
> > And you can prove this?
> 
> Can you prove you can hear the difference between 24 or more if
> no real 24 bit converter does exist ? It is _extremely_ difficult
> and expensive even to do a valid test at 20 bits. Some people
> have done it, and they all arrive at the same conclusion.
> 
> > I maintain that I *can* hear bit-depth difference.
> > Are you perhaps suggesting that there exists some bit-depth threshold w/re
> > to human hearing? What do you base your comment on?
> 
> See below.
>  
> > >Even 16 bits correctly dithered is better than 24 tracks on a 2 inch tape.
> > 
> > Again, what do you base this on? 
> 
> Working knowledge of how good analog recording is, understanding of the
> theory of sampling and quantisation, undisputed results from psycho-acoustic
> research, and elementary physics and mathematics.
> 
> > "Correctly dithered" - and you would maintain that there is some objective
> > standard as to what constitutes this?
> 
> Yes. A correctly dithered signal converted back to analog is mathematically
> equivalent to the original unquantised version plus some noise. There is no
> way, not even in theory, to detect it was ever quantised. Since it can't
> be detected, you can't hear it. But you could fool yourself into thinking
> you can, as many have done before you. After (correct) dithering the only
> 'defect' that remains is noise. And with 24 bits and standard signal levels
> this is well below the thermal noise of any analog amplifier that exists,
> and also well below human hearing thresholds.
> 
> > I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by Dolby - and I
> > don't like it.
> 
> What has that to do with this discussion ?
>  
> > If you think existing digital technology can already match or exceed the
> > audio fidelity of a 24-track reel-to-reel recorder, I would very much like
> > to know what it is, and where it is available - and I would like to hear
> > it.
> 
> Buy some *good* converters, add Ardour and the result is *far* better
> than any 24 track analog machine that ever existed. That is if your
> idea of quality relates to fidelity and not to some specific typical
> analog distortion that you may like or mistake for 'correct'. By 'good'
> converters I mean at least the quality of RME, or better Apogee.
> 

    Somebody just posted this link a few weeks back.  It was certainly
an eye opener for me.  It might give you some idea of how good/bad tape
recording units are.

http://www.endino.com/graphs/index.html


-- 
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html


"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be 
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and 
this we should do freely and generously."

Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of 
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744