"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:21:15 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you
signed up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human
hearing?

Well that's wrong for a start because he didn't.

I've given up trying to explain such things to Keith because - as he has
stated - he wants an argument to 'win', and to be center-stage, not to
learn about what he doesn't understand.

I was referring to the above statement being attributed to Keith, who did
not write the above question, I did.


Bob, I seem to be replying only to you!

Mr Lesurf has got the ****s with me because he finally (after a great deal
of patience on *my part*) caught on to the fact that I didn't need his
tediously long and involved (and usually three days late) explanations of
various points which he deemed had skated past me.

Starting with Anthropology and ending with Zoology there are *thousands* of
topics I don't need *in depth* in - electronics is just one of them. I ask
when I need to know; I'm at least 40 years too old to be lectured in what I
don't....

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

Bob, I seem to be replying only to you!

Mr Lesurf has got the ****s with me because he finally (after a great
deal of patience on *my part*) caught on to the fact that I didn't need
his tediously long and involved (and usually three days late)
explanations of various points which he deemed had skated past me.

Come on Keith stop winding people up. :-)




Bob, if I am winding people up it'll almost always involve valves and/or
vinyl - the two *audio* topics the 'techno****s' tries to stamp out of
existence in this group some time ago.


Jim is a learned guy and we're lucky he spends the time to give us the
theoretical run down on things. That doesn't mean you have to concede to
every point Jim makes but does mean you need to have a good counter
argument which is a good thing. If he writes an article for you, the least
you can do is read it, we all have more to learn.


Bob, don't know where you were at the time but occasionally JL's posts only
got responses after I had replied to him and got the ball rolling. (If he
has any honesty at all he will remember that.) The problem (and personal
cost) for me was that it would only expose my further ignorance of topics
that I wasn't really interested in and, of course, opened the gates for a
further round of lectures and chidey finger-wagging.

I'm afraid (oops) I simply got fed up with trying to politely sidestep the
various *tedious/unending* issues that were, frankly, boring my wris****ch
to a standstill.

Then we've got this ludicrous 'wining debates' business....

Count me out, Bob - I know what a self-publicising egoist looks like when I
see one; he can feed on his current popularity (while it lasts) without
interference from me!

Further: I don't really trust 'ex-spurts' Bob - I've seen too many ****-ups
perpetrated by them in my lifetime. There is nothing in *audio* today which
wasn't hammered nice and flat by the Japanese in the 70s and of course they
are leading the way again with 'HD' today - the rest is just people
desperately trying to create an *earning niche* by being a bit different....

(Ask Baron Tim de Paravicini - or just plain 'Paravicini' as I knew him at
school...!! ;-)

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:


These days I often find myself hearing something I can't explain asking
myself what would Jim say about this. Yes, he's had an effect on me no
mistake.

Hopefully beneficial... or at least not too painful. :-)

Yes, 'trust your ears' when it comes to deciding if you prefer one result
to anorher, or that one thing sounded different to another. But engage your
brain and be prepared to question what may seem like the 'reason' if you
then want to understand why you perceived what you did - or how to
interepret that individual result as a possible guide for other decisions.

Still sure he's wrong about MMGW though as the recent
leaked/stolen emails would seem to reveal. :-)

ahem Now who's winding?... :-)

TBH the main 'opinion' I have on MMGW is that people should read and
understand the science as indicated by the IPCC reports, papers, etc. And
to not be distracted by the 'cherry picking' and other debating tricks
employed by others who start from wanting to believe it can't be true. So
far as I can see, the mass, diversity, and detail of the evidence shows the
reality quite clearly for those who can be bothered to read it, understand
the science involved, etc, rather that take what suits them from the
general media or the net.

WRT your last point. That is quite a good example of how those who wish to
attack the science instead adopt "go for the man not the ball" debating
tactics. If you want some idea why, I'd suggest you use the iPlayer and
listen to the first part of last week's 'Material World' science programme
on BBC Radio 4.

Note also that professionals/academics often have their own ways to talk
about things they are familiar with. So, for example, I've often described
the use of the FFT as a 'trick' that lets us get a given result. That does
not mean 'trick' as in a magician trying to fool others or hide something.
But means a neat way of doing something. Hence the recent 'exposure' (by
stealing and publishing someone elses correspondence out of context) isn't
necesarily saying what the media and others might lead you to think.

Bear in mind the behaviour of the media - as per the 'Today' programme -
where the 'interviewer' keeps interrupting to say what *they* have decided
the person being questioned "really means". In effect, dictating their own
answers and interpretations to the 'questions' they posed.

However since this isn't the correct group for discussing this, I'll not
comment further beyond pointing out that another habit of those who want to
dismiss the scientific evidence, etc, is to post contrary comments out of
context in forums (like this one) where they can expect a low chance that
anyone reading will have a background as an academic scientist who studies
the topic.

I don't expect people to accept my own views on any of the above (audio or
MMGW) just because I've given them. What I do hope, though, is that they
can be bothered to learn and understand, and then be able to base their own
views on a reliable understanding of the relevant evidence and how that can
support one view, or show others don't stand up to critical thought. Engage
brain before moving. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Personally, I can't really hear 'digital differences' much or anything
above a 256K MP3 even with valve amplification and singlr driver
speakers, but then that's just me!

More likely 'because of' valve amplification and single driver speakers?

--
*Black holes are where God divided by zero *

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

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to
192k/24bit, play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or
two. Want to use something like this for various purposes.

I hope this doesn't come across as being sharp or whatever its not
intended.

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you signed
up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

The plan is that a new recorder would have multiple uses.

One use would be to make recordings for analysis purposes. e.g to look at
distortion products above 22kHz. So, for example, to check out things like
how DACs fare with the 'waveform from hell' which was discussed a while
ago.

Or to measure the behaviour of amplifiers, speakers, etc, etc, above 22kHz.

I already have recorders that work well for 44/16 purposes and have been
happy to use them to make recordings onto CDR. But they would not be
adequate for purposes like the above.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:53:35 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to
192k/24bit, play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or
two. Want to use something like this for various purposes.

I hope this doesn't come across as being sharp or whatever its not
intended.

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you signed
up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

The plan is that a new recorder would have multiple uses.

One use would be to make recordings for analysis purposes. e.g to look at
distortion products above 22kHz. So, for example, to check out things like
how DACs fare with the 'waveform from hell' which was discussed a while
ago.

Or to measure the behaviour of amplifiers, speakers, etc, etc, above 22kHz.

I already have recorders that work well for 44/16 purposes and have been
happy to use them to make recordings onto CDR. But they would not be
adequate for purposes like the above.


To keep you amused while you wait, here's the response of my old Alpha
9 captured at 96kHz 24 bits (that's the best I can do).

First the spectrum. I used a linear frequency scale for obvious
reasons

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/highharm.png

and the second a close up of the clipped region

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/clipped.png

d

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:53:35 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

One use would be to make recordings for analysis purposes. e.g to look
at distortion products above 22kHz. So, for example, to check out
things like how DACs fare with the 'waveform from hell' which was
discussed a while ago.


To keep you amused while you wait, here's the response of my old Alpha 9
captured at 96kHz 24 bits (that's the best I can do).

First the spectrum. I used a linear frequency scale for obvious reasons

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/highharm.png

and the second a close up of the clipped region

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/clipped.png

Thanks for those. Quite interesting. You can see why I'd like a high
sampling rate to examine something like that! :-)

I have been tempted in the past by using something like a storage scope or
equivalent interface. However although that would easily give
megasample/sec rates they tend to be low resolution unless costly. And
something like the Tascam could be used for other purposes. So is probably
better for me if I can establish it will work OK for my purposes -
including being able to transfer data to/from a Linux/RO box.

I'll try asking Tascam (teac?) about this and if they cannae be bothered
I'll ask on rec.audio.pro.

However other recorders, like the Eridol Chris mentioned, seem to have
other limitations e.g. not going to 192k or not having digital in/out as
well as line in/out. So would be less flexible for the things I have in
mind.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf
wrote:

I'm interested as I'd like a recorder than can work with up to
192k/24bit, play as well as record, and record longer than an hour or
two. Want to use something like this for various purposes.

I hope this doesn't come across as being sharp or whatever its not
intended.

Why do wish to record at 192k/24bit when I thought the wisdom you signed
up to was that 44.1K/16bit was transparent to human hearing?

The plan is that a new recorder would have multiple uses.

One use would be to make recordings for analysis purposes. e.g to look at
distortion products above 22kHz. So, for example, to check out things like
how DACs fare with the 'waveform from hell' which was discussed a while
ago.

Or to measure the behaviour of amplifiers, speakers, etc, etc, above
22kHz.


Right, as test equipment. I have a PC with a M-Audio AP24192 and a LynxTWO
for this purpose. Its bandpass and dynamic range totally eclipse the
capabilities of the human ear, but they are entirely appropriate for an
audio technical tool.

The usual guideline for audio test equipment is that ideally it has about
twice or more the bandpass and 10 dB or more dynamic range than the UUT.

Most audio gear of interest is in the 50 KHz/100 dB range, so 24/192 with
line-level dynamic range of about 110 dB dynamic range is desirable, if
reasonably possible.

My portable recording device is a M-Audio Microtrak, which does 24/96. If I
upgrade it, I would be looking for either more channels or more bandpass and
dynamic range.

I see that Kitty is trying to give you grief over this. Just another one of
"his" desperate attention-getting strategies.

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I see that Kitty


Noted that you have initiated the name-calling yet again....


is trying to give you grief over this. Just another one of
"his" desperate attention-getting strategies.


Strategies?

Who TF needs 'strategies' - I could post a local weather report here and you
and your pooch will *unfailingly* respond to it!

LOL!

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I see that Kitty


Noted that you have initiated the name-calling yet again....


is trying to give you grief over this. Just another one of
"his" desperate attention-getting strategies.


Strategies?

Who TF needs 'strategies' - I could post a local weather report here and
you and your pooch will *unfailingly* respond to it!

LOL!



Like this utter bull****, for example:

"The usual dodge has been to know someone on the inside at a movie theatre.

I knew of someone who had a complete 35 mm cinema with dolby and arc lamp in
their basement. They had what we in the US call "Family connections"."