24bit vs 16bit and Hz

[Ethan Winer]

After speaking at length with HHB they confirmed my suspicions about the CDR-850 converters and how the unit handles signal once it is converted. In short, Meyer and Moran did not have the 16-bit conversion they thought they did in using the CDR-850.

I heard back from Brad Meyer and I now have enough information to totally call BS on your claims. First, Brad told me it was impossible to get any solid technical information from the HHB people. Nobody there would admit to knowing anything about anything, and he tried several times. So unless you can give me the names of the people you spoke to, and an approximate date of your conversation, I have to assume said conversation never took place. Or that your recollection is "faulty" to put it politely.

More to the point, Brad sent me the service manual for that CD player which includes full specs when the device is placed inline:

Record & Playback (Analog XLR-3 +4 dBu Input ® Analog XLR-3 +4 dBu Output)
Frequency Response 4 Hz ~ 20 kHz + 1.0, -1.5 dB (EIAJ)
S/N 83 dB or more
Dynamic Range 83 dB or more
Total Harmonic Distortion 0.01 % or less

Even more to the point, Meyer & Moran actually measured (and listened to) the output of the device, and their measurements confirmed the noise level was consistent with 16 bits. As Brad explained it to me:

it doesn't matter whether you store the bits on a CD or not ... the audio performance is the same in monitor mode.

To use those 20-bit words instead of 16, and to reconvert the (presumably dithered) bit-stream to analog for those outputs, would (besides constituting a very strange and difficult-to-implement design decision) give you a 0dBFS-to-A-weighted-noise-floor ratio of about 116 dB. That's not what appears at the outputs. What does appear is absolutely typical CD-quality audio, with a slight droop in the frequency response before 20 kHz from the playback filter and an A-weighted noise floor a full 24 dB higher, at -92 dBA /re/ full scale, right where you would expect it.

So there you have it folks, another "Meyer & Moran denier" debunked with hard proof that cannot be refuted.

I'll be glad to post more from my lengthy exchange with Brad if anyone wants to see it. But that will have to wait until the weekend because I'm leaving now for a big hi-fi show in New York City where my company is treating several rooms.

--Ethan

 

[Lt. Bob]

So there you have it folks, another "Meyer & Moran denier" debunked with hard proof that cannot be refuted.

AND called a liar to boot!

LOL .... yep gekko ..... I can't see why anyone would have a problem with that!

 

[Lt. Bob]

Sure, and that's fine. If looking at a fancy front panel make you feel better even if the sound quality is no better, that's fine with me. Again, I object only when people tell others they'll never get pro results unless they drop a lot of money on mic pres and converters. That simply isn't true.

--Ethan

I don't disagree with ya'.

I've always been on the side of 'experience trumps equipment'.

 

[Bobbsy]

people can trot out all the math in the world but the decoding of what comes in thru the ears is done in the brain.
Therefore if you believe something sounds different then it really can regardless of any measurements.

Actually I've never trotted out any math. I'm a strong advocate of listening--but, for some things at least, the listening needs to be structured to avoid the brain leading you up the wrong path.

This actually argues favorably for BOTH points of view.
First it argues for the measurement geeks that want to point out that what you're hearing is only different because you believe it is. It absolutely can be.
But it ALSO argues for those that want to insist they actually do hear a difference regardless of the reason because they do regardless of the reason.

As Ethan says, if people want to make choices based on their perceptions, that's fine. Heck, I have five C451 mics and if I measured or blind tested them they'd be near as dammit identical. However, I have a favourite one based on nothing more than the pattern of small scratches it's acquired over the years. It's always the first mic out of the box and my "habit" hurts nobody.

However, if I started telling newbies that scratched C451s sound better than clean ones and stating it as fact, THAT would be a problem. It's the same with the proverbial $300 mains lead or some of the technical debates about bit depth and so on. By all means go with your instincts but don't state your instincts as facts that will be true for everyone. This is especially true when you consider that lots of newbies spend money based on things we tell them in here.

Check out people with synesthesia ..... clearly there aren't really musical notes floating in the air before their eyes ...... but they see them and all the proving there aren't really any floating notes in the world won't take those things away when what their brains have decided they're there.
They see them just as surely as I see this keyboard.

There are many other forms of synesthesia and clearly these are extreme cases but the fact is that when our brains decide that something is different then it IS different to us regardless of any math you may perform.

Interesting that you mention synesthesia. My wife (the psychologist I quoted earlier) actually has synesthesia. When I ask her for comments on the mix I'm working on she's just as likely to say something like "I think that dark red note is too loud" as refer to it as "that bass note". For her, one is as real as the other. However, she also realises that's her perception and her's alone. She wouldn't try to say that everyone should "see" the same music. Neither should people state THEIR own perceptions and preferences as absolute fact.

 

[miroslav]

Again, I object only when people tell others they'll never get pro results unless they drop a lot of money on mic pres and converters.

I dunno Ethan...I agree that saying they'll "never" get pro results is extreme (I don't see anyone saying that very often)....but you seem to constantly imply in a roundabout way that all the pros, using all that expensive pro gear, in all those pro studios, all these years, and after countless pro recordings....have been running some kind of "scam"...?

...and that your the only one willing to set the record straight...?


I don't deny that some manufacturers hype up their gear for sales reasons, but to subliminally reduce everything down to some absolutely lowest common denominator of a $50 mic pre and $50 converter and that the rest is just hype, and that all those pros have bought into it via some form of mass delusion all these years....and/or created a mass conspiracy to get home-rec newbs to buy expensive gear.....

....well, that's a hell of a stretch.

It's like you place NO special value in anything considered high-end pro gear........

 

[gecko zzed]

I dunno Ethan...I agree that saying they'll "never" get pro results is extreme (I don't see anyone saying that very often)....but you seem to constantly imply in a roundabout way that all the pros, using all that expensive pro gear, in all those pro studios, all these years, and after countless pro recordings....have been running some kind of "scam"...?

I think you are drawing the bow too far. Ethan said "I object only when people tell others they'll never get pro results unless they drop a lot of money on mic pres and converters." I can't see how that implies a scam, except in the way you acknowledge, i.e. "that some manufacturers hype up their gear for sales reasons." This speaks to the gullibility of the buying public; those who, like crows, are attracted to bright shiny things.

See, for example, here:
Audio Snake Oil or Not ??? Make your own decision...

Note that the purveyors of this stuff get away with it, because they eschew the need for testing. Their domain rests squarely in subjectivity.

 

[Bobbsy]

As an aside, the audiophile scammers have been taken on a bit lately in the UK by, of all people, the Advertising Standards Agency.

A company called Russ Andrews Accessories Ltd. (probably the biggest seller of snake oil in the UK) have been prosecuted a couple of times now for false advertising in their claims.

Anyhow, I agree with Gecko. I think all Ethan is say is that everyone is free to have their own preferences and perceptions and that's great. However it becomes not so great when these preferences are stated as absolute fact in situations where you may be influencing somebody to part with what might be a significant amount of money.

 

[miroslav]

Well....Ehtan has made comments in the past about high-end, expensive gear being basically pointless...so seeing how most of the pro audio world uses high-end gear, then it begs the question why use it, if Ethan has "proved" it's pointless....?...unless they just do it to maintain the hype...which WOULD be some sort of conspiracy/scam.

I'm having a VERY hard time accepting that guys like George Massenberg, the people at Manley, the guys at Crane Song and so many other manufactures of high end gear are just selling "hype"...and the countless pros who buy/use it are all being duped or just perpetuating the hype and myths.

Ethan is free to clarify what he really means....but when he says you don't need to waste money on high-end gear to get pro results, that's also a negative statement about the people who DO make, sell and use high-end audio gear.
I'm not talking about $300 power cord stuff...I'm talking about serious pro gear, and that there is a major difference between it and the $50 stuff you pick up at Guitar Center.

When you make a negative generic, statement about the value of pro gear without giving specifics, then you are saying it's ALL just hype...
....and that's as bad as the guys selling $300 power cords.

 

[Bobbsy]

I'll leave it to Ethan to clarify but, from my own point of view, I'd say it depends on the gear and why it's considered "high end. Generalisations here are dangerous.

For example, not totally high end, but I can happily argue that Drawmer compressors are better than Behringer ones for reasons that are both audible and measurable. Similarly, Rupert Neve pre amps add a colouration to the sound that many people, including me, consider pleasing. Again, the differences between Neve and the pre amps built into M Audio interfaces are audible and measurable.

Having said all that, a recording of a really talented performer made with Behringer comps and M Audio pre amps will be far more professional than me trying to sing via Neve and Drawmer.

The trouble comes when manufacturers make overblown claims about quality that simply aren't true--but charge a lot of money for them. We joke about the $300 mains lead but how about, for example, Monster Cable vs any other decent quality cable. I've seen people on this forum argue that they can hear the difference and Monster Cable is better--even though both blind testing and measurements say otherwise. As an aside, I've yet to see a professional studio that wasn't wired with ordinary (but good quality) cables. The last TV facility I installed contained almost 100 km of cable and, had we used the likes of Monster Cable instead of Van Damme or whatever, our five million pound budget would have been more like fifteen million (not to mention the huge cable ducts needed to run pre-terminated cable).

Anyhow, that's my take on it.

 

[gecko zzed]

Well....Ehtan has made comments in the past about high-end, expensive gear being basically pointless...so seeing how most of the pro audio world uses high-end gear, then it begs the question why use it, if Ethan has "proved" it's pointless....?...unless they just do it to maintain the hype...which WOULD be some sort of conspiracy/scam.

I'm having a VERY hard time accepting that guys like George Massenberg, the people at Manley, the guys at Crane Song and so many other manufactures of high end gear are just selling "hype"...and the countless pros who buy/use it are all being duped or just perpetuating the hype and myths.

Ethan is free to clarify what he really means....but when he says you don't need to waste money on high-end gear to get pro results, that's also a negative statement about the people who DO make, sell and use high-end audio gear.
I'm not talking about $300 power cord stuff...I'm talking about serious pro gear, and that there is a major difference between it and the $50 stuff you pick up at Guitar Center.

When you make a negative generic, statement about the value of pro gear without giving specifics, then you are saying it's ALL just hype...
....and that's as bad as the guys selling $300 power cords.

You yourself said "that some manufacturers hype up their gear for sales reasons." It seems you are simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with what you think Ethan is saying.

 

[Beck]

I heard back from Brad Meyer and I now have enough information to totally call BS on your claims. First, Brad told me it was impossible to get any solid technical information from the HHB people. Nobody there would admit to knowing anything about anything, and he tried several times. So unless you can give me the names of the people you spoke to, and an approximate date of your conversation, I have to assume said conversation never took place. Or that your recollection is "faulty" to put it politely.

More to the point, Brad sent me the service manual for that CD player which includes full specs when the device is placed inline:



Even more to the point, Meyer & Moran actually measured (and listened to) the output of the device, and their measurements confirmed the noise level was consistent with 16 bits. As Brad explained it to me:



So there you have it folks, another "Meyer & Moran denier" debunked with hard proof that cannot be refuted.

I'll be glad to post more from my lengthy exchange with Brad if anyone wants to see it. But that will have to wait until the weekend because I'm leaving now for a big hi-fi show in New York City where my company is treating several rooms.

--Ethan

Ethan, you are either one of the most gullible or one of the most disingenuous people I've ever known... or a bit of both. I can show you exchanges between Brad Meyer and others that clearly show Meyer has some of the features on the CDR-850 confused. I've had the CDR-850 for 10+ years and I know it inside and out. Meyer does not know what he's talking about. He made a lot of assumptions that are incorrect... specifically he confused the features of the analog inputs with the digital inputs. If he can't even figure that out, how can we do anything less than dismiss him and his silly experiment altogether. He used the HHB CDR-850 as his so-called 16/44.1 A/D/A loop, and yet he doesn't even understand how it functions.

I owned the HHB CDR-850 at the time Meyer & Moran presented their findings. I also have the service manual, which was the source of my initial skepticism. And I did speak to HHB techs via email. Those exchanges are already out there... public knowledge. Since the debate is old news to me and some years have past I would have to dig those emails up again for this thread. I can do that, but you know and I know you'll slither right out of that too. You are "A Believer" no different than someone in a religious cult. No amount of objective evidence will move you. Your faith in the Myer's and Moran's of the world is tantamount to faith other people have in celestial deities. As for me, I'm not a groupie sort, so I don't worship man.

Why would you think Meyer understands the unit in question more than anyone else might, especially since he failed to get the information he needed from HHB. Why would any reasonable person go to the source that has the most to lose if their experiment is shown to be flawed.

I had no problem whatsoever contacting HHB support back in 2008 - 2009, and they were very accommodating... putting me in touch right up the chain to the person who could answer my questions. They also put me in touch with Pioneer, who designed the HHB unit based on the Pioneer PDR-555RW. The Fostex CR300 is also the same unit as the HHB, and I own one of those as well.

Brad Meyer doesn't know what he thinks he knows, and for him to make such claims as he did in his flawed study he damn well better understand the equipment he's using and go to the lengths I did to find out how the device treats audio from A/D to the D/A.

In addition, everyone should know that a CD recorder doesn't convert to 16/44.1 until the disk writing phase. If there is no writing to disc, the conversion passes through the unit at the initial A/D word length, 20-bit, 24-bit or whatever it is for a given machine. That is, if the CD recorder in question has such a monitor feature from input to output. If it doesn't all you have is an analog in to analog out with no digital conversion about it, as you mentioned previously.

 

[miroslav]

You yourself said "that some manufacturers hype up their gear for sales reasons." It seems you are simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with what you think Ethan is saying.

Yes...but the way Ethan often phrases his position ( in other threads too) as I've understood it, is that most high-end, expensive gear is pointless and a waste of money, and that you can do everything a pro does with their pro gear, just using the most basic, inexpensive tools.

At least I do acknowledge that there is some hype-n-scam with some gear...but I don't buy this notion that most high-end gear is a waste of money and that identical results can be gotten with the most basic, inexpensive stuff....and I certainly don't buy the notion that all the digital emulation of high-end analog gear, makes the real analog gear obsolete (which is another point Ethan has made at times).

That flies easily on home-rec forums where people are constantly looking for a reason NOT to spend more than "$300" on anything, and to be able to have it all ITB...but I don't think that's truly accurate.
I'm not saying you absolutely can *never* get a pro result with a more basic setup, as so much depends on source material and the arrangements and production goals...but certainly there is a LOT of high-end gear that nothing in the "$300" budget can touch, both sonically and functionally.
I mean, it's not a magic bullet....where you buy a $3000 preamp and instantly your vocals go to "platinum" quality....but for anyone to suggest that some inexpensive, entry-level pre is going to stand toe-to-toe with some of the most prized preamps in the pro arena, I find somewhat more a case of wishful thinking based on simplistic straight-wire preamp theory than actual reality.

In many ways, it's not much different from the promises that the digital audio revolution and the Internet were going to put an end to record companies and give everyone the ability to record, market and distribute their music to a successful end-result.
Sure...one can say people are recording, marketing and distributing their music without the record companies...but AFA as to what level of success, that's a matter of individual interpretation....or should I say "perception".

 

[PRHunt]

In 2013, I believe it is trivial to design a clean, quiet, high performance (ie straight wire) preamplifier for not a lot of money, with multiple channels, and using high quality (but not boutique) electronic components. Current generation integrated circuit amps offer high linearity, very low noise and vanishingly low distortion. High performance linear power supplies are not hard to design, and even switched power supplies are getting very quiet with suitable filtering.

Costs nudge upward as the quality of hardware and connectors increases. Neutrik or Switchcraft XLR connectors will more than no-name Chinese equivalents, and a robust chassis costs more than a flimsy one.

When you move into the realm of "personality" equipment, expense further increases by the very nature of the raw components. Audio transformers can be expensive - Jensen's flagship input transformer costs about $74 in quantity breaks. You might still be looking at about $50 each in quantity for personality transformers. Add an output transformer and you have $100 per channel in iron before you even get started.

Discrete op-amps cost more than monolithic op-amps. Some vacuum tubes can be relatively costly. You might find more exotic caps and resistors in use. Such equipment is also likely to require a greater degree of hand assembly. It also takes time to match components like transistors/FETS, caps, resistors etc - things which yield a performance edge, but which add to manufacturing time and time=money.

Is the cost of "high-end" gear justified? Absolutely, to a point. Is the difference worth thousands of $$$? Maybe not so much, but people are evidently happy to pay that extra price premium. Prestige? Being part of an exclusive club? ???

I think it is therefore important to distinguish "high performance" as distinct from "high end". High performance gear will cost more - as a package of audio performance and build quality - than entry level gear. But it need not necessarily carry a "high-end" price tag.

In Ethan's defense, I don't think he has ever advocated getting the cheapest gear you can.

 

[miroslav]

In Ethan's defense, I don't think he has ever advocated getting the cheapest gear you can.

No real need to defend him....I wasn't attacking him, just disagreeing with him.

I don't know that I ever saw him advocate getting the cheapest gear....but like I said, I have seen him suggest on more than one occasion that high-end/high-priced gear is often a waste of money because the same results can be obtained with basic/inexpensive gear...not sure if he used those exact words, but that was his meaning as I understood it, and at one point in another thread I think I even asked him if thought it was all just meant to separate people from their money through hype and nothing more, and he basically seemed to say yes....which implies that people are being scammed on some level when they purchase that stuff.


I think your perspective about high-end/high-priced gear is pretty much the way I view it. Heck, if I had the money to drop on a rack full of top-shelf stuff...some GML equalizers, some Manley pres and comps, a nice API or Neve desk....
...I would die happy, but more importantly, I know for a fact that the sonic quality of my audio would improve. How much it improved would depend on my skill, but I certainly would not have any concern the gear would ever fall short!

 

[TheWalrus]

24 bit is before the mixdown on the tascam. It won't burn to a CD as a master or otherwise at 48K bits/sec (as a wave file), got to be 44.1K b/s sampling rate. Had a Roland digital recording station years back and lost a complete recording by not selecting 44.1k b/s. Anyhow, it's all 16bit, 44.1K b/s after mixdown on the tascam. I'm no expert, though, and just know enough to get in trouble...

 

[Ethan Winer]

I agree that saying they'll "never" get pro results is extreme (I don't see anyone saying that very often)

I guess you don't visit Gearslutz much.

Seriously, I see this all the time. In addition to claiming that it's impossible to get pro results using cheap gear, I often see claims that it's faster and easier to get a good mix using expensive gear, which is also a myth.

you seem to constantly imply in a roundabout way that all the pros, using all that expensive pro gear, in all those pro studios, all these years, and after countless pro recordings....have been running some kind of "scam"...?

The pro mix engineers are not the ones running the scam. They're the targets of the scam. And a lot of them fall for it. One of the loudest examples of a "professional" who buys into every snake oil scam is mastering engineer Barry Diament. He even believes that duplicated copies of the same CD all sound different. Eric Sarafin (Mixerman) is almost as gullible. He truly believe that Pro Tools is broken and can't capture the lowest octave of music, even though basic frequency response tests prove otherwise.

and that your the only one willing to set the record straight...?

Not hardly! There are countless audio professionals who think and say exactly the same things I do. Did you see Thomas Barefoot's post at Gearslutz after I wrote my Perception op-ed article for Tape Op?

"I just got done reading Ethan's article in Tape-Op No.88 titled "Perception - The Final Frontier" (pg 66). He discusses the distinctions between perceived and real differences in the audio signal chain. It's brief, beautifully written and perfectly to the point. Great job Ethan!" —Thomas Barefoot

Then Bob Clearmountain wrote a letter to the editor in the next issue praising my article:

"Hats off to Ethan Winer! His article 'Perception - the Final Frontier' [Tape Op #88] echoes my sentiments exactly. It's great to see that someone in this business has the balls to apply intelligence and reason to the science of audio ... I once knew a Grammy-award winning mixer who spent about $60,000 on his audiophile monitors, mono-block amps, and garden hose-sized speaker wire but plugged in his rack of outboard gear with whatever cables and adapters that happened to be sitting around the studio ... As you stated, perceptions of what sounds good are fluid and subjective, depending on the tastes and state of mind of the listener. To one producer, a particular snare drum sound might be 'fat' (good) but to another it might be 'tubby' (bad). Gear listening tests usually reveal more about the listeners than they do about the gear being listened to." —Bob Clearmountain"

Here's what George Massenburg had to say about one of my typical forum posts:

"I wasn't present in 1951 when the Pultec equalizer was designed, but I suspect the engineers were aiming for a circuit that affects the audio as little as possible beyond the response changes being asked of it. I'm quite sure they were not aiming for a 'vintage' sound. The desire for 'warmth' and a 'tube sound' came many years later, as a new generation of engineers tried to understand why some old-school recordings sound so good. Failing to understand the importance of good mic technique in a good-sounding room coupled with good engineering, they assumed (wrongly IMO) that it must be the gear that was used. Personally, I want everything in my recording chain to be absolutely clean. If I decide I want the sound of tubes, I'll add that as an effect later." —Ethan, posting in an audio forum

"I agree with this in every respect." —George Massenburg

that all those pros have bought into it via some form of mass delusion all these years.

Yes, delusion is exactly the right word. If they were willing to submit to a proper blind test (many are not willing), this would be proven every time.

It's like you place NO special value in anything considered high-end pro gear.

Actually, that's not my position at all. The quote below from my Audio Expert book explains my position, which I also made clear in my 2009 AES Audio Myths video.

--Ethan

Ultimately, many of these are consumerist issues, and people have a right to spend their money however they choose. If Donald Trump wants to pay $6,000 for an AC power cord, that’s his choice and nobody can say he’s wrong. Further, paying more for real value is justified. Features, reliability, build quality, good components, convenience and usability, and even appearance all demand a price. If I'm an engineer at Universal Studios recording major film scores, which can cost hundreds of dollars per minute just for the orchestra musicians, I will not buy the cheapest brand that could break down at the worst time, no matter how clean it sounds.

Further, even if a device is audibly transparent, that doesn't mean it's "good enough," and so recording engineers and consumers won’t benefit from even higher performance. Audio typically passes through many devices in its long journey from the studio microphones to your loudspeakers, and what we ultimately hear is the sum of degradation from all of the devices combined. This means not just distortion and noise, but also frequency response errors. When audio passes though five devices in a row that each have a modest 1 dB loss at 20 Hz, the net response is a 5 dB reduction at 20 Hz.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I can show you exchanges between Brad Meyer and others that clearly show Meyer has some of the features on the CDR-850 confused.

Please do.

I did speak to HHB techs via email. Those exchanges are already out there... public knowledge. Since the debate is old news to me and some years have past I would have to dig those emails up again for this thread. I can do that

Please do.

He used the HHB CDR-850 as his so-called 16/44.1 A/D/A loop, and yet he doesn't even understand how it functions.

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Brad connected the recorder with the A/D/A conversion in the loop, and he measured the degradation to confirm that it was indeed a 44/16 "bottleneck." If you think he got that wrong, you need to explain how and why a lot more clearly than you've done so far! Since you have this CD recorder, why don't you just measure the frequency response and noise from input to output and show us that there is not a bottleneck?

You are "A Believer" no different than someone in a religious cult. No amount of objective evidence will move you.

I think you have me and you confused.

if the CD recorder in question has such a monitor feature from input to output. If it doesn't all you have is an analog in to analog out with no digital conversion about it, as you mentioned previously.

That's what I would have thought, which is why I emailed Brad in the first place. Brad was very clear in his reply to me how he determined that the CD recorder did indeed impose a 44/16 bottleneck. Since you have the service manual, why don't you scan and post that part of the schematic proving the through path is not what Brad claims. I already posted that part of Brad's email to me showing how he proved the bottleneck was imposed, so I honestly don't understand why you don't just admit you are wrong and we can move on.

More to the point, as I already explained, there are at least four other such tests that all came to the same conclusion. Even if M&M are totally full of it, which I doubt, how do you explain those other test results? This is a serious question I hope you will not "slither right out of" as you put it. Since you are clearly the "believer" here, the burden of proof is on you that "hi-res" audio sounds better than standard CD quality.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

Well then Ethan, it sounds like you're making a distinction between the gear of the home-rec world and the pro world...and with that I certainly do agree!

Agreeing that in a pro environment there IS a need for high-end (and often high-priced gear)....is not the same as saying you don't need that gear to make pro recordings.
Again, I don't say you can *never* make a pro recording with a basic home-rec setup...but certainly the odds or less in your favor than when using more high-end gear.
I think at the crux of this division is that you see the home-rec studio as one being mostly ITB, which certainly is the case, while the pros also rely heavily on hardware to get their pro sound.
Now, if you want to suggest that everything can be modeled with software........that's another discussion.

I don't doubt that even pros have been duped and scammed at times....but like when we talk about someone like George Massenburg, who is not only an audio engineer, but also a designer/maker of audio gear, and someone who I think most audio folks would consider a straightshooter...do you think that he has a real reason for using hardware, and more specifically HIS hardware, and selling it to top audio pros at top prices...or do you think he's just selling analog hype?
I know GM also uses digital extensively, but he clearly sees a reason for using hardware too....
...and that's all I'm saying, that pro gear is pro gear for a lot of reasons, and it will always yield a slightly better end-result in the same hands as basic home-rec fare.
How much it is needed by the typical home-rec guys for their audio to be a little better...is a totally different discussion.

AFA as the whole thing with "perception"...I don't disagree at all that we can perceive things that are not there....I think I agreed with that early on. All I've been saying is that perception, even if it comes from something immesaurable....it is still 100% valid in the decision making process if it leads to a positive outcome. IOW...there's NO need to measure the math in order to always make decisions.....but of course, for anyone that needs the math in order to better decide, that is THEIR preference and equally valid.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I think it also depends on what you mean by 'pro' recordings.
The mass market is pretty indifferent to sound quality as long as it doesn't outright suck. And even then if the tune's compelling people will ignore the sound quality.
Look at all the lo-fi stuff that's been popular.
Hell, for a while there folks were deliberately lowering the quality of their recordings because that was what was in style.

The main people looking at the quality of recordings are guys like us that focus on that aspect of it.

Out in the real world where people think a Bose radio is the height of audio nirvana it's just not that important.

 

[miroslav]

I think it also depends on what you mean by 'pro' recordings.

........

Out in the real world where people think a Bose radio is the height of audio nirvana it's just not that important.

For sure.
I'm not debating the importance of Hi-Fi vs Lo-Fi from an entertainment perspective. Of course there is a lot of good music that doesn't hit sonic nirvana with every note but we enjoy it still.
I'm just saying that there are quality differences that can come with the gear. That it's not all the same thing with just different price tags.
How much, and how valuable is that bit of additional quality for recording....is a personal decision.

I certainly can enjoy good music "beyond" it's sonic quality...but I was always impressed when absolutely stellar recordings are put out, and they tend to come mainly from the pro arena.
I don't doubt that recording experience, quality rooms and quality talent make up for most of that....but all those rooms also have some of the best gear, and it too makes a difference.