grawk

Yah, but that means a power amp for the front channel of my home theater, since the marantz isn't 2 ohm stable.

mexican deep fried tostada shells, cracked and used as chips, with home-made rotel salsa

I"m tempted to buy MMG-Ws instead of ESP950s

no word means he was lying.

stax cables

My mouse has 5 buttons and a trackball, on my mac. And my macs all have utorrent

We're definitely different, it's because so many new members come here not to be part of a community but to take from the community without contributing. We find making it hard to get accepted cuts down on that quite a bit.

It's definitely different, whether you like it or not.

I think that's because the flaws in most cds are on the disc in the form of poor recordings, and in the nature of the cd medium, and are being overcome through electronics on good cd players...

I don't believe that dacs intentionally sound worse at lower sample rates, I think the designs just aren't always optimized for all sample rates.

Except I believe that's done on purpose for marketting reasons.

I'll still argue the difference was at record time, and in the sample rate conversion done. The final sample rate and bit depth isn't going to be the significant factor. The way frequencies are recreated is based on sine waves already, so even tho the digital representation of it is smoother, the final output will be the same. Where it's possible you'll get differences is from harmonic distortion introduced by frequencies greater than 22khz but it would take a hell of a signal path to recreate those correctly anyway. I'd guess that the variability you hear is in the DAC design, and the optimization for specific sample rates. Chances are it's better at some frequencies than others, and that's the improvement you're hearing.

Dusty, I agree with you in theory, but most dacs filter that off anyway. And I apologize for calling you a dope. That's just shorthand for "doing something that is seriously non-optimal, whether done in the digital or analog realm.

I didn't do 24/88, I did 24/44, because I'm not a bat. I do it sometimes for the theoretical advantage, but in the field resources are scarce, so I didn't capture data I didn't need. Bit depth I needed, higher frequencies than 22k I didn't. It's theoretically possible in dac designs with no brickwall filter at 22khz (most have them) you might hear a difference, but I doubt it. But you're really not going to hear anything 96db below the loudest point recorded unless you're playing that loudest point recorded at 120dB.

I've done it myself a lot. I used to do a lot of location sound recording. Sample rate conversion can be heard, bit depth changes can't, if done with any care at all.

Ok, yes, if you turn the volume down digitally, then turn it back up in the analog realm, you can lose information. If you're doing that, tho, you're a dope.

Dusty, the dithering happens with the least significant bit. Yes, if you just truncate, you can get problems, but that's why you normalize first, then use noise shaping. At -96db, you're not going to hear the noise shaping, or anything else for that matter.

I disagree 100%. Especially when you start with 88.2/24. You could rather easily produce 44/16 that is indistinguishable in post. Sample rate conversion algorythms have a lot more trouble with 96->44 than 88->44, because with 88/44 they just drop half the samples. You lose the freqs over 22khz, but you can't hear those anyway. And the bits from 24->16 are just headroom unless you're listening over 96db.

I still disagree. If you turn it down to where you would have lost information in digital, you'll have lost information in analog, because you won't be able to hear it.

That's a lot more complicated than the bits available. At record time, more bits is helpful because it lets you keep the analog portion of the recording process in the sweet spot while leaving enough headroom that you don't run out of bits. Take the resulting file, and normalize it, and then convert it to 16 bits and you'll get exactly the same sound. 24 bits is a HUGE benefit for the recordist, it's just not necessary post-mastering.

I didn't mean "bits" as in 0 or 1, I meant bits as in, little pieces. If you can't hear it, it's not there. Analog or digital.

If you'd like, tho, you're welcome to come to my private meet on the same weekend, but in wilmington

You could bet it, but based on my understanding of what's going on, it's not. The bit depth entirely represent loudness, and the sample rate represents frequency response. Mostly what you hear between 44/16 and 96/24 is quality of mastering, and potentially quality of sample rate conversion and analog to digital conversion, but not generally a benefit from the actual sample rate chosen.

I hear he's bringing his entire catalog of masters on sacd as door prizes too

That's not because of the 24 vs 16 bits, dusty.