Richard Crowley wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...

I have deliberately avoided the argument as to whether even 16bit is
excessive for vinyl.........

Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.

geoff

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:50:07 +1300, "Geoff"
wrote:

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...

I have deliberately avoided the argument as to whether even 16bit is
excessive for vinyl.........

Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.

geoff


I've never seen a piece of vinyl that reached 12 bits. And I'm willing
to bet that nobody ever saw one that did on a second playing.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Geoff wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Serge Auckland" wrote ...

I have deliberately avoided the argument as to whether even 16bit is
excessive for vinyl.........

Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.


Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some
meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as
meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp.



Scott

In article .com,
wrote:
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.


Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some
meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as
meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp.


Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc? Proper blind
testing? It's quite revealing. The crunch point comes at about 12 bits
(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy.
The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit
weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.

--
*Go the extra mile. It makes your boss look like an incompetent slacker *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.


Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some
meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as
meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp.


Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.


It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.


The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?


(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy.
The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit
weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. You get what you
deserve.
Me, I'll keep listening.


Scott

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Didn't think there was any argument?
Is ANY vinyl capable of SNR in excess of 16 bits?

Try 12 bits.


Try using your ears instead. But if you can't, at least try to get some
meaningful data on the subject. What you have going there is about as
meaningful as a manufacturer's THD measuements are for an amp.


Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.


It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.


The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?


(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get cloudy.
The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at 16 bit
weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices. You get what you
deserve.
Me, I'll keep listening.


Scott

In article . com,
wrote:
Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Yes

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.

I'm not quite clear what you mean.


It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't
conducted this sort of test.


(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get
cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at
16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices.

Not *my* choices, pal.

You get what you
deserve.
Me, I'll keep listening.

Keep giving us the proof you simply don't know what you're listening to.

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Have you ever had the chance to experiment with a variety of programme
material over a wide range of sampling frequencies, etc?

Yes I have. Have you?

Yes

Proper blind
testing?

Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many comparisons
have you made of various issues of the same commercial titles blind?
I've done hundreds.

I'm not quite clear what you mean.

Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the
subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that
one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given
title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to
move back to the real issue confused you.




It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?"




The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't
conducted this sort of test.

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why should I when I
hear differences between 16 and 24?




(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get
cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD at
16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices.

Not *my* choices, pal.


My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves


Scott

In article . com,
wrote:
Dude I do almost all of my comparisons blind. You? How many
comparisons have you made of various issues of the same commercial
titles blind? I've done hundreds.

I'm not quite clear what you mean.

Sorry that my attempt to stay on subject confused you. Remeber the
subject of why it makes sense to digitize LPs? Remember the claim that
one good reason is becuase in so many cases an LP version of a given
title is sonically superior to any CD version? Sorry that my attempt to
move back to the real issue confused you.

Ah. Of course. Now I understand you haven't a clue as to why some CDs will
sound different from the 'same' LP. It's not some magic which can't be
measured - it's because they go through different mastering processes. In
the case of CD because the intention is to 'improve' on the master tape.
With LP often essential to produce a playable version.
But if you're copying a LP to CD at home, this doesn't apply.



It's quite revealing.

Yes it is. Give it a try.

Why repeat what I said?


Where did you say "Yes it is. Give it a try?"




The crunch point comes at about 12 bits

What didn't you understand about "using your ears?" Let me guess you
came up with this number using blind listening tetsts yourself?

Ah - you didn't understand what I meant at all. And obviously haven't
conducted this sort of test.

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits.

Why not? You seem convinced 16 bit doesn't deliver what *you* want - so
perhaps 12 might? After all, the measurable parameters of an LP are well
below 16 bit spec in every way, so perhaps this would be just what you're
looking for.

Why should I when I hear differences between 16 and 24?

Right. Thank you for confirming you don't know how to conduct proper
testing.

(straight) Once you use companding or over sampling the waters get
cloudy. The figures for NICAM TV sound - 11 bit companded - and CD
at 16 bit weren't plucked out of the air as some seem to think.


Dude keep on using those numbers to make your choices.

Not *my* choices, pal.


My bad. I forgot that some just can't think for themselves

Oh you certainly 'think'. Think you can hear differences where non exist.
Or where they do, don't actually care why.

--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Right. I haven't conducted tests below 16 bits. Why should I when I
hear differences between 16 and 24?

Because that was based on flawed tests. It would be good for you to first
learn how to control all relevant variables before you run around claiming
that which is known to be impossible.