Beethoven's 9th, if the story is exactly true Furthwangler is responsible but not his wartime recording with the SA boys choir.
I didn't say that. My annoyance is with the loose use of the term "resolution" to mean "signal to noise in a dithered system."
One reason not to get involved with the ML9600 is that according to Alesis and a number of Alesis authorized dealers, the ML9600 is obsolete. For example this is the Alesis web page of obsolete products:
Legacy Products
As far as its feature set goes, the obvious comparison is with one of the many computer audio interfaces that exploit the hardware that many people already have, yielding superior flexibility at a far lower cost.
Just for grins:
12 reasons why hi-res audio will never go mainstream | DAR__KO
Last edited:
If you do proper listening tests you'll most likely find that the resulting 44.1 KHz is still overkill.
The BBC had studied this requirement previously, and came up with approx. 26 KHz for their standard.
Now, even I find that a little low, but if you raise the covers on modern encoding software that is based on extensive listening tests, you'll find 32-36 KHz sampling to be sufficient in the eyes of people who test this sort of thing quite aggressively as part of their usual product development cycle.
I see Samsung I think now advertising their new phones with 24/96 audio resolution. I assume they want you to dump your six month old phone and purchase a new one. What will they do six months from now to try and get you to dump that 24/96 phone to again get you to buy a newer model. This is so much like the Microsoft model of the ever changing software costs, just keep the customer constantly on the upgrade path, more money in a constant stream. Marketing muscle is strong, technical reasons be damned.
Now that doesn't mean that I believe we need to band limit everything to a 20 t0 20khz band limit. I have found that with the high frequencies in speakers that most just barely get to 20khz and most of the time this is clearly very poorly done. many dome tweeters have such distortion between 16khz and 20khz that I would rather cut it out than listen to it. But take a device that can clearly get up to 24khz and the band between 16khz and 20khz will be cleaned up, I no longer want to cut that noise out, it has lower distortion and no longer causes fatigue listening to it. I think it is the in-band distortions that we should be looking at, bandwidth limits should account for this and allow the lowest distortion without having to get stupid with bandwidth.
Now how we get the recording engineers to stop the sound level wars is an entirely different subject, I don't know how you overcome the commercial reasons for doing this, that is really an artistic question, it is not a technical necessity, but I guess the major market for music is still the car and other noisy environments that drive this application of massive compression. I'll leave that to the mastering engineers to argue, it obviously is not a physical requirement to record a high quality recording.
Now that doesn't mean that I believe we need to band limit everything to a 20 t0 20khz band limit. I have found that with the high frequencies in speakers that most just barely get to 20khz and most of the time this is clearly very poorly done. many dome tweeters have such distortion between 16khz and 20khz that I would rather cut it out than listen to it. But take a device that can clearly get up to 24khz and the band between 16khz and 20khz will be cleaned up, I no longer want to cut that noise out, it has lower distortion and no longer causes fatigue listening to it. I think it is the in-band distortions that we should be looking at, bandwidth limits should account for this and allow the lowest distortion without having to get stupid with bandwidth.
Now how we get the recording engineers to stop the sound level wars is an entirely different subject, I don't know how you overcome the commercial reasons for doing this, that is really an artistic question, it is not a technical necessity, but I guess the major market for music is still the car and other noisy environments that drive this application of massive compression. I'll leave that to the mastering engineers to argue, it obviously is not a physical requirement to record a high quality recording.
There seem to be a few people who disagree with that.
I do know that people who have to rely on inferences of profanity are both cowards and generally considered by most to not be entirely in control of their faculties and demeanor.
I suspect that it may be pretty safe to say that you overestimate your personal authority and mental competence.
That has nothing to do with 24/96 vs 16/44 tests? The 9600 is great for that. Or sure you can use a sound card and DAW etc to burn your CD or compare files. I get the whole process to making a CD in one cheap (now) box. You are trying really hard to build a case for keeping CD's. It isnt working for me.
On the practical side -- With portability and streaming music here Now and plenty of BW to send 24/96... it is here to stay. No need for physical CDs is what drives the 24/96 now.
THx-RNMarsh
I guess some consciousness raising may be needed. If you have a PC with a decent audio interface on it, you can:
(1) Just plain outperform the 9600 as a recorder. Better SNR, double the max sample rate, etc. etc.
(2) Do listening tests without bothering with CDs, etc.
And while doing this sort of thing may be new to some, I've been enjoying it since around Y2K. That is what, about 16 years now? Do try to keep up! ;-)
I have zero interest in building a case for keeping CDs except to meet legal and ethical requirements while enjoying the music.
I do almost 100% of my listening and watching for pleasure from media servers, either mine or commercial services. My personal online music server has at least 20,000 songs on it. I think my portable digital player has about 10,000 songs on it.
I can and have proven to this forum that I have been doing so, even at 24/96 since Y2K.
I have had a portable digital recorder that does up to 24/96 recording from phantom powered microphones long enough and used it often enough to have had to replace its lithium cell...
Marsh, you badly misjudge me on many grounds, probably because I'm so far ahead of you with digital audio technology that you can't see where I am! ;-)
This has been rolling out for a while especially in China, a separate 24/96 audio path with a fairly nice ESS based reference design. I helped get an ADSL driver re-purposed as a headphone amp.
Arny I've jabbered here with these folks for years please give it a break and read my sig, they are not the enemy. I still remember the time you attacked Sigfried Linkwitz's microphone mod without even looking up what it was. All you needed was for some poor DIY'er to say "improvement on a commercial product" and you flew off the handle.
Last edited:
That would be a product of your imagination.
(1) I have nothing against Linkwitz's mic mod, and while it references some prior art, it also has some pretty clever refinements. *
* ironically I co-authored (with Bernhard Muller) what was probably the first Panasonic omni mic artcle in TAA back in the 1980s.
(2) I've been aware of Linkwitz's mic mod for years and years.
(3) I reviewed the web pages on Linkwtiz's web site just before I made the post in question. While I may have made some errors, its not because I didn't do reasonable research.
I think you have this image of me based on what I don't know, and like the rest of us, you tend to read what you want to read, no matter what's written.
For future reference: I can study as hard as I can, and write as carefully as I may, and because of his biases, Scott Wurcer is going to read what I write like its trash. Too bad, I used to have more respect for him. :-( You see Scott, you just vindicated the rotten image you have of what I think about the people who post here by "being that guy". You are acting like my enemy. Are you self-aware enough to see it, especially given that this forum seems to support private messaging, which makes this post a show piece?
Last edited:
This was a lesson I learned a long time ago: when a large number of people (from a variety of backgrounds) whom you are *trying* to communicate with perceive your communication in a way that you do not intend it, the issue is on you to adapt. There's far, far more to interacting than simply having done your research.
If we who find exception to the tone of your writing are not your intended audience, then who is?
This is not good, so in the spirit of helpfulness, Overcoming Inferiority Complex | 2KnowMySelf.
Take care!
Take care!
Wow Arny you blind side me, I followed and miss your sound card pages for years and I stopped using USENET when folks kept attacking you even after an unbelievable personal loss. There is something deeply wrong here, I read what you write like it's trash, where does that come from? There is need for some mediation and or intervention here.
Pavel it’s your SQRW from post #76930.
The same shown on post #77105 coming out of the same CD player, only read through a different scope's screen.
Both scopes were in DC coupling mode.
I am very surprised that such a SQRW can tax that scope’s 20MHz bandwidth.
No wonder, my square has had 1102.5Hz so there is only 19th harmonics. 1KHz square would definitely have 21st harmonics up to Fs/2.
Of course Pavel, thank you for the reminder.
20947.5kHz vs 21000kHz!
And then comes the dreadfull Fs/2
How do I hate the CD sharp cut-off. How do I hate the CD sharp cut-off. How do I hate the CD sharp cut-off.
Good idea Pavel. Give me some time to test some CD players I have here.
Question. Is the FFT you show from the output of a CD player?
Elektroj I am sorry I haven’t done the sinus test. I devoted the day to my wife’s wish for travelling around some really beautiful places out in the countryside. The weather was so good, that saying no would equate to Dante’s 10th Circle.
Well said.
George
Last edited:
George, it is an output from the sound card. In the past I did some tests with CD players with 21kHz sine and white noise. It also showed transition area issues.
The attached measurement is something similar. 110.25 Hz square (Fs = 44.1kHz) at soundcard output. We can see the transition zone which should be cut by brickwall filter.
The attached measurement is something similar. 110.25 Hz square (Fs = 44.1kHz) at soundcard output. We can see the transition zone which should be cut by brickwall filter.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.