grawk

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.

wow, that's terrible

No one said oyu were a terrible person, but your posts are spammy. If we thought you were a terrible person, your posts would have been edited to be about feces.

As far as I can tell, none are...

It just says the chip is less important than the front end.

I don't recall voting on making your west michigan meet oficial.

You lose a lot of theoretical resolution. But when you turn down, the parts you can't hear aren't there. Whether you turned down digitally or via analog. And until you find something recorded in 32bit, you're not gonna have that space to turn down WITH.

You lose the same "fidelity" when you turn the volume down via analog or digital. You turn it down, you lose the quiet bits.

If you ever hear the benefit of 22 bits of dynamic range, your ears will bleed.

If you ever hear the benefit of even 22 bits of SNR, your ears will ring for the rest of your life.

but hd600s for the 240s is a great deal for you, and you should jump on it

there's another vtg for sale? the one I saw was sold to dusty.

welcome

Yes, he's obviously here just to drum up business for the meet he's running in charlotte. I get that tho, when you're running a meet, you want it to be big.