I don't think there's anything to prove here.
Afraid you will have to find other ways to express your ideas on this issue. Quit with the bullying and I will answer your question. That's if you actually want my answer.

Otherwise. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 10-09-2005).]

I wasn't bullying. I was being direct. How come people who aren't being attacked feel like they are....unless there is some truth to the alleged bully's statement?
Seriously though, I do want the experiment mentioned actually tried sometime during my lifetime. It seems to me that most of the people who talk about this stuff do it from a "this is what should be, or this is what the machine shows" perspective rather than a "this is what I hear" perspective.

Here is an excerpt from Morph in the mastering thread started by pennywizz

Some Mp3's are amazingly close out
of the speaker, but they are far from the same on the wav/mp3 editor. Take the mp3 and re-convert it back to wav now and compare the statistics. Better
yet try cross channel fading on the once an mp3 wav. You cannot do it to the wav that has been converted and re-converted back. You can, but it is horrible
sounding because the frequencies were merged during encoding. This is how mp3's digitally represent sound. Technically speaking mp3 is a SOUND format and
not a form of preservable audio media. Rather It's just a compressed digital representation of combined frequencies. The theory began long ago when searching
for ways to make FM stations more powerful and longer range. The same pricipal goes for the dynamics of the media. try putting some quality compression
or other dynamics process on an mp3 same thing.


Morph admits here that even a high bit .mp3 can sound amazingly close to the original. Only when reconverted into wav and annalized through a wave editor can the differences be "seen" not "heard".
If this is true of a high bit .mp3, it must be even more true when comparing a 16 bit wav to a 24 bit wav.

Oh, and the first part of my post, about 196 bit 25000000000 sample rate, I call it "tongue in cheek", you call it bullying. Gees. The people telling me to lighten up are the people who actually need to do the lightening up.

well, if it is your odd way of apologizing for inderectly calling me a person who looks at numbers instead of using their ears than it is almost accepted.
To answer your sarcastic and ill posed question: Yes.
I have compared the two. I have to do that every time I have to dither.

Now since you've proposed an experiment here why don't we do it so you actually get to experience things yourself without having to count on general public or my crazy self.

Get a good mic. A good preamp. record an acoustic guitar (or whatever you have) using your current setup.

Then try doing the same thing using a decent audio card with 24 bit 96k.

Compare the two. Listen several times. Then put some plug-ins on a track. EQs, compressor-limiters etc.

Then tell me what your experience is. I'm not so much interested in your neighbour's opinion (unless of coarse they are audio engineers or have studios themselves).

EDIT.
I have a nasty habit of editing my posts. So if you've already replied to my previous attempt to compose this responce it can stil stay as valid. ROFLMAO.

--ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 10-09-2005).]

A bit of text-based sparring. It's kind of fun eh?
E Q and other useless things. That was good.

Seeing as how I work in a studio pretty much every day of my life, I think we can talk about this from a somewhat mutual level of understanding. We're recording at 24 bit 44.1, and I have noticed no discernable difference between that and 24 96. I've never tried 196. I send my mixes to Nashville to be mastered because that is something I do not want to get into. I've invested enough time in the producing and mixing etc to then try to tackle the nuance of mastering.
The person I use to master is named Tom King, and he has told me that my mixes sound every bit as good, and sometimes better, than Nashville products he's got. And this is no slouch of a mastering engineer, I can promise.

He sends back 24 bit and regular CD quality masters for me. And try as I might, I cannot tell the difference. And that is real world experience. From my ears. So to my real world experience, 196k will do me no good but eat up hard drive.

Now I'll go join the ranks of Sherriff who's feeling bad 'cause Ed's pissed with him.

You wanna "join" Sheriff? Well, we're stil friends. So you'll have to be one to.
Oh, that's what it's all about. Damn. Good thing I deleted that sarcastic crap I wrote you. Although it was good. I'll save it for those who deserve it though.
Actually Sheriff and I have resolved our issues long time ago. his post has been just sitting here. So if you felt obligated to kick my butt for me being mean to him or something it's a bit uncalled for. You're not doing either of us a favor by jumping in and thus jumping to conclusions.

To be a hundred percent serious about the usefulness of 196k (vs 96k) I can honestly say that I have very little to notice there but don't mind recording at a 196k since I'm not pressed for hard disk space. I do it because I can. However, using 24 bit /96k as in oppose to 16 bit /44.1k makes a difference for me.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 10-09-2005).]

Just curious,why isn't this discussion on the recording forum? I have been hanging out there looking to learn some more about recording.Oh well I am glad I found you guys!
Hey, I am using 20 bit and dithering to 24/96. Do I actually gain very much in your opinion by going 24/96 all the way?
I dont mean to throw more into this.

Here are a few observations
1. Most High End Keyboards now use 24bit 96kz (Or more) for sound samples and sound reproduction.
2. High Quality CD Players use 24bit 96Khz (Or more) D/A converters to over sample CD for better quality sound.
3. DVD Audio discs use 24bit 96Khz (Or more) for quality sound.
4. Super Audio CD use 24bit 96Khz (Or more) for improved sound.
5. Cinema systems (Home and Professional) mainly use 24bit 96Khz (Or more)
6. Most Studios use 24bit 96Khz (Or more)
7. Computers are now coming as standard with 24bit 96Khz (Or more) onboard sound chips.
8. Most Audio manipulation programs recommend to use 24bit 96Khz. (Or more)
So whether you can here the difference or not, we do now live in a 24bit 96Khz (Or more) world.

Bill


[This message has been edited by abacus (edited 10-10-2005).]

Yes, and that's really frightening me! Now we musicians are living in a computing business world too...*AAAARGH*

Okay, we have to live with so many things that we don't really need but the wheels of time keep on turning. At least I hope that the resistance of us musicians will grow again to the point where the factories have to raise with us.
I remember the days when the PA systems turned to transistors (long after it was done for HiFi systems). After a short while the musicians started to want back their warm sounding tube amps. I'm very glad about that fact!

You're loosing dynamics with 16/44.1 because you're mixing it down digitally. The digitally inaccuracy is the devil! Higher bit resolutions and higher sample rates do minimize this effect but never do reach towards analog resolution - it's only a digital imitation of the nature! So, we can get better results by using analog technologies especially for the audio mixes.

Personally, I like to mix analog and digital devices in my studio because it provides me a bigger range but, analog devices are still having a great PLUS in my decicions...
Regards, Danny