Ditto. My first rule of audio: Everything makes a difference. For a given
situation, it's a question of practicalities, tradeoffs, and
tolerance/expectation. For me, remaining open to the seemingly bizaar or
unfathomable has had its rewards.
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dennis Rooney
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 2:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Audibility of 44/16 ?
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