Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

pablolie;232772 Wrote: ...mean very little. A high res recording of any kind may still be so lousy that it was not worth recording at that quality. I'll take an old school, good recording at lower resolutions, hiss and all, if it truly ir recorded with musicality and neutrality first in

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

IMO the analogy between digital photos and music encoding is resolution=sample rate and bit depth=er...bit depth! I think the point is there is a certain photo resolution which is enough (think about scanning text) and a certain bit-depth that is enough (think about photo of a landscape where

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

ezkcdude;232438 Wrote: I'm wondering whether it is 24-bit or maybe got truncated to 16-bit. Does anyone know of a program provides this info? I tried Winamp as well (doesn't do it). Foobar2000 shows the bit depth in the properties sheet of a music file. (right-click and choose Properties)

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

Cool, I have it and I'll try it. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL '*Site*' (http://www.ezdiyaudio.com)| '*RSS*' (http://www2.kumc.edu/students/ezamir/rss/ezdiyaudio.xml) |'*Forum*'

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

I haven't read or could even probably comprehend them but maybe one of Lavry's white papers here might help: http://www.lavryengineering.com/supportpage.html -- USAudio SB3 - PS Audio Digital Link III - PS Audio Trio C-100 - Revel Concerta F12's + SVS SB12-Plus

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

Pale Blue Ego;232598 Wrote: Foobar2000 shows the bit depth in the properties sheet of a music file. (right-click and choose Properties) It worked, the file is 24-bit. Thanks. -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't. SHINYMETAL

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

...mean very little. A high res recording of any kind may still be so lousy that it was not worth recording at that quality. I'll take an old school, good recording at lower resolutions, hiss and all, if it truly ir recorded with musicality and neutrality first in mind. Technology comes in a

[SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

So, which rules the roost: 24 bits or 96/192 kHz? If you had to choose b/w 16/192 and 24/48, which would you choose? Please provide articles or personal experiences (even if they are not DBT). -- ezkcdude There are 10 kind of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

Evidently even both together don't make an audible difference, so it's hard to answer your question. In any case I suspect the relevant thing is the information capacity - which involves a product of bit depth and sampling frequency. So I'm not sure it's a binary choice like that.

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

The reason I'm asking is because I want to do some concert recording with my new Zoom H2 recorder. In order to save space - and thus get longer recording times - I am planning to go with the 24/44.1 or 24/48 setting, rather than 24/96. But maybe I should just stick with 16/44.1 or 48? The Zoom

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

Personally in that situation I'd go 24/44.1. That way, any post processing that you may want to do (later) can be in true 24-bit. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... ...SB3+TACT+Altmann+MF DACXV3/Linn tri-amped

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

Phil Leigh;232394 Wrote: Personally in that situation I'd go 24/44.1. That way, any post processing that you may want to do (later) can be in true 24-bit. I'm not a recording engineer. However I agree, having 24 bits for mastering a recording is probably better. This way you can make

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

If I had to choose between 24/48 and 16/192 I would definitely choose 24/48. If you think of it in video terms, the higher resolution of a greater bit-depth lets you capture a more detailed picture of each frame. Yet there's definitely a case of diminishing returns once the framerate is

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

Thanks, for the responses. You pretty much confirmed what I had been thinking. So far, I'm quite happy with the H2. The (membrane) buttons are a little chintzy, so I hope they hold up. For voice (podcast) recording, I couldn't imagine needing any better. I recorded some thunder the other night,

Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Bits vs. Hertz - Bit depth or sampling rate more important for audio?

ezkcdude;232438 Wrote: Does anyone know of a program provides this info? I tried Winamp as well (doesn't do it). The metaflac utility included with the FLAC software can do this. http://flac.sourceforge.net/download.html http://members.home.nl/w.speek/flac.htm