The theory: The longer you can keep your tracks as accurate as possible to the analog source, the better. Tracking & mixing at a higher sample-rate will result in a warmer, more natural sounding effort.

The practice: Tracking & mixing at higher sample-rates require you to spend a lot more $$ on I/O and they eat up much more CPU-power handling them. Only the most critical ears will be able to tell the difference between 96 and 192 in the studio itself, let alone after it's been dithered to 44.1, 16-bit, burned to CD and is being played on some sh*tty car stereo system.

... if you've got the $$ and your DAW has the horsepower to handle it, obviously get the best you can but don't expect a radical difference in your final product. CDs have been tracked and mixed at 48kHz, 20-bit for years and only the audiophiles bitch and whine about it ;)

I basically second what Miles Away echoes.

I personally don't believe in recording at the higher sample rates since most of the world still listens to 16-bit 44.1kHz CDs. Well DUH. I feel that anything that has to be translated or trans-coded is like linguistic interpreters and there will be something lost in the conversion process, so why bother if you don't have to? Again keeping quality at the highest quality possible is monumental for most people that really thinks it means something to them and something I find akin to the difference between Rolls-Royces and Volkswagens, it just depends on how good a driver you are and how much money you got.

Most of our digital recording systems that are affordable are known as PCM or pulse code modulation and I believe regardless of sample rate and the bit depth that PCM sounds like PCM sounds like PCM and so I don't personally believe there is much advantage unless you're doing something of a high budget nature and/or for archival purposes? There is a newer system that Sony/Philips developed known as DSD or direct stream digital that I believe is a monumental improvement in sound over PCM-based systems. Alas, that system is only for the financially privileged few.

Again most average folk cannot hear the difference between the truly higher-quality recording systems and the average systems so it's all in the amount of money you want to spend and how much prestige you feel it gives you. Because I feel I'm a good engineer I can work within the constraints of 16-bit 44.1kHz and still end up with a quality product. The higher bit rates and sample rates can benefit folks whose mixing talents and techniques may not quite be up to par as it affords greater dynamic range, etc., etc..

The most practical
Ms. Remy Ann David

There is a huge difference.

I totally disagree with the previous two posts. They seem to totally contradict everything that has to do with high-quality audio recording.

Here's the real skinny - recording at 16/44 sounds ok but who in the world is going for ok? It's all about the best quality AD conversion you can get.

I, in fact, recorded on a MOTU 2408 MKIII yesterday at a friend's studio (and by friend, I mean the Associate Engineer for Inpulse Mastering). We recorded a bass track into it at 16/44, and then another at 24/96. The distinction is very much there. The 24/96 track was nearly indistinguishable from the live playing and would have been indistinguishable if we had have had a little bit better of an AD converter.

And this is only on the bass guitar, if we recorded a songs worth of tracks at 16/44 and a songs worth at 24/96 the overall picture would be much different.

So you'd say "Well you're going to have to convert it to 16/44 anyway". Well, sometimes people straight convert these files, which causes bit truncation, which sounds horrible. I personally use an Apogee Rosetta 200 for AD/DA conversion and dithering (Waves' IDR never does the trick for me). The Apogee's UV22 dithering is the best in the world and has an incredible algorithm for dithering. It makes the dithered 16/44 files sound indistinguishble from the 24/96 versions.

They even say on the front of the newest Eric Clapton re-released CD, "Re-mastered using the Apogee UV22 process". The reason they did this is because the UV22 is so incredible and makes 16/44 sound like 24/96. But you would never get this quality recording straight to 16/44.

24/192 is overkill in my opinion though unless you're doing work for a DVD release.

I personally, would never even consider recording at 16/44 again.

Re: There is a huge difference.

covenant66 wrote: I totally disagree with the previous two posts. They seem to totally contradict everything that has to do with high-quality audio recording.

Here's the real skinny - recording at 16/44 sounds ok but who in the world is going for ok? It's all about the best quality AD conversion you can get.

I, in fact, recorded on a MOTU 2408 MKIII yesterday at a friend's studio (and by friend, I mean the Associate Engineer for Inpulse Mastering). We recorded a bass track into it at 16/44, and then another at 24/96. The distinction is very much there. The 24/96 track was nearly indistinguishable from the live playing and would have been indistinguishable if we had have had a little bit better of an AD converter.

And this is only on the bass guitar, if we recorded a songs worth of tracks at 16/44 and a songs worth at 24/96 the overall picture would be much different.

So you'd say "Well you're going to have to convert it to 16/44 anyway". Well, sometimes people straight convert these files, which causes bit truncation, which sounds horrible. I personally use an Apogee Rosetta 200 for AD/DA conversion and dithering (Waves' IDR never does the trick for me). The Apogee's UV22 dithering is the best in the world and has an incredible algorithm for dithering. It makes the dithered 16/44 files sound indistinguishble from the 24/96 versions.

They even say on the front of the newest Eric Clapton re-released CD, "Re-mastered using the Apogee UV22 process". The reason they did this is because the UV22 is so incredible and makes 16/44 sound like 24/96. But you would never get this quality recording straight to 16/44.

24/192 is overkill in my opinion though unless you're doing work for a DVD release.

I personally, would never even consider recording at 16/44 again.

Um, no offense, but you're totally off base.

16 bit / 44.1 kHz can sound amazing. Period. Don't believe me, check out any of Telarc's releases. Or Decca. Or DG's. Or tons others.

Granted, I like higher rates too, and occassionally will go with a 96 kHz or higher (up to DSD) recording stream, but not always.

Simply put, there should be little difference between 16 and 24 bit and for the record, the UV22 is not the best dithering algorithm in the world. First - there is no "best in the world" in a subjective category. Second, many would argue that POW-R 2 or POW-R3 are far superiour to UV22.

The only discernable difference between 16 and 24 bit is the lower digital noise floor, which most consumer grade equipment and listening environments are incapable of portraying (most "project studio" or "home studio" environments are also incapable of portraying the difference.)

As for the MOTU, you speak of it with reverance. And, while it's a decent box, it's no more than decent. Some folks here use them with good results, and in general, they're far better than most soundcards (LYNX and RME being the only exceptions that I'm aware of - short of maybe Pyramix and Genex, but those are proprietary) But, in comparison to a Mytek, Lavry, Genex, Prism or even a newer Apogee, they just don't compare.

I'm also curious how it is that you were able to discern this difference on an instrument which should have no resonances above the 44.1kHz limitation other than those that should be well below the audible limit and furthermore below the digital noise of even 24 bit. If it was full symphony orchestra, I might be more inclined to believe you.

And if you think I'm here just to bust on you, look again. Search for arguments between Nika and myself. I'm all about higher frequency sampling rates and disagree with much of what he and even Dan Lavry himself state on a subjective level.

I think Remy is RIGHT on target. Higher sample rates are the crutch of the inexperienced and the boon of higher-end studios around the world. Yes, when I want a project to have just a little better sound, I will record at higher rates (though I always record at a minimum of 24 bit and usually at 32 FP)

The biggest advantage of higher sample rates and bit depths comes when you apply digital processing to a signal. At 32FP, you have the capability to perform massive processing and still avoid bit rounding. At higher sampling rates, you can shift phase problems from EQing well outside the audible band.

Again, I'm not trying to jump on you here, but you seem to come at this digital thing with more of a marketing perspective than a factual perspective. Please, go buy Nika's book. While I don't agree with some of his deductions and conclusions, the fundamentals are genuinely correct and quite accurate.

Just my $.02

J.

I'm on the side of Cucco and RemyRad in this one.

192 is nice if you can afford it, and have the bandwidth to manage it. I don't pretend for ONE SECOND to hear a noticable, usable difference over 24/96; nothing worth talking about anyway. I never invested in the kind of hardware needed to manage it, (PT HD, for ex) and have no plans to.

I can say this with all certainty: there are very few listening environments that are tweaked (let alone QUIET) enough to hear this kind of usuable, listener-discernable difference to make it worth pursuing in a day to day production environment.

And (here's a shock), aside from fellow geeks; NOBODY CARES. Not paying clients, anyway. In 10-15 years of doing digital, not one client has expressed any interest in going beyond 24/96. And, for the most part, we work at 24/44 for 90% of our live recordings. (The bit depth is more critical than anything else anyway!)

When properly done, with good mics, pre's and converters, the differences in recordings done between 24/44 and 24/96 are negligable. The reason these higher rates are desirable is the level of information available in post production for DSP; fades, reverb tails, extended headroom, declipping, and so on, esp at the multitrack mixdown level.

More importantly, it's what's going on in FRONT of the mics that really counts, then it's the mic itself and the rest of the chain getting it onto HD/DAWs for higher-res manipulation. (Remember GIGO, though: Garbage in, garbage out)

Assuming all things are equal, the real sound quality is then dependent on the skill of the mixing & mastering people. Last but not least, the most important step when all's said and done is dithering. For me, this is the last, final bit of magic in this whole argument: with good dithering, all the hard work and higher bandwidth that went into my making a recording is, in a sense preserved to be heard on a "lowly" CD.

Take note: I would NOT attempt to remaster or take apart a 16/44 CD for edits or remastering unless there was absolutely no other option - which is never the case around here. ALL of our masters are 24/44 or 24/96, and they'll live on in storage, backed up for anything our clients want to do in the future with them. To me, 16/44 CDs are audio "Frozen" in limbo; they sound great when done properly, but don't try anything serious with them after the fact.

The point of CDs being "not good enough" is moot, esp with good dithering. You WILL hear the benefits of a good 24/44 or 24/96 recording IF it's properly mastered and dithered.

Sadly, this is ALMOST moot in the face of all these (debatable) Mp3' players flooding the market now. Obviously, they're good enough for SOME people, right? (Hint: that would be the people buying the music that our CLIENTS are paying us to do.) ANd to be fair, no one is listening on these things for the real "hi fi" experience. That's what home players are for.

Life is funny; we go crazy making the very best recordings we can possibly do, and they end up on $250 apple players. Gotta love it!

Dont' get me wrong, I"m all about getting the highest quality possible. But there are reasons why it works this way, and killling yourself (and your buget) at the very front end for a ridiculous sampling rate of 192 is just (IMHO) nuts and a waste of resources.

Trust me, you have MUCH better things to spend your money on.

JoeH wrote: Life is funny; we go crazy making the very best recordings we can possibly do, and they end up on $250 apple players. Gotta love it!

Judas!! Traitor!! You're now one of them you PROUD IPod owner!!! :lol:

You're now part of the problem, not the solution... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't know if I can speak to you anymore...(hanging head in shame...)

(y)

One side fact that comes from higher sample rates is that for a given process that takes a fixed number of samples ... in mS ... (real time, yes?)

at the higher rate the same number of samples takes less real time.
less latency
8)

it should also be noted that the brain-aches of digital have been arguing for some time about the consequences of processing at the higher sample rates and some of the unexpected results that have come up.
All will be sorted in time when they are well understood.

Tthe benefits of 22k to 44.1k and then the small improvement to 48k are easy to hear.
but at 96k means you are using very current converters and clocks and so this alone could be the improvement you are hearing ... then comes 192 and more.

At some point it will be decided that enough is enough and that a new method is warranted ... DSD and not PCM perhaps.

Note,
Gammys were won with ancient Fairlight type converters from over a decade ago
44.1 and 16 bit

be happy with what you have
upgrade when you need to and can warrant it

Ok Jeremy; you give me no other choice but to hijack this thread for a few minutes to clarify my situation with them there eye-pods and such. :wink:

For years and years, I was hell bound and determined to avoid MP3's at all costs. This was partly due to this line of work of course, but primarily because of the god-awful stuff I heard coming out of Napster and the like, with ho-made mp3's at lousy sample quality (welll below 96k etc.) and these basically all sounded like kazoos in a blender. Sure, you could find rare and exotic stuff all over the web; most of it was horrible stuff and sounded like it was uploaded from mics in front of TV speakers and such. Just not worth the hassle for the bad sound.

Of course, this was the first round of fear going through the record companies gut, just before the bottom fell out of it all, and people (Mostly college kids) began thinking they could steal music because, like, "it's FREEEEE, maaaaaan.!!!"

I hated it - file sharing - right from the start.

Then eventually Apple (and others) wised up and decided to go legit with their itunes store and even went as far as to build their OWN MP3 player, and even make an (arguably) better mp3 (MP4) to play on their systems. (Sheeeesh...a proprietary format. Who'd a thunk it?)

This only made me angrier, and I vowed never to even THINK about getting an eye-pod. (I spell this out, because the RO software flags certain words as SPAM, believe it or not!) I hated those damn commercials with Bono spinning around singing "Vertigo", etc. (Did I mention that I HATED it !?!?!?)

But you know what? Change is good sometimes. Consider this: Every time I travelled anywhere in the last 10-15 years, it was always a struggle to decide which CD to bring along. Should I store more on DVD's or on my laptop's hard drive? Depending on how long I'm gone for, this could get serious. (No lie: I have been known to get onto planes and boats with mini-spools of 25 or more raw CDs (no jewel cases, etc) to keep what I wanted to hear nearby and handy. People next to me on planes thought I was insane. I thought so, too.

Add to that a cell phone, a laptop and/or an iPaq, and the CD player itself.....plus big heaphones......things were getting nuts alright! Just a weekend trip on a plane or to my girlfriends was becoming the kind of musical nightmare/decision fast that only a Richard Lewis clone could appreciate. My desire to listen to music was being eclipsed by my desire to streamline and travel light. Usually, I gave up and slept or read a book.

Then one day back in the fall, my GF and I passed an Appple store in one of the big suburban malls, and darn if I wasn't drawn to that cute little thing (not unlike puppies in pet store windows!) with headphones and all kinds of cool attachements to try out. Not only that...... it sounded.....GREAT. Yeah, I said it....it rocked.

After all this time of stupid, stubborn resistance to change, I suddenly saw the solution to my portable (non-serious) music listening dilemma: 4 gigs on a solid state chip like the nano player is just NUTS. That's nearly FOUR DAYS of music; chances are you wont get through it all even if you're away somewhere on a long vacation. (Plus, you can of course run it with your PC (and its' HD) for even more songs, if you're that hungry.

I"ve upgraded the earbuds (the standard ones are just OK, but they don't fit in MY ears, and it drives me crazy trying to do so. I've got Sony semi-sealed buds, but that's for another forum, another time, for sure.)
Also have the usual goodies for portablity and "instant gratification" in the car (adapter for the radio/CD/Tape player), and a hip little leather wallet that lets me put Credit cards and cash in one side, and the eye-pod on the other, with room for the phones. Sweet.

While Apple certainly doesn't need ME to shill for them, but I CAN tll you that it's sheer brilliance what they've created here. Your titled (commerical CDs) info pops up from several online sources/sellers, so in short order, you've got a customizable, related data base for Artist name, composer name, band name, genre, etc. - find and listen to music any way you prefer. It's wonderful to have this kind of power literally at your fingertips.

You can also download pictures and videos (esp on the larger size eye-pods) as well as date books, etc.

I never EVER would have thought I'd be posting on here telling about what a great product it is, but really, it IS a great way to hear music on the fly, in your car, out for a walk, etc. And for us tweaker types, you can use this for checking mixes, etc. same as any other consumer device from the past (car stereos, tapes, etc.)

The newer mp3's and 4's (esp when done at 128kps) are just fine for life on the run, with music as your soundtrack. No one is kdding anyone here; if you want the full experience, put in a CD, DVD-A or SACD and you'll still get the BEST experience. This (mp3 players) is not on the same plane as that, this is merely convenience, what the cassettes and others tried for, but never quite made it.

That said: I Will NEVER stop buying CDs = for both serious listening and artistic enjoyment. I have NO plans to buy mp3's online (I roll my own, from my own CDs, thanks!) but when I need something I can't find elsewhere, I'll buy & download one if it's an emergency.

As for being a traitor :twisted: you needn't worry. Nothing has changed for me except the abilty to hear much more music while doing things that are time-killers. (My Lipinski's ain't goin' NOWHERE! )

And last but not least, it's a good time for all mastering and production companies to re-evaluate how they tag their CD text info, and getting it up to the web so their "non-professional" People can find it when they load up a CD of their own to rip, burn & play. I've been going through a lot of testing with various mp3 players - asking lots of questions, etc., to see which ones play these trackIDs with and without a web connection. Some do, some do.)

IMVHO, it's all of our best interests to at least be aware of these new devices, and what it takes to tame them for our useage and our CLIENT's usage.

When the 58 yr old CEO of my busiest client (a classical organization at that!) gets one for Christmas, and calls me in the late evening to find out how "I" use mine, ya know it's serious.

Don't fear the "POD". Knowledge is power. Get one, or at least try one out, and you'll know what I'm talking about. 8)

Joe...You're scaring me... :lol:

Did you see a very bad, low-budget 80's sci-fi horror flick called "The Stuff" ?

I'm starting to think the iPod is made from "The Stuff"

J.

(I will be very surprised if anyone actually saw this movie - I love sh*tty low-budget horror movies!!! Hell Night ROCKS!!!!!)

Re: There is a huge difference.

Cucco wrote:
Um, no offense, but you're totally off base.

16 bit / 44.1 kHz can sound amazing. Period. Don't believe me, check out any of Telarc's releases. Or Decca. Or DG's. Or tons others.

Granted, I like higher rates too, and occassionally will go with a 96 kHz or higher (up to DSD) recording stream, but not always.

Simply put, there should be little difference between 16 and 24 bit and for the record, the UV22 is not the best dithering algorithm in the world. First - there is no "best in the world" in a subjective category. Second, many would argue that POW-R 2 or POW-R3 are far superiour to UV22.

The only discernable difference between 16 and 24 bit is the lower digital noise floor, which most consumer grade equipment and listening environments are incapable of portraying (most "project studio" or "home studio" environments are also incapable of portraying the difference.)

As for the MOTU, you speak of it with reverance. And, while it's a decent box, it's no more than decent. Some folks here use them with good results, and in general, they're far better than most soundcards (LYNX and RME being the only exceptions that I'm aware of - short of maybe Pyramix and Genex, but those are proprietary) But, in comparison to a Mytek, Lavry, Genex, Prism or even a newer Apogee, they just don't compare.

I'm also curious how it is that you were able to discern this difference on an instrument which should have no resonances above the 44.1kHz limitation other than those that should be well below the audible limit and furthermore below the digital noise of even 24 bit. If it was full symphony orchestra, I might be more inclined to believe you.

And if you think I'm here just to bust on you, look again. Search for arguments between Nika and myself. I'm all about higher frequency sampling rates and disagree with much of what he and even Dan Lavry himself state on a subjective level.

I think Remy is RIGHT on target. Higher sample rates are the crutch of the inexperienced and the boon of higher-end studios around the world. Yes, when I want a project to have just a little better sound, I will record at higher rates (though I always record at a minimum of 24 bit and usually at 32 FP)

The biggest advantage of higher sample rates and bit depths comes when you apply digital processing to a signal. At 32FP, you have the capability to perform massive processing and still avoid bit rounding. At higher sampling rates, you can shift phase problems from EQing well outside the audible band.

Again, I'm not trying to jump on you here, but you seem to come at this digital thing with more of a marketing perspective than a factual perspective. Please, go buy Nika's book. While I don't agree with some of his deductions and conclusions, the fundamentals are genuinely correct and quite accurate.

Just my $.02

J.

I side with you on the fact that Prism's are better, I said that the UV22's were the best in the world, but I really should have said that its the most commonly used in the professional recording world, which I don't think anyone has ever denied. They used it to do the Harry Potter movies dithering, as well as tons of others and over 80% of all released commercial music. If way over half of all the professionals in an area use something, I think it's at least reasonable to call it the best.

Secondly, I used the example of a MOTU only because in the original post they were discussing a ... MOTU! I like the MOTU interface, to receive the signal from another AD converter, but not for it's own AD (but it's still not horrible).

Also, you said that "The only discernable difference between 16 and 24 bit is the lower digital noise floor". Are you telling me that you cannot hear 250 times the resolution in a sound file?

I think what you're referring to is the Nyquist Theory, but that isn't the only difference between 16/44 and 24/96, or at least I have never ever heard it said.

Also, even at this website (reputable):

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

The author states that "The Bass will be tighter, and the vocals may sound "airier"." Which is totally contrary to your statement.

The author is described on the website as "The Tweak is a sound developer and composer, as well as a teacher in real life. TweakHeadz Lab has been serving the World-wide Community of Professional Electronic Musicians since 1996."

And to top it off, I play harmonics and tap when I play bass which gives a pretty wide frequency range.

I agree about the 32FP, I just didn't mention it since its not really being recorded at 32bits.

I maintain that 24/96khz has a marginal benefit over 16/44, above and beyond just a noise floor difference.

Plus, who in the world wants to master a 16/44 recording?

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm afraid you're believing a lot of the marketing hype that is constantly being spoon fed all over the internet. I don't blame you for that at all - when one is bombarded with the BS, it's hard to filter out the reality any more.

I'm not sure where the 80% figure comes in, but I would venture that this is not true. Many folks in the mastering arena rely on the dithering from their Weiss EQs, which is POW-R. Similarly, most mastering software, Sequoia, Sonic, Pyramix, Sadie, and others don't have UV22 built in. Most mastering facilities do not rely on Apogee converters and their inherint UV22 to provide their dithering. Some allow analog to do their dithering for them and others use their software or their external hardware (such as the TC 6000, or the Weiss EQ-1 Dyn).

As for the bass being tighter and so on regarding higher frequency sampling, I'm afraid Mr. Tweak is spewing forth BS. You seem to have a basic understanding of the physics involved, so I won't insult you with a rudimentary lesson. But, imagine the pluck of a bass, even if it gets REALLY high up there (say around 420 Hz). Now, for there to be significant harmonic content above 20kHz, you would be looking at significant resonances 6 octaves higher than the fundamental (and that's factoring a 420Hz fundamental). This doesn't make logical sense. It makes even less sense when this is a determining factor of the tightness of bass.

Don't get me wrong - I do like higher frequency sampling rates - A LOT! But, in most situations, they simply aren't needed.

Also, bear in mind that yes, I am saying that there is little difference in the resolution between 24 bit and 16 bit. Yes, I can hear the difference, but the difference is far less noticable than most would credit. (Bear in mind, I'm listening in the following environment:
NHT 2.5i main monitors
MIT interconnects
REL Storm III subwoofer
Rotel RMB 1075 amplifier bi-amplifying the NHT's
Rotel Preamp
Properly treated room with treatments by RPG, Auralex and OC 705
Ambient noise in room measured at 19dB - room is below ground and is over 4000 cubic feet)

Even in this environment, I can barely hear an audible difference - oh, and I am a classically trained musician too.

I doubt others can hear the so-called amazing difference between 16 and 24 bit on their Aiwa or JVC systems or pioneer receivers through their Bose speakers.

I do understand that, by playing harmonics and tapping, you are getting a wider frequency range, but bear in mind, even those with GREAT ears have difficulty hearing above 20kHz - so the information that MAY be contained there is of arguable significance. (And believe me, I argue this point all the time! I was actually involved in a small research project for a doctoral candidate at TTU where he tested the impact of tones produced above the so-called audible frequencies and there was imperical evidence suggesting that they did make a minor difference).

The fact is, the only time I really ever whip out the "Big Guns" and go 96 or 192, is when I'm recording a good orchestra. Other than that, guitar, human voice, drums, bass and keys rarely benefit from the extra bandwidth.

Oh, and one point of contention with the original topic...

One doesn't dither from 192 or 96 to 44.1 kHz. They convert sample rates.

Dithering is the reduction in bit rate.

Despite many peoples' claims it IS in fact possible to resample (or convert sample rate) without changing word length. However, this is only really ever done in limited applications (such as bandwidth limited environments) as any mathematical computation on the original sample will cause the number to increase, hence a growth in bit depth. However, it is possible to do this with rounding systems in such a way that the sound isn't horribly affected. However, this is rarely useful in a pro-audio situation.

J.

The 80% I referred to is located here:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/uv22hr.php

For which Apogee has alot more riding on that statistic than what our mere forum statements have riding on them, due to federal laws mandating truth in advertising. (This is a declaratory, unopinonated, quantitative statement made by the company).

I'm not saying that the newest software doesn't contain dithering tools that may match the UV22 or may be even better, but 80% of hit records do use it, which you could sue Apogee over if it isn't true, or even if overly misleading. Pretty much any dithering tools, good or bad, that are publicly released and marketed im sure are going to get used at some point in time, but I maintain that 80% of hit recordings use the UV22.

With your paragraph on the bass not being at a high enough frequency, you are reiterating your suggestion that the only difference with 96khz is the information between 22khz-48khz (your basis being the Nyquist theory im assuming).

When the 96khz file is dithered, and the 16/44 sound file generated - then what happens to the data between 22khz and 48khz that you are seeming to think is the only difference in 16/44 and 24/96 recordings? You can't have anything above 22khz in a 16/44 file, correct?

(You're either saying that or you're saying that information above 22khz is in fact contained in a 16/44 file, which I don't think you would suggest.)

So tracking your logic, there would be no difference between recording straight to 16/44 and taking a 24/96 file and converting it to 16/44 (because the 22khz-48khz information would be lost). So why do you ever do it (you have already admitted that you sometimes do it)? Well, its probably because (as I have been suggesting) 24/96 recordings have a higher resolution across all frequency bands, and dont just only add frequencies between 22khz and 48khz (which they do, but its also an overall higher resolution, 250 times higher, as I understand it).

Tracking my logic, your example about my bass recording is moot, because there is higher resolution across all frequency bands and recording professor, "Mr. Tweak" and his highly regarded website is correct as well.

If I am somehow in err, please explain exactly how. I honestly would appreciate it.

It's looking like we all agree (for the most part) on higher recording rates at the front end for mixing, editing and mastering, but it's just debateable whether it's worth it to go beyond 96k. (There are those with more time and money to blow than I do that can decide for themselves... ;-) )

As for mastering down to 16/44, it's a fact of life, and it's analogous to making good copies of works of visual art. It's not the EXACT same thing, but it's all there, if you want to look deep enough at it. It wont be the exact same thing as the one sitting in the Louvre, but you'll get the idea.

Same with 24/96 recordings dithered to 16/44. If it began life as a great recording (work of art), then it will still sound beautiful when dithered and resampled to the CD format. (um....I believe that is one part of the modern black-art/science known as...Mastering!)

One final defense of 16/44: IF that's all you're doing, with no post production or editing or mastering, it CAN be done. There's thousands of great recordings already done at 16/44. If you can't get a good, one-pass recording onto 16/44 with your present gear and performers, something other than the recording specs may be amiss. (Give the Sony super-bit mapping DAT a listen if you want an example of some GREAT DAT recordings done that way.)

And Jeremy; just to kick this eye-pod horse one more time: I'm sure you realize that those things will play almost ANY audio file format. You're not limited to just mp3's. So, assuming you've got the room for it on the chip, and nice enough headphones to appreciate the quality, you COULD load you favorite, Pow-r dithered best-mastered 16/44 wav files into it and REALLY go crazy....put your feet up on the desk and relax, or on the beach, in the woods, in your car....anywhere you WISH you could be, other than stuck without music. (Remember listening to something for the JOY of it, instead of another client's bad recital tape? :twisted: )

I think once you try it.......hehehehe....... 8)

covenant66 wrote: The 80% I referred to is located here:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/uv22hr.php

For which Apogee has alot more riding on that statistic than what our mere forum statements have riding on them, due to federal laws mandating truth in advertising. (This is a declaratory, unopinonated, quantitative statement made by the company).

I'm not saying that the newest software doesn't contain dithering tools that may match the UV22 or may be even better, but 80% of hit records do use it, which you could sue Apogee over if it isn't true, or even if overly misleading. Pretty much any dithering tools, good or bad, that are publicly released and marketed im sure are going to get used at some point in time, but I maintain that 80% of hit recordings use the UV22.

With your paragraph on the bass not being at a high enough frequency, you are reiterating your suggestion that the only difference with 96khz is the information between 22khz-48khz (your basis being the Nyquist theory im assuming).

When the 96khz file is dithered, and the 16/44 sound file generated - then what happens to the data between 22khz and 48khz that you are seeming to think is the only difference in 16/44 and 24/96 recordings? You can't have anything above 22khz in a 16/44 file, correct?

(You're either saying that or you're saying that information above 22khz is in fact contained in a 16/44 file, which I don't think you would suggest.)

So tracking your logic, there would be no difference between recording straight to 16/44 and taking a 24/96 file and converting it to 16/44 (because the 22khz-48khz information would be lost). So why do you ever do it (you have already admitted that you sometimes do it)? Well, its probably because (as I have been suggesting) 24/96 recordings have a higher resolution across all frequency bands, and dont just only add frequencies between 22khz and 48khz (which they do, but its also an overall higher resolution, 250 times higher, as I understand it).

Tracking my logic, your example about my bass recording is moot, because there is higher resolution across all frequency bands and recording professor, "Mr. Tweak" and his highly regarded website is correct as well.

If I am somehow in err, please explain exactly how. I honestly would appreciate it.

I would be willing to call apogee a liar in this case. I would like to see how they gathered this information as it's impossible to ascertain exactly which equipment was used in most any hit record on this planet without physically writing the recording studios and asking them. Furthermore, most dithering does NOT occur at tracking and since Apogees are rarely seen in high-end mastering facilities, I have further reason to doubt this.

Furthermore, YES, I am stating that the only difference between a track sampled at 44.1kHz and one sampled at 96kHz is the audio contained between 22.449kHz and 47.99xkHz. You do NOT gain resolution at lower frequencies when you sample at higher rates. You still only draw the graph with 2 points - period. No more. Yes, this is based on the Nyquist Theorum but also the PCM system itself. Also, you cannot "fold down" data from higher frequencies into that spectrum - in fact, the mere nature of the digital brick-wall LPF would indicate that, frequencies resident above that point would actually create potential distortion and phase linearity problems.

Are you suggesting that, because the wave is sampled more than 2x as often that you'll get a better representation of a 20 Hz wave because instead of having two sample points, it will have as many as 4.2?

Again, I have to reiterate, please go buy Nika's book. It may not be THE authority on digital, but it sure helps out for the newbie.

The reason that I record orchestras in higher sample rates is for 2 possible reasons:
1. I may be doing DVD or DVD-A work
2. I may be upsampling later to DSD/SACD

And sorry, as for Mr. Tweak, he's wrong. And furthermore, he's guilty of spewing MORE misinformation regarding digital to the masses, as if there weren't enough folks guilty of this currently.

Rather than trusting Mr. Tweak, try chatting it up with Dan Lavry or Nika Aldrich or even Dan Weiss - these guys visit here often and are available at other forums too.

J.

Cucco,

I think it's not fair to say Tweakheadz is BSting. He actually said that there will be audible difference if you are recording acoustic instruments, orchestras etc... because quiet passages will benefit from the lowered noise floor of 24-bit sampling. And this makes perfect sense, I'm sure you'll agree. Whether or not everyone can hear the difference is another issue, although he did say that benefits will be less audible on most radio-ready music.

He has also said that choosing bit/sampling rates is a matter of opinion, and that his should not be treated as the gospel truth.

I did not find any misinformation in his guide, I thought it was quite well-written as well.

godchuanz wrote: Cucco,

I think it's not fair to say Tweakheadz is BSting. He actually said that there will be audible difference if you are recording acoustic instruments, orchestras etc... because quiet passages will benefit from the lowered noise floor of 24-bit sampling. And this makes perfect sense, I'm sure you'll agree. Whether or not everyone can hear the difference is another issue, although he did say that benefits will be less audible on most radio-ready music.

He has also said that choosing bit/sampling rates is a matter of opinion, and that his should not be treated as the gospel truth.

I did not find any misinformation in his guide, I thought it was quite well-written as well.

Granted, I might be being a bit tough on Tweak, but there is misinformation in his article. Detailed below (Items in quote blocks are quoted directly from Tweak himself)

Lets talk about sample rate and the Nyquist Theory. This theory is that the actual upper threshold of a piece of digital audio will top out at half the sample rate.

Okay, more of a nit-pick than anything else, but this is not the Nyquist Theory

The theory is that audio energy, even though we don't hear it, exists as has an effect on the lower frequencies we do hear.

Again a nit-pick, but this makes it sound as though he's referring to the Nyquist Theory, which is not true. This is poor wording on his part.

Back to the Nyquist theory, a 96khz sample rate will translate into potential audio output at 48khz

Nit picking - should be "

Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system.

Really?? -96dBFS noise floor - having trouble staying out of this? I know of maybe 3 locations on this continent that are capable of this kind of signal to noise ratio in an open environment - furthermore, mics with any kind of gain applied to them will automatically put you above this level. Again, nitpicking...

The Bass will be tighter, and the vocals may sound "airier".

Vocals "airier" - I can buy that.
Bass tighter??? How? The fundamental and then next dozen or so harmonics aren't even in that frequency range. Those that might be in that frequency range are so minimal in amplitude that they should have no impact on the intensity or fullness of the fundamental.

Recording at 24/96 yields greatly increased audio resolution-over 250 times that at 16/44.1

The choice of the word "Resolution" is poor. The word should be data. Period. The extra "resolution" does not make "cleaner" or "smoother" audio, it simply gives you more headroom (which Tweak does mention.)

In fairness, Tweak also mentions that talent is the key and that an experienced person with 16/44.1 would likely make a better recording than an inexperienced person with 24/96.

So, okay, I'll lay off of tweak, but there is a group of slanted statements here.

J.

Cucco wrote: [quote=covenant66]
Rather than trusting Mr. Tweak, try chatting it up with Dan Lavry or Nika Aldrich or even Dan Weiss - these guys visit here often and are available at other forums too.

Well, guess what, I did a little bit of digging and guess what I found! I found a Nika Aldrich article lauding the UV22 as a process that cannot even be compared to the POW-R.

You can find it here:
HERE (Nika Aldrich's website)

This is your own quoted and trusted source that YOU gave.

Also you can check out Richard Ellen's article which states:

According to a paper by dCS Ltd, presented at
the 20th Tonmeistertagung in 1998, the most
commonly-noticed benefits of recording at 96kHz
sampling over 44.1kHz include: less ‘busy signal’
breakup — very good quality; better separation of
reverb and room acoustics from instrument output;
better balanced bass; better percussion (particularly
cymbals); and some stereo image formation.

it is available at: http://www.ambisonic.net/pdf/hiresaudio.pdf

Please also see this article

(http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/page/shop/news_story/a/news_id/e/120) which states that:

"Therefore 96KHz refers to 96000 slices of audio sampled each second."

It would seem logical that if you had more slices of audio, it would sound better across the board in all frequency ranges, not just add frequencies 22khz-48khz.

Why are you thinking that the Nyquist Theory is the only thing that applies when recording at 96khz. Do you have any sources?

Can you quote these sources or are these your own ideas? Quote that book directly, don't just tell me to go read it.

By the way, I think this is working out great. If I could have read this post a few years ago it would have seriously enlightened me and I think we are getting close to the bottom of this.

Crap, the quote on the last post didnt work so well. That is Cucco's quote at the top, not mine!!

You know the one thing most people here have not mentioned is that the most deleterious effects at 44.1kHz 16 bit recording, is the heavy brick wall filtering necessary. I believe that is the primary reason why most people don't like the marginal capabilities of 16-bit 44.1kHz recording.

One of the reasons the higher resolutions recordings do sound slightly better is the less needed brick wall filtering and the appropriately higher frequency at which it needs to happen. Nobody likes the sound of these filters but it is sort of like death and taxes, when dealing with PCM.

Few of our esoteric "exampliers" have expounded on the benefits of DSD whose sound appears to be our closest analogy to analog (of course in the listening tests they did not give us any examples of "saturation" which is still a nasty third harmonic clipped waveform). Such is life. Unfortunately as of this date, it's still too much money except for the very affluent. (hey why can't they double that 2.53MHz sampling frequency anyhow?) Just kidding.

Poor old
Ms. Remy Ann David

covenant66 wrote: [quote=Cucco][quote=covenant66]
Rather than trusting Mr. Tweak, try chatting it up with Dan Lavry or Nika Aldrich or even Dan Weiss - these guys visit here often and are available at other forums too.

Well, guess what, I did a little bit of digging and guess what I found! I found a Nika Aldrich article lauding the UV22 as a process that cannot even be compared to the POW-R.

You can find it here:
Link removed (Nika Aldrich's website)

This is your own quoted and trusted source that YOU gave.

Also you can check out Richard Ellen's article which states:

According to a paper by dCS Ltd, presented at
the 20th Tonmeistertagung in 1998, the most
commonly-noticed benefits of recording at 96kHz
sampling over 44.1kHz include: less ‘busy signal’
breakup — very good quality; better separation of
reverb and room acoustics from instrument output;
better balanced bass; better percussion (particularly
cymbals); and some stereo image formation.

it is available at: http://www.ambisonic.net/pdf/hiresaudio.pdf

Please also see this article

(http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/page/shop/news_story/a/news_id/e/120) which states that:

"Therefore 96KHz refers to 96000 slices of audio sampled each second."

It would seem logical that if you had more slices of audio, it would sound better across the board in all frequency ranges, not just add frequencies 22khz-48khz.

Why are you thinking that the Nyquist Theory is the only thing that applies when recording at 96khz. Do you have any sources?

Can you quote these sources or are these your own ideas? Quote that book directly, don't just tell me to go read it.

By the way, I think this is working out great. If I could have read this post a few years ago it would have seriously enlightened me and I think we are getting close to the bottom of this.

Jumping Jesus on a Pogo Stick!!! :!:

Okay - first, Nika's opinion on UV22 is just that, an opinion. And, if you'll notice before, I stated I don't agree with much of Nika's subjective conclusions; however, he is nonetheless a smart dude who put together what some are referring to as the Bible of Digital!

Second - YES I am stating that this entirely has to do with Nyquist. Period. I don't care how many slices of audio you have - you only need two and only get two to draw an accurate picture of a wave, adding 95,998 extra pictures won't get you a more accurate picture of a 20Hz wave than 2 pictures will.

Here's some links to reading since you require them.
Link removed
In which Dan States:

Dan Lavry wrote:
You DO NOT need more dots. There is NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION in higher sampling
rates. As pointed out by the VERY FUNDUMENTAL Nyquist theory, we need to sample at
above twice the audio bandwidth to contain ALL the information.

BTW...the paper is an interesting read, though there are those that again disagree with the subjective. However, I have yet to hear of ANYONE disagreeing with the objective portion.

Dan Lavry wrote:
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas
is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather
motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are
stating the opposite of what is true.

Here's a good, sum it up quote from Dan which really puts it all into perspective.

Oh, and as for dithering, here are some folks that really like POWR - I've never heard of Michael Bishop or Bob Katz though...

A lot of people wrote:
"I've also just finished reviewing the POW-R. In My Opinion, all other WLR schemes now are mostly obsolete. The POW-R consortium has provided the music industry with tools and methods to preserve the quality of high resolution audio in 16bit renditions."
Glenn Meadows, Masterfonics, USA

"Absolute rave! Terrific. I just got an unsolicited letter of praise from a highly-critical client, whose CD I did this year using the identical equipment as last year (both live concert CDs) and the only difference was the POW-R dither."
Bob Katz, Digital Domain, USA

"We just listened to the Mahler 3 as it was remastered using the POW-R box and it sounds GREAT!!! Erica and I wanted to pass on to you our enthusiam over this processor. The sound is remarkably clear and presice. Things now sound as we remembered them at the session with full impact. What a difference."
Michael Bishop, Telarc Records, USA

I have tried your POW-R system for a week and I must say I am impressed. This must be the new standard for wordlenght reduction. [...] It is amazing how little it does and at the same time how essential it is. As one of my clients said " With this you add the Disney twinkling star to the sound ". Well put I should think.
Maarten de Boer, The Masters, Netherlands

You wrote:
Why are you thinking that the Nyquist Theory is the only thing that applies when recording at 96khz. Do you have any sources?

Uhhh, because it IS the only rule which applies (aside from those that don't have any bearing, such as "It will take a lot more hard drive space..."). Sources- sure. Anyone who knows anything about digital.

Nika wrote:
“Theorem 1: If a function f(t) contains no frequencies higher than W cps [cycles per second, or “Hz”], it is completely determined by giving its ordinates at a series of points spaced 1/2W seconds apart.”.........
The significance of this statement is often overlooked. Shannon tells us that the entire waveform, in proper amplitude, frequency, and phase can be recreated (as he says, “completely determined”) with only sampling points given at greater than half the highest frequency to be sampled.

Now, I've about beaten the crap out of this subject.

Look, don't take it personally, but it seems that every 6 months or so, someone new comes into the forum who acts as though they know how digital works, but in reality, all they're doing is spewing forth crap they read from someone else (or worse, off of apogee's website). We go through the same stuff everytime and it escalates into a pissing competition. If you don't believe me, search for "Digital" on this site or even better "44.1kHz" AND "96kHz." You'll see a crap load of topics where people come in (usually new) and argue the same crap you are and then have folks poop all over them and then we never hear from them again (or they move over to the Marsh where they don't even talk about audio anyway!)

So, again, don't take it personally, but please, if you're going to come here and argue with a scientist (me) and a seasoned engineer (Remy) have something other than the literature from the Apogee website.

J.

RemyRAD wrote: You know the one thing most people here have not mentioned is that the most deleterious effects at 44.1kHz 16 bit recording, is the heavy brick wall filtering necessary. I believe that is the primary reason why most people don't like the marginal capabilities of 16-bit 44.1kHz recording.

One of the reasons the higher resolutions recordings do sound slightly better is the less needed brick wall filtering and the appropriately higher frequency at which it needs to happen. Nobody likes the sound of these filters but it is sort of like death and taxes, when dealing with PCM.

Few of our esoteric "exampliers" have expounded on the benefits of DSD whose sound appears to be our closest analogy to analog (of course in the listening tests they did not give us any examples of "saturation" which is still a nasty third harmonic clipped waveform). Such is life. Unfortunately as of this date, it's still too much money except for the very affluent. (hey why can't they double that 2.53MHz sampling frequency anyhow?) Just kidding.

Poor old
Ms. Remy Ann David

As with a lot of things Remy, you're spot on!

Although, I did make reference to the filtering in one of my previous posts.

Oh, and they are doing a double rate DSD now!! Holy crap on a cracker! How much space will that take on a hard drive??

Back to the filters - a filter of the magnitude necessary to work with 16 bit audio at 44.1kHz so we wouldn't hear it needs to work at roughly 120dB cut per 1/10th of an octave. YIKES. That causes a major phase ripple, not to mention image smearing due to the resonance!

If it were possible to have a standard PCM delivery beyond RedBook 16/44.1, this would be the single most positive factor. The frequencies beyond 20K would be a factor, but minimal at best.

Stay cool!

J.

I'm cool daddy........Can I have the keys to the car?

Remy Ann David

Re: There is a huge difference.

I stopped reading after this part, just to jump in:

covenant66 wrote: Plus, who in the world wants to master a 16/44 recording?

Joe Lambert and John Golden both mastered stuff we did at the studio here in Harrisburg, PA. We were using a Mackie d8b system at 16/44. Until last month, that's what everything was recorded at. We just switched to a Nuendo 3/RME Fireface system at 24/44.

Most people seem to notice a slight difference (usually percieved as "clarity") between 16-bit & 24-bit, but I haven't heard too many people claim to hear much of a difference between 44.1 khz and 96, let alone 192.

In answer to the original post, I personally think it's a good idea to record and mix at 24-bit/32 FP if possible, since one never knows what the future may bring...a mastering house may prefer it that way for example. I do think the audible differences are small and it may be some time yet before there are commercially available CD's at greater than 16/44, but it would be nice to be able to re-mix/re-master some things at a higher bit rate if it ever happened.

I'm not an expert on digital audio, that's a view simply based on listening & hearing the opinions of others.

This discussion is centered on what must be the biggest can-o-worms facing audio engineering today. Good debate guys.

ok, i fall into the "inexperienced" category, and i've to compensate for my lack of funds through VSTs - most of these are freewares...i'm a poor student home studio person, and this is my first post, so dont bash my ass in!!

From what i understand, if u record in 24/96, and just mix it down raw, it's pointless IMO - the added overhead is REALLY useful if you use tons of plugins - like i do - since with the sue of every plugin, there is a small drop in quality. if like me you use tons of plugins, recording at 16/44.1 is actually going to give u pretty shit sound, theoretically, while with 24/96, u'll still have the kind of overhead where when u take a mixdown, your mix will sound a whole lot better than the same stuff recorded in 16/44.1

can someone PLEASE explain dithering to me - i just mix in 24/96 and then take a mixdown in 16/44.1... i'm very bereft of purist pro audio gear

AD/DA - ESI ESP 1010 wamirack - yes yes, very shoddy, but got to make do with what i can in my extremely tight budget!
DAW - Nuendo 3 - cough cough, lets not question the origins of this, purely used for learning purposes...
guitar tracking - line 6 podxtpro - now this is a TRUE gem - sure it has it's shortcomings, but in its price and range of tones, it's unbeatable! A tube amp would beat it, but then i'd have to beg on the streets for a while!

Note: am a student, some help would be greatly appreciated!

Good work folks..Lets keep it going . Thanx to all for the great information being shared here. It is a boon to those, like me, who have a few decades of experience but little in the digital world. I'm always learning. Methinks a sticky is at hand here.

Demythologiing the Market Hype

Ya'lls boys n'goils take some time to read the following technical papers, that way you can separate the subjective from the market hype and commercialism that pervades the industry and realize what is happening with actual physics of sound. Your lives may never be the same. I was born again and again and again, and now, Valhalla is a wonderful place -

http://

http://

http://

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/

http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/

Cucco - Second - YES I am stating that this entirely has to do with Nyquist. Period. I don't care how many slices of audio you have - you only need two and only get two to draw an accurate picture of a wave, adding 95,998 extra pictures won't get you a more accurate picture of a 20Hz wave than 2 pictures will.

I'm no expert in this but I'm perplexed by the comment above.

I would reckon you need at least 4 slices to represent a wave. More samples to accurately represent a complex wave. An infinite number of slices to get a perfect representation.

An interesting thought crossed my mind regarding "hearing a difference". There are people who doesn't mind listening to audio on VHS vs DVD. They say they can't tell the difference. They don't care.

My question is, "Do these people have bad ears or good ears"?

I think they have good ears, so good that they can clearly hear the poor quality audio, and discern speech/sounds on "technically noisy" mediums like VHS, VCD, mp3 etc.

So I'm saying Audio Engineers must have very bad ears to make really good recordings. Noisy recordings irk them as they can't hear the content clearly so they have to make cleaner (better) recordings.

It is also known that prolong exposure to sound causes deterioration to hearing. Ageing includes the activity of prolong exposure to sound. An experienced AE will have higher degree of bad ears than a young Newbie.

Since newbies have better ears, Convenant66 might just be right when he said he was able to hear the difference between a 16/44 and 24/96.

Cucco might just be "hard of hearing" and lamblasting based on theory.

And I must admit that I'm in the camp of "hard of hearing" as I get irritated by noisy mediums and gears. Thanks to speakers like NHT2.5i, I get to enjoy the music and performance of a good recording.

Since you've dug up a 2-year old topic, I may as well point out the source of your misunderstanding.

The trouble comes in the word "draw" in the post you quoted. Indeed, if you want to draw an arbitrary waveform accurately on paper, you need as many points as are distinct within the thickness of your pencil. But the waveforms we are talking about are band limited by an anti-aliasing filter when originally sampled and put through a reconstruction filter when converted back to analog. The act of band limiting and reconstruction constrains the possible shapes of the waveform.

The Nyquist theorem postulates that just more than two points per cycle of the highest representable frequency are sufficient to determine both the amplitude and phase of that frequency, and hence is more than sufficient to describe all frequencies lower than that.

The reconstruction filter effectively fills in the missing sections of waveform between the dots. It is the system designer's task to ensure that this filling-in is unique, in which case it must represent a band-limited version of the original signal.

Keep in mind, I haven't read every post all the way through, so I apologize if this has been stated already.

I'm no audio expert or anything, but someone who has awesome equipment and the knowledge to use it could record something at 16/44.1 and it would sound way better than anything I could ever record at 24/96 with my little setup. Although I can tell a difference between recording at 16/44.1 and at 24/96, especially when you have multiple tracks. With that being said, I don't think you could ever say that recording at a higher rate is "better". If it sounds good, it sounds good. You should do a test and record the same thing, like a drum kit at 16/44.1, then try it at 24/192 and see what you like more. If you can't tell a difference after you put it on a CD, then record at 16/44.1.

Hello,
It is my opinion that I do hear a little bit of a difference between 16/44 and 24/96, especially during processing. I've even done blind tests and was able to discern between the two. I feel processing with VST's in higher rates helps them to sound slightly more like hardware. This is of course my opinion, but I do stand by it. 192 tho, I have no idea.

However, while I do think the average listener will judge music based partly on it's sound quality (and I do mean partly), I doubt these higher/lower rates would make enough of a difference to him or her (and that's the whole point right?). I would consider myself somewhat of an audiophile and I love most formats if all is done skillfully. Nothing is worse than buying a brand new sealed LP only to find out that the quality control at the pressing plant is sub par and the record sounds bad (VHS or Beta's "Bring on the Comets" comes to mind), but when it comes to digital, I think for the most part Joe Shmoe usually can't tell the difference. Most of us who can hear smaller differences in all types of sound quality actively seek it. Does anyone hear a difference betwen CD's and HDCD's? I do, but does John Q. Public? Probably not. Now Real Audio and low bit rate mp3's (64kbps) should be BANNED!!! Everyone can hear the sludge in those. :)

Oh, and as someone mentioned earlier, you can put .wav files on your iPod... it's great! :) Someone also mentioned that movie "The Stuff"...

"DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!!! I'M CHOCOLATE CHIP CHARLIE!!!!"