27 Feb
2006
27 Feb
'06
1:43 a.m.
perhaps we should fork this discussion off at some
point......
Done.
I guess, then,
that *real* 24-bit resolution, or something very close to
it, would yield what I am looking for - if it can be achieved.
Are you sure that's what you are looking for? Fidelity is a measure of how closely the signal you get
out of your
recorder matches what you put into it.
Agreed. That is all I am after.
It's more likely that you are hearing differences
in quality from one
component to the next. I can hear the difference between an Apogee 24
bit converter and a cheap no-name 24 bit converter.
I have no doubt that this is indeed a significant factor . . .
Ah, but there are so many other differences between
those effects than
their bit depths. Let me guess, they sound better in the chronological
order they were released in? The amount of DSP available and the quality
of the code has changed too...
. . . in fact, I don't have any way of knowing *what* is really in a piece
of hardware, regardless of what the specs say, the company that
manufactured it, or even how much I paid for it.
I only know that some components sound much better than others - I can't
say for sure why.
If they claim to have a higher resolution, it is of course natural to
assume that has something to do with *why* they might sound better.
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.
Not without being in a lab under controlled conditions - no, of course I
can't prove it.
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. 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.
If there is one correct way to do this, then there should be no reason for
different 'noise-shaping' algorithms.
In fact, why are there different noise-shaping algorithms if the noise
can't be heard.?
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 ? 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.
That, I would be most happy to do.
I thought RME was the pinnacle of quality, but if you say Apogee is even
better - we will certainly try it (finances permitting, that is. :)
You still probably won't believe me, but the
fidelity of a �100 card
like an audiophile 24/96 will be greater than that of 24 track 2".
The audiophile will have a lower noise floor, better linearity, no
scrape flutter or wow, much lower cross talk between channels, much less
IMD, wider frequency response (and a more solid bass end).... but it
might not sound as 'good'.
I don't know if you have ever worked with tape, but you really did have
to be so much more careful than digital about getting a good level to
cut down noise, putting non critical tracks on 1 and 24 as they always
got a bit knackered on reels and transport, recording at lower levels if
the source has lots of hf content, line up and bias.... all this stuff
was a total pain in the arse. Most everyone used some kind of noise
reduction, unless they were pushing the tape really hard, in which case
the distortion figures are laughable compared to digital.
Yes, I realize that there are all kinds of problems - especially noise -
with tape, and it is not the 'perfect' way to record, and I am equally well
aware of the great advantages digital has over analog.
My point has not at all been to criticize digital recording technology.
I want very much for digital recording to match or exceed analog in quality
- I am just not yet convinced this has been achieved.
I submit that the perceived 'superior'
perfomance of good analog tape
recorders, of any track width, is more a long term ear training result
than anything else, after all, we have been listening to such
machinery, faithfully encoded even on our cd's, and before that on our
lp records of yesteryear, for 3 or 4 generations now. Do that for 55
years, and the ear thinks thats what its supposed to sound like,
effectively becoming its 'Gold Standard'.
You certainly have a good point there - I think there's a lot of truth to
that.
But what I'm after isn't a perceived 'Gold Standard' of analog recording.
I'm just after the most faithful possible reproduction of what I hear live.
That is what I mean by fidelity.
That diff of tape or no tape isn't always that
obvious, and I had that
hammered into me one evening in about 1961 when I had a chance to
listen to one of Emory Cooks 78 rpm lp's that had been recorded in
trinidad, live to disk, of some of their then infamous steel drum
bands. No tape in the path, straight from Altec M21 mics thru the
preamps & to the cutter head making the master.
The hair stood up on the back of my neck, it was that real. There was
stuff from the background crickets at 17khz or more that was as live
and real as if I had been standing in the middle of those crickets
myself. Even the whispers of the drummers as they kept each other in
step, probably 55db below the drums, could be heard well enough to
understand it if they were using english, which some didn't.
Look - I do understand what you guys are trying to say, and respect the
fact that you have some science and experience to back it up.
I will just say this:
We have an old Tascam portable 8-track, which is now ready for the junk
heap, but we got close to perfect fidelity (after a lot of hard work) of
what we recorded on it with respect to the live sound.
If I wasn't looking, I couldn't tell if my husband was playing live, or
playing back his recordings.
Our early attempts to record that live sound through our Gina card directly
to the hard-disk sounded just plain bad: harsh, strident, thin - cold, but
more to the point - not at all like the live sound.
The analog recordings have a warmth to them - a midrange 'fullness' that I
don't hear digitally.
Digital can sound very sterile.
(When we attempted this through our earlier Pinnacle Multisound, it sounded
like a midi guitar.)
When we record now through our hdsp9632, the fidelity is very good - very
clean (almost *too* clean), but still not quite the live sound - though
very close.
When I am unable to tell whether my husband is playing live, or playing
back a digital recording of his music - then I will believe that the
digital technology has matched analog.
If all it is going to take is a better quality AD converter - then I will
be thrilled!
I know by now I've bored all the knowitalls here to
tears, so I'll go
back to my corner now.
--
Cheers, Gene
Not at all, Gene, I enjoyed your comments.
Dogma warning: You're not taking all the potential
phenomena into
account that have not been scientifically explained yet.
I'm not saying Maluvia can hear a difference, I'm just saying you don't
know that she can't.
Thank you, Carlo. ;)
- Maluvia