Re: [ARSCLIST] Digital (was 78) Listening tests, was Pristine Audio and the Milllennials . . .

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/12/07, Richard L. Hess wrote:

> Hello, Goran,
> 
> I think I prefer the freedom to use 24 bits for live recording as I 
> don't feel as compelled to risk clipping in order to optimize level 
> settings. Other than that, I look at higher bit rates (88.2 and 
> above) as "just in case someone with better hearing) can hear 
> something I cannot -- and my hearing isn't bad -- in fact quite good 
> for my mid-50s.
> 
> I hope that these tests bring about a comfort level in the archival 
> world with digitization at less than 96/24 and hopefully we don't see 
> specifications for digitizing oral history cassettes at 96/24. While 
> bits are cheap for storage, they aren't free. I know IASA says 48/24 
> for everything with 96/24 preferred.
> 
A major advantage of using more bits is that if any processing (such as
a level change) is needed, the calculations will be more accurate.

It is best to do all processing at a high bit rate before dithering down
to 16/44.1.

Not being an AES member, I have no access to the paper on audibility.
Did they state the ages of the listeners?

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx