Well, it depends..... have to see how things evolve further down the road as to direction. prefer floating point.... have to wait for some clever work-around for delivery.
But 24/96K HD downloads are a good step up, as they are now implimented.
I am happy to not buy CD anymore. I was running out of space to put them, anyway. But, unlike LP's I am keeping my CD player because I have so many CD that have not been nor ever will be put into a 24/96K. The original recordings are so old and crappy sounding but musically great and moves me. I havent bought a CD in a long time. Just HiRes or HD downloads now.
THx- for all the inputs. Enjoy your music.
-Richard
Last edited:
The thinking's all wrong here, Richard - yet again,!!
No it isn't. Try applying your thinking to 24/96K.
-RNM
Scott, are we talking about the same thing?
Playing back data transparently, whatever the bit-lenght or sample rate is not a problem. It is the conversion process of said data back to analog where DSPs with their inherent problems are introduced.
Unless you've ment the non-oversampling D to A process, of course.
Richard, have you done the exercise I mentioned above: hires -> CD -> hires?No it isn't. Try applying your thinking to 24/96K.
-RNM
If people are up to it, I would take a hires track clip, of their choice, put it through that mill - and then see if people could pick the "degradation" ...
OK fine I didn't consider the D/A as a DSP, I thought you meant the behind the scenes conversion of everything to 48K that folks complain about. And yes there are NOS DAC's, that I see folks raving about here all the time. I have to assume what comes out is not horrifying.
Still looking for a response about doing some hires manipulation ... I've found a "purist" online hires recording of Steinway playing, with tremendous dynamic range, downloaded that and found a very quiet passage, amplified that by 50dB - a very clear piano note, but a lot of electronics hiss, the noise floor of the recording chain is strongly evident. So to do a fair challenge I need an even quieter recording - any offers ... ?
Go Richard go! 24 bit today, 32 bit tomorrow! It is the the direction of PROGRESS! I can barely tolerate 16 bit, except for a FEW CD's, perhaps I need better digital playback. I'm sure it would help, but today I again listened to vinyl. I pulled out a 30 year old recording of a direct disc vinyl that used to be a demo record in 1987 at a now defunct hi fi store in Berkeley. Sounded great! Even with a few scratches, the essence is preserved virtually completely.
Progress? More like regress.
You're just a throwback to the comical "THD wars" of the '60s and '70s.
"Go Richard go! 0.0001% THD today, 0.00001%THD tomorrow!"
se
Why 32 bit ?
I was just looking at my "chain".
My FLAC/MP3 convertor and soundcard support
16-32 bit , my DSP's are all 32 bit .
Besides my virtual synths (32 bit) all my music is 16bit.
If I get any DAC short of an ESS "Sabre" , my sound card is just
going to downsample to 24bit anyways ? (or just run the
16bit flac straight to the dac)
Why would I need 32bit ? 24 can "describe " quite a complex waveform.
My virtual synth is 32bit and can virtualize quite the waveform.
But I think they just standardized with the main stream DSP/VST (32bit)
for software compatibility.
Same goes for 32/64 Win7. Short of my daughter's Maple software ,32bit W7
is the same as W7-64. I DO have 64bit on everything , as everything is new.
So , is this just another "mine is longer" argument ??
OS
I was just looking at my "chain".
My FLAC/MP3 convertor and soundcard support
16-32 bit , my DSP's are all 32 bit .
Besides my virtual synths (32 bit) all my music is 16bit.
If I get any DAC short of an ESS "Sabre" , my sound card is just
going to downsample to 24bit anyways ? (or just run the
16bit flac straight to the dac)
Why would I need 32bit ? 24 can "describe " quite a complex waveform.
My virtual synth is 32bit and can virtualize quite the waveform.
But I think they just standardized with the main stream DSP/VST (32bit)
for software compatibility.
Same goes for 32/64 Win7. Short of my daughter's Maple software ,32bit W7
is the same as W7-64. I DO have 64bit on everything , as everything is new.
So , is this just another "mine is longer" argument ??
OS
Yes, it is. If one does any serious analysis of things, and plays with waveforms, and listens to them, in waveform editors then it is very obvious that 44.1/16 is perfectly adequate for retaining the information in any sort of reasonable music. But many people, it seems , can't make the jump to understanding that their circuitry may do a somewhat rough job of turning that Red Book information into "clean" analogue sound - confusing the two issues is not helping anything ... !!
, can't make the jump to understanding that their circuitry may do a somewhat rough job of turning that Red Book information into "clean" analogue sound - confusing the two issues is not helping anything ... !!- Status
- Not open for further replies.