In Reply to: RE: About depth of field with digital posted by beppe61 on May 9, 2015 at 06:50:14:
Hi,
>i guess redbook format has no chance. Hasn't it ?
Try listening to some recordings Keith Johnson has done for Reference Recordings, on a good system (say non-oversampling Multibit DAC single ended Triode Amplifiers or low feedback Triode Push-Pull Amplifiers and Tannoy Red 15" Coaxials or maybe Altec 604's with Mastering Labs Crossovers, I guess Spectral electronics and Avalon speakers should also count). You may be surprised how much space there can be on CD.
Friends used to joke I should pay more council tax as the sound scape went not just into the next terraced house on some recordings, but even into the one next to that, subjectively. Some Decca Recordings (try Dutoit/MSO Organ Symphony for an excellent example on CD) also manage to throw unbelievably deep and wide soundscapes.
Some reference recordings are available as CD Format (with HDCD) and as 88.2 or 176.4kHz/24Bit. I will say 24/88 or 176 is better, but the CD's illustrate just how good CD can be.
> Maybe just 48k would have made a remarkable difference ..
I would say had the format been made (say) 18 Bit at 64kHz we would have no debate. But at 44.1kHz and 16 Bit we are just short enough that the limits of the format can become obvious (I would say for > 80% of recordings they are not the limit).
Thor
At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to intolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 21:58:27 05/09/15 (3)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 00:54:44 05/10/15 (2)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - Thorsten 11:09:14 05/10/15 (1)
- RE: About depth of field with digital - beppe61 13:29:15 05/10/15 (0)