On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:11:57AM -0800, Maluvia wrote:
> Apparently digital fidelity is a non-issue around here.
It *is* an issue for some people on this list.
> If you guys really feel that you can produce professional-
> sounding, commercial quality CDs with 16-bit sound cards
> and 'correct' dithering - be my guest, and good luck.
Most people wanting to do that would use more bits since
the equipment is available and gives you some headroom for
processing etc. But as a delivery format to the end user,
16 bit is fine. All my CDs are 16 bit :-)
> I am guessing that there are not many people on this list
> recording acoustic instruments or classical-type music.
There are some, and I'm one of them. Recording has become
an occasional business for me now, but I've been working
as a professional sound engineer recording mainly classical
music and jazz for a significant part of my life.
> I doubt that a recording engineer trying to record a violin,
> harp or orchestra, would be happy using a 16-bit sound card.
Nobody on this list advised you to do that, and see the
remark above. But *many* very fine recordings were made
using 16-bit equipment in the early days of digital. It's
not only a matter of number of bits or even pure technical
quality. Good recordings, certainly in the area you refer
to, are made by people who
1. listen to live music a lot,
2. understand music and musicians,
3. have the technical skills,
4. know the limits of *any* equipment
and are capable of handling them.
Without wanting to question your sincerity, please note
that any claims of 'I can hear xxxxx' are completely
irrelevant in a scientific context until they have been
confirmed by double-blind experiments in controlled and
repeatable circumstances. And if you claim things that
go logically against results that have been retested
and verified time and time again, then the burden of
proof is on you. That's how things work in science.
--
FA
