On Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:09:06 -0000, "Tim S Kemp"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Absolutely not the case. Given good implementations of all three, the
sound will be *identical*. BTW, it's more like 93-94 dB for properly
implemented 16-bit digital, because of that essential dither.

The problem with all this is you're saying 16, 24, 32 bit, 44, 48, 96, 192
khz will all sound the same.

Yes. Not one single person has yet been able to show proof that, *all
other things being equal*, this is not the case.

So 8 bit 44khz is fine too? or 12 bit?

It seems to be the case that above 12-13 bits, we can't tell a
difference. Interestingly, that's also consonant with known theory.
BTW, the *only* audible difference with a properly encoded 8-bit
signal, is a higher noise floor. If there's another difference, then
you didn't do it right!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not after a "my bits are better than your bits"
assault here, and much of the stuff I listen to is compressed (in both
senses of the word) anyway. But it is just damned wrong to say that the
difference between a 24/96 and a 16/44 recording is none at all.

Sez hoo? Show me one single example of a level-matched blind test
which shows that two such recordings made from the same master, sound
different. Very easy to do this if you move slightly to 24/88.2, or
24/176.4 for the original.

I'm sure a few moments with some test gear would show the output will not be
identical. Personally I'm not inclined to even bother trying.

Try it with a signal bandlimited to 20kHz and with a dynamic range of
less than 90dB, i.e. any analogue master tape. There will be *no*
difference, either measurable or audible. That *you* can't be bothered
to discover the truth, is not *my* problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering