Jump to content

Light Harmonic Geek Pulse


blessingx
 Share

Recommended Posts

32/768 has existed in the professional world for a while now, albeit only at the top end when I was still reading about it regularly (over a year ago).

 

I have never read anything credible that sways me into believing anything more than 24/192 for playaback is even worth pursuing.  I can get behind 32 bit for mixing and whatnot, but 768kHz sampling?  People rave about LP realism, but at 32/768, that's like 3-4 times the resolution of even the best pressed LPs.  Please do not confuse me for a "640k is enough for most people" person (I am definitely not), but that strikes me as recording for greater wax moths rather than humans.  Any merit to this practice, Dusty, or is it tech gamesmanship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never read anything credible that sways me into believing anything more than 24/192 for playaback is even worth pursuing.  I can get behind 32 bit for mixing and whatnot, but 768kHz sampling?  People rave about LP realism, but at 32/768, that's like 3-4 times the resolution of even the best pressed LPs.  Please do not confuse me for a "640k is enough for most people" person (I am definitely not), but that strikes me as recording for greater wax moths rather than humans.  Any merit to this practice, Dusty, or is it tech gamesmanship?

How does that math work? 44k captures all information in the realm of human hearing (22khz).  44x4 = 176.  768 is closer to 20x.  

 

There's no merit to 192, let alone 768.  Especially for playback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does that math work? 44k captures all information in the realm of human hearing (22khz).  44x4 = 176.  768 is closer to 20x.  

 

There's no merit to 192, let alone 768.  Especially for playback.

 

I was referring to whatever the general consensus of the resolution of the analog information within the LP grooves were if it was put into PCM terms.  I have heard that it is somewhere between a 96kHz and 192kHz sampling rate (but probably lower than a 16 bit depth), but I have not really devoted the time to explore it further.  Going with that (perhaps erroneous assumption), I posted the above.  Looks like more than 4x the resolution, but I digress.

 

I think my setup is good, but there are no room treatments to speak of, so a well recorded redbook is more than fine with me.

Edited by roadtonowhere08
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never read anything credible that sways me into believing anything more than 24/192 for playaback is even worth pursuing.  I can get behind 32 bit for mixing and whatnot, but 768kHz sampling?  People rave about LP realism, but at 32/768, that's like 3-4 times the resolution of even the best pressed LPs.  Please do not confuse me for a "640k is enough for most people" person (I am definitely not), but that strikes me as recording for greater wax moths rather than humans.  Any merit to this practice, Dusty, or is it tech gamesmanship?

There's some merit to higher sampling rates (contrary to Dan's contrarianism), but yeah, they lose me somewhere around 192 also.  For playback, I don't see the point behind more than 96kHz, myself, but when mixing tracks, I understand the necessity of higher resolutions on the individual tracks as long as the mixdown software doesn't waste it -- you don't want to compound rounding errors.  I'd have to do the math (which I have no interest in doing) to see what the necessary individual frequencies would need to be to get moar betr sound at the final mixdown.

 

I personally believe it reduces to phase accuracy, but that's just a SWAG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was referring to whatever the general consensus of the resolution of the analog information within the LP grooves were if it was put into PCM terms.  I have heard that it is somewhere between a 96kHz and 192kHz sampling rate (but probably lower than a 16 bit depth), but I have not really devoted the time to explore it further.  Going with that (perhaps erroneous assumption), I posted the above.  Looks like more than 4x the resolution, but I digress.

 

I think my setup is good, but there are no room treatments to speak of, so a well recorded redbook is more than fine with me.

 

This was years back but somebody simulated the ideal vinyl playback setup and figured out that it was the equivalent of 14bits.  Sampling rate was something close to 80kHz if my memory doesn't fail me.  This is naturally never going to happen in real life as the records wear, so do the pickups, the tables are never 100% accurate, the RIAA eq never 100% correct etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which fits nicely with the common perception that somewhere between 24/96 and 24/192 is where digital "works" . if you postulate that vinyl was evolved until it "worked", it makes a lot of sense.

I tend to hold the notion that the same principle applies in photography. 35mm film was accepted because it was the minimum thing that generally "worked". so then you have the very fuzzy task of deciding at what point digital "works". Which certainly wasn't made any easier by the low sighted who claimed that 2MP was all the resolution that the human eye/brain could perceive and what not. It's very sad now to look at photos from that era. We we're a lot luckier in audio because a lot of the mess that was early digital was in the playback, so music from that period turned out to be just degraded, rather than lost altogether.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...