|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.235.228.24
In Reply to: RE: I think "implied resolution" is a better descriptor for the 13.1 "bits" posted by John Elison on September 25, 2015 at 18:33:47
Well that didn't take long.
Oh let's get even more technical. Should it be 13.1 bits or just 13 bits. I included the .1 because if I didn't I figured someone would point it out.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Follow Ups:
I don't see anything wrong with fractional bit-depths. When I recorded vinyl at 24/96 with my Alesis Masterlink, which doesn't have a volume control, I sometimes had recordings with peak levels of -10-dB. I would normalize them so the loudest peak came up to full-scale in the finalized playable version. Consequently, they appeared to be 24-bit recordings, but in reality their resolution was still only 22.3-bits.
Best regards,
John Elison
Thanks JE.
BTW you called it better than I remembered it. They do take the analog out from a dac and run it into a tube preamp, and then to an ADC. That explains to me how you could take a low res file, and add in enough natural looking high frequency harmonics to make it look like a real hi-res file. I linked the ad again, because I meant to link the 24/176 in the first place.
To me 24/96 upsampled to 24/176 this way is no more 24/176, than if you upsampled an Mp3 to 24/176 that way. They should just sell the original 24/96 original capture. I can choose my own software and tube preamps.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: