OT: Who here has recorded at 32/192?

[Frippertronix]

im afraid you are mistaking the media for the medium

analogue the medium is flaterring to the media - harmonic distortion akimbo

digital the medium is not flattering to the media - it is coldy clinical about representing things

The problem is that recording an instrument does not produce the same results as your ears - mike choice and positioning is vitally important in ensuring that it sounds natural. digital the medium lets you ehar what the engineer did - analogue will smother that in distortion that in many ways will make a sterile recording more lively

if that it makes it better that frankly represents the recording - not the medium

- PS sacd/dvd-a are less sterile IMHO

I understand what you are saying, but I think the jury is still out as to whether digital reproduction in and of itself (I'm talking the numbers, not the converters, etc.), can't get any better.

Transistors were hyped in a similar fashion.

[kritikon]

I understand what you are saying, but I think the jury is still out as to whether digital reproduction in and of itself (I'm talking the numbers, not the converters, etc.), can't get any better.

Transistors were hyped in a similar fashion.

--
Sqirrels have absolutely no idea how to drive.

I certainly agree with you there - I think it's patently silly for anyone to argue that digital recording is perfect. It's only as good as the knowledge of the present day - undoubtedly things will continue to improve as they do with all forms of technology. Just because science doesn't yet know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no reason why one day things like 128bit recording with ADCs made of some artificial element that hasn't been manufactured yet won't beat spots off what we've got today. And one day, something will take over from digital recording too. Scientists who claim absolute truth are as closed-minded and just plain wrong as creationists etc.

And I have no idea about the squirrels.

[bduffy]

Well said, Kritikon.

[Frippertronix]

I understand what you are saying, but I think the jury is still out as to whether digital reproduction in and of itself (I'm talking the numbers, not the converters, etc.), can't get any better.

Transistors were hyped in a similar fashion.

--
Sqirrels have absolutely no idea how to drive.

I certainly agree with you there - I think it's patently silly for anyone to argue that digital recording is perfect. It's only as good as the knowledge of the present day - undoubtedly things will continue to improve as they do with all forms of technology. Just because science doesn't yet know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's no reason why one day things like 128bit recording with ADCs made of some artificial element that hasn't been manufactured yet won't beat spots off what we've got today. And one day, something will take over from digital recording too. Scientists who claim absolute truth are as closed-minded and just plain wrong as creationists etc.

And I have no idea about the squirrels.

I'm just going by what my ears tell me. I know a Mason & Hamlin model A grand piano sounds much better played live than a digital recording of one will sound, and it's my gut instinct that it's not all in just the analog components and speakers.

I can play my electric guitar through my tube amp and through my hi-fi speakers and it sounds more "live" and "3 dimensional" (pardon the cliches ) than if I play a digital recording or a sample of an electric guitar through the same setup. Something get's lost when it goes digital.

That said, though, I certainly don't have the market's best converters.