After sampling some of the traffic on this topic before concluding "been
there, done that", and then the bother of deleting so many posts, I
strongly second Mike Gray's opinion.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Gray, Mike <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This discussion sounds so 1980s ... I remember having lunch with two
> Philips engineers during AES in LA in 1988. I'll never forget what one of
> them said there: 'We've never really heard 16-bits".
> Since then, we've had 20-bit conversion, 24-bit conversion, sample rates
> at 96K and 192k, and Sony DSD . I'd argue that
> each of these moved us closer to accurately capturing the analog signal
> coming out of a recording console.
> A final note: bits are not bits - they are data coded by the zero crossing
> point of the ongoing digital wave form, which can be significantly
> distorted by, among other things, timing jitter. Contemporary designers try
> hard to minimize jitter and are succeeding pretty well these days in the
> 16/44 world. So we are, in fact, getting closer to hearing what 16-bits
> sound like.
> Let's leave these old arguments behind and move onto more productive areas
> of discussion - like preservation.
> Mike Gray
1006 Langer Way
Delray Beach, FL 33483