cliveb wrote: > I agree that appropriate compression is often necessary and has been > used for decades on rock and pop as a way of bringing recordings to > life. (Jazz as well, I dare say). But what started in the early 1990's > and has been getting worse ever since is *excessive* compression.
Amazingly no one has yet mentioned that in order for a recording with a highly compressed dynamic range to sound good one MUST obtain a 24 bit version (or even a 32 bit version) since those extra 8 bits provide for approximately 50% more dynamic range (16 bit audio - 96 dB of dynamic range versus 24 bit audio - 144 dB of dynamic range and 144 - 96 = 48, which is 50% of 96). So Franz Ferdinand in 16 bit sounds terrible but that same recording at 24 bit sounds wonderful. So imagine just how good it will sound on a 32 bit version. And who says I don't have a firm grasp of the principles of digital audio? As you can plainly see from the above paragraphs I have at least as much knowledge of digital audio as any one who currently writes for or edits any of the high end audio magazines. ;) Living Rm: Transporter-SimAudio pre/power amps-Vandersteen 3A Sign. & sub Home Theater: Touch-Marantz HTR-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Linn sub Computer Rm: Touch-Headroom Desktop w/DAC-Aragon amp-Energy Veritas 2.1 & Energy sub Bedroom: Touch-HR Desktop w/DAC-Audio Refinement amp-Energy Veritas 2.0 Guest Rm: Duet-Sony soundbar Garage: SB3-JVC compact system Controls: iPeng; SB Controller; Moose & Muso Server: SBS on dedicated windows 7 computer w/2 Drobos 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102391 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
