>Because no converter can reach even the 24bit resolution. In fact the best
>resolution you can reach is about 21 bits and the rest three bit contains
>only a random thermal noise.
>
>regards,
>Ctirad
I did not know that - but am not really surprised.
>There are not any true 24bit a/d converters yet.
>There are not even any true 22 bit a/d converters, perhaps in some labs.
>
>I think the best converters in the world manage about 20bit. (120db
>dynamic range.)
>
>If a converter had a 24bit dynamic range (144db) and full scale was
>+7db, then it would have to be able to resolve differences of 10
>nano-volts (10 one billionths of a volt). That's perhaps possible with
>cryogenics. Remember each extra bit *doubles* the dynamic range!
>
>Real 24 bit recording should resolve from below the brownian noise floor
>of air molecules hitting your ear drums to beyond the threshold of pain.
>
>That's why we are stuck at 24bit
Well thank you for a scientific explanation of this ceiling.
I guess, then, that *real* 24-bit resolution, or something very close to
it, would yield what I am looking for - if it can be achieved.
>Recording is about creating illusions, not fidelity. If you record an
>acoustic guitar in a totally dead room with the flattest most accurate
>mic and pre, in to best a/ds in the world, it sounds... ok.
>Put some reverb and top end on it, a little compression, perhaps add a
>little distortion with an aural exiter, or recording to tape, and people
>will say 'wow, what an amazing fidelity guitar recording!' :)
I agree with this to a certain extent, but the quality of the effects - or
the final signal after the effects are added, is affected by the fidelity
of the original signal.
There is a huge difference in our guitar sound put through an 8-bit Zoom
processer, an 18-bit Alesis Q2, a 20-bit Alesis Q20, and a Behringer
"24"-bit V-Verb.
I think it is about both - using a high-fidelity acoustic signal blended
with creative, high-quality effects to create a beautiful auditory
experience.
>Bullshit. If you can hear the difference between a 20 bit converter
>and a >20 bit one, what you hear is the difference between two
>converters, regardless of the number of bits they use.
And you can prove this?
I would assume, that if "24-bit" converters are really only 20-21 bits,
then a so-called "20-bit" converter is likely <<20 bit.
I maintain that I *can* hear bit-depth difference.
Are you perhaps suggesting that there exists some bit-depth threshold w/re
to human hearing?
What do you base your comment on?
>Even 16 bits correctly dithered is better than 24 tracks on a 2 inch tape.
Again, what do you base this on?
Recording what?
"Correctly dithered" - and you would maintain that there is some objective
standard as to what constitutes this?
I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by dithering, just as
I can hear the distortion of the audio signal created by Dolby - and I
don't like it.
If you think existing digital technology can already match or exceed the
audio fidelity of a 24-track reel-to-reel recorder, I would very much like
to know what it is, and where it is available - and I would like to hear
it.
-Maluvia
Received on Mon Feb 27 04:15:13 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 27 2006 - 04:15:13 EET