24 bits is nice to have for mixing as long as your daw uses them for processing. As in eq, compression, even changing levels etc. Rounding errors. And for recording large dynamics, sometimes you need 20db headroom.
Last edited:
I do have a fondness for the mercury recordings I own, but didn't get any of the SACD releases then they came out. Perhaps I should have done.
I don't want that, but I do want the ambience of being at a concert. What I don't know is where most labels are on the scale from ambience to geewhiz.
Last edited:
Yes. The CD's BW is not the main issue. 40KHz would have been better. And it is not what makes the sound less accurate as the freq is increased. Nor is it the filter... though a small affect may be detectable if not well designed. It is the sampling rate is far too low.
It is almost a smoke and mirrors trick to use Continuous Wave waveforms to help the sampling of 2X only. Since music has no CW to help construct the waveform with a simple 2X sample rate, it is the wrong way to choose sampling rate. As suggested, it may have been required rate for other compatibility reasons. You have to use Real-Time sampling which means a much higher sampling rate to capture the complex music waveform accurately.
That has been corrected in HD/Hi-Rez recordings.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
It does no good to point out that this is incorrect, so I won't.
All good fortune,
Chris
Yes, I am sure we can go on and on with CD limitations and justifications. I am sure you can find holes in its brief analogies. It was 3am. And, I dont mean smoke and mirrors from math theory side. It is fine for CW. But from marketing side. But the jist of it is there and music needs a much higher sampling rate. To me, that is the crux of the matter which cause the sound to deteriorate at higher frequencies.
Now we have HD recordings, so it really is a moot point at best IMO.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
When I was working (Intel) I did enough single shot scope captures to know 10X the highest frequency of interest was where I, personally, wanted to be sample rate wise. I'd assume that would carry over to audio, if you consider that's "just another transient signal".
One time someone asked "what bandwidth do I need to convey this signal". So I did an FFT, lopped off some upper bands, inverse FFT and compared to the original overlaying the two waveforms. Repeat until the band truncated inverse FFT no longer fit. Truncate the maximum number of highest frequency bands (level and phase) possible still resulting in what appeared to be a good fit - there's your bandwidth.
Unsure if that would work on audio, regarding "how it sounds"...
One time someone asked "what bandwidth do I need to convey this signal". So I did an FFT, lopped off some upper bands, inverse FFT and compared to the original overlaying the two waveforms. Repeat until the band truncated inverse FFT no longer fit. Truncate the maximum number of highest frequency bands (level and phase) possible still resulting in what appeared to be a good fit - there's your bandwidth.
Unsure if that would work on audio, regarding "how it sounds"...
Last edited:
OK You Need an explanation. I have sold everything in my California life and moved to Asia for the remaining duration. I dont have a music system at all here at this time. My music is all on file server and I would need to go thru it to find the selection you need. So. I aint going to do it. Might not even if I had my system put back together. Too time consuming. You will have to do it for your self.
You might try contacting the HD web sites and tell them what you are looking for. They can give you recommendations.
-Richard
Last edited:
First, bandwidth is pretty much the same as sample rate.
Music is all continuos waveform, there are no discontinuities. Look it up in a math book. And you can make it repetive by putting it on repeat.
I dont care how you parse/debate things or choice of words and terms with my meaning. [wow. did I say that?]
it always sounds more realistic at a higher sampling rate compared to 44. CD sampling rate is too low and sounds worse compared to high sample rates.
Scott is correct in that I am no longer listening to "CD is perfect" debate.
THx-RNMarsh
it always sounds more realistic at a higher sampling rate compared to 44. CD sampling rate is too low and sounds worse compared to high sample rates.
Scott is correct in that I am no longer listening to "CD is perfect" debate.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
My math book did not say music has no discontinuities.
There is a definite relationship between sample rate and bandwidth, but it is only for signals which do not change with time.
Jn
No, I'm saying the criticism of conventional signal processing is based on ignorance.
From what I can see, Richard is saying that signal processing that assumes steady state is insufficient for non continuous signals.
Are you saying something different?
Jn
Last edited:
There sure doesn't seem to be much consensus on that, among producers or consumers.
I hang out a fair bit at QuadraphonicQuad.com, where things of this sort are discussed at length. I dare say the preference there is more toward gee-whiz mixes, even for classical titles.
I enjoy multichannel music quite a lot. My mix preference tends to vary with the program. For orchestral/ organ/ etc. performances, I prefer the you-are-in-the-hall approach, which can be pure goosebumps when done well. For pop/ rock etc., there's not as much pretense to a "real" space to begin with, so I don't mind a bit more trickery. It's just fun! And can be quite involving as well. The new 5.1 mix of Abbey Road is a perfect example of both - absolutely wonderful.
Everything that fits under the LPF can (ideally) be reproduced perfectly. It only takes two samples per cycle, and more is not better.
Regarding choice of cutoff frequency I have no comment. Very high mileage ears, so I can't hear the proposed differences.
All good fortune,
Chris
Regarding choice of cutoff frequency I have no comment. Very high mileage ears, so I can't hear the proposed differences.
All good fortune,
Chris