We don't need no stinking hi-rez

[Jud]

Does it though? Once you have enough money to buy a Ferrari, adding more money won't make it more Ferrari.

 

Even there, there are gradations... Ferrari LaFerrari: First Hybrid with 963 CV - Ferrari.com

[EuroChamp]

Does it though? Once you have enough money to buy a Ferrari, adding more money won't make it more Ferrari.

 

I do not think, this comparison is appropriate.

 

But if the existing Ferrari would be the holy grail, why does Ferrari develop a newer, better car?

 

 

As long as a newer (better) format results in better sound quality, it makes sense, of course. Maybe not everyone cares about this - maybe small improvement. But for those who care, it could be everything.

 

This is why I do not understand the discussion all over?

 

(Sorry for my bad english)

[Sal1950]

Does it though? Once you have enough money to buy a Ferrari, adding more money won't make it more Ferrari.

It would get you a Bugatti Veyron or a Hennessey Venom GT

[Sal1950]

Even there, there are gradations... Ferrari LaFerrari: First Hybrid with 963 CV - Ferrari.com

Only toys run on Batteries.

[sandyk]

Only toys run on Batteries.

 

Even that toy in your Avatar runs with a battery !

[oso]

True, but not the whole truth. With proper dithering, there is no effective improvement in the representation of an input signal with bounded dynamic range beyond a finite number of bits. For most music, 16-bit sampling is more than enough to push the quantisation noise below audible limits.

 

Why then is practically all recordings done in 24bit?

[mansr]

Why then is practically all recordings done in 24bit?

 

Recording in 24-bit leaves some headroom making input gain less critical. Same for editing.

[Jud]

Recording in 24-bit leaves some headroom making input gain less critical. Same for editing.

 

Editing is done in up to 80-bit software, but we are not talking any more about actual dynamic range there.

[mansr]

Editing is done in up to 80-bit software, but we are not talking any more about actual dynamic range there.

 

Yes, extra precision makes it easier to avoid losses.

[gmgraves]

I think the difference is that Joe Public trusts his eyes. He does not trust his ears. Heck, even a large percentage of audiophiles don't trust their hearing.

 

 

The difference is that Joe Public is addicted to television as in everybody has one and watches many hours of it a day. That it was rendered better through the adoption of hi-def, was something everyone could instantly see, couple that with the government mandated change from analog to digital along with the (again, government mandated) abandonment of the VHF frequencies, and everyone (eventually) had to buy new TV sets and these new TVs just happen to be hi-def because there was simply no commercial reason for manufacturers to make non-hi-def models except at the very lowest end. People were, essentially funneled into the high-definition television chute like cattle on their way to the slaughterhouse. It really wasn't an option. New big-screen HDTVs looked so good and have become so cheap, that when it came time to replace the old one, people just bought one.

 

Unfortunately, there is no parallel circumstance in audio forcing consumers to go hi-def. First of all, most people don't care about quality audio reproduction, and other than an iPod - like device or a smart phone, most people, these days, don't even have a stereo system in their homes. Music is an after-thought in most people's lives, though kids remain heavily influenced by it. But like we said, they listen using earbuds and, for the most part, and don't even recognize the difference between 32 kbps MP3 and non-compressed Red-Book quality, much less 24/192! Partly that's true because the earbuds to which they listen wouldn't resolve the differences between those formats anyway, and partly because of apathy. The average teen can hear what he/she wants to hear on lousy earbuds, just as my generation could hear what they required from their music on a cheap, 6-transistor AM radio tuned to the local "top-40" outlet. The vast majority of people of all ages can hear the difference between standard definition and hi-definition audio when it's pointed out to them, but most don't care enough about the sound of music to ever be convinced that going hi-def audio is worth the expense or the trouble.

[gmgraves]

Why then is practically all recordings done in 24bit?

 

That's a practical consideration more than a auditory one. Digital quantization simply does not allow over-modulation. In analog recording, a good, professional tape deck running at 15 inches per second of linear tape speed, has enough head-room that if the meter needle ventures into the red every now and again, no audible harm is done, but in digital that red line on the meter represents that all of the available bits, be that 16 or 24 are being utilized and there ain't no more! The consequences of letting that needle go into the red is that more bits are required, and there aren't any. The result is a particularly nasty kind of distortion/noise that will ruin a recording. The eight more bits made available by recording using 24-bit quantization, means that recording engineers can back-off on their record volume, keeping all musical peaks well clear of the "red" zone, without the softer passages being down in the noise and mud at the bottom of the dynamic range. When transferring to other formats, the engineers can adjust the captured performance's dynamic range content to fit whatever "container" they need, 16-bit CD, MP3, 24/96, 24/192. or even a conversion to DSD.

[Sal1950]

Even that toy in your Avatar runs with a battery !

Nope, she starts with a battery. She normally runs on a mixture of 110 octane leaded race fuel and the swill that comes out of the pumps now a days.

[crenca]

Nope, she starts with a battery. She normally runs on a mixture of 110 octane leaded race fuel and the swill that comes out of the pumps now a days.

 

Is that "av gas"? I thought even racers had to remove the lead. Also, I could be mistaken but I think it is this year (or was it last?) that the lead is being removed from aviation fuel. About time. I am not much of an "environmentalist" but I don't want to be intentionally poisoned either...

[Sal1950]

Is that "av gas"? I thought even racers had to remove the lead. Also, I could be mistaken but I think it is this year (or was it last?) that the lead is being removed from aviation fuel. About time. I am not much of an "environmentalist" but I don't want to be intentionally poisoned either...

My bro bought the fuel by 4 drums at a time for his pro dragrace snow sled which he sold and we've had it for a while. That's why he let me use all I want. May have to roll back my tuning when it runs out. Nothing makes horsepower and lets the engines live like leaded. 100 years of leaded fuels and I don't see folks laying dead in the street. LOL

VP Racing Fuels for Circle Track

Sunoco Race Fuels | Race Fuel 101: Lead and Leaded Racing Fuels

[PopPop]

Pouring 110 octane leaded fuel into a street machine makes no sense and in my experience doesn't improve performance. YMMV

[esldude]

My bro bought the fuel by 4 drums at a time for his pro dragrace snow sled which he sold and we've had it for a while. That's why he let me use all I want. May have to roll back my tuning when it runs out. Nothing makes horsepower and lets the engines live like leaded. 100 years of leaded fuels and I don't see folks laying dead in the street. LOL

VP Racing Fuels for Circle Track

Sunoco Race Fuels | Race Fuel 101: Lead and Leaded Racing Fuels

 

Actually, yes, with lead people are literally laying dead in the street.

 

Just look into the link with leaded gasoline and crime rates.

 

I love big powerful engines and all, but lead is bad mojo. We have the tech to make bigger and badder engines than ever before and not very polluting while doing it.

[esldude]

Pouring 110 octane leaded fuel into a street machine makes no sense and in my experience doesn't improve performance. YMMV

 

If you re-tune it you can get more HP. Which is where Sal's roll back the tuning comment comes from. But yes, just dumping high octane into a machine might make no difference or can even cause it to run not so well as the engine is expecting faster burning fuel.

[PopPop]

Up to a point. This whole thing is rather off topic, I am mostly annoyed by what seems to be an ignorant and careless comment about the health affects of tetra ethyl lead in the environment. That's about all I have to say.

[crenca]

My bro bought the fuel by 4 drums at a time for his pro dragrace snow sled which he sold and we've had it for a while. That's why he let me use all I want. May have to roll back my tuning when it runs out. Nothing makes horsepower and lets the engines live like leaded. 100 years of leaded fuels and I don't see folks laying dead in the street. LOL

VP Racing Fuels for Circle Track

Sunoco Race Fuels | Race Fuel 101: Lead and Leaded Racing Fuels

 

That Sunoco link is intersting - while I knew that TEL was an octane (the chemical) substitute I did not know it was so potent. I read recently that the EPA is looking into (and in discussions with refinery's, auto makers, etc.) requiring a minimum octane rating of around 94 for "regular". This would mean the majority of our engines could be more efficient. Our 87 (below 3000 feet) standard is actually just an industry standard and not a regulation. It goes back to WWII when our 87 av gas helped us beat the Germans as they only could muster 80, thus they needed bigger/heavy engines in their planes (due to lower compression so less HP per X displacement).

[Sal1950]

Pouring 110 octane leaded fuel into a street machine makes no sense and in my experience doesn't improve performance. YMMV

 

If you re-tune it you can get more HP. Which is where Sal's roll back the tuning comment comes from. But yes, just dumping high octane into a machine might make no difference or can even cause it to run not so well as the engine is expecting faster burning fuel.

 

My credentials at building and tuning high performance and race engines go back to the mid 60s, not to worry. She's been built to run, last dyno pulls had her in the high 120s on good air days without any squeeze.

 

If you wanna run cool

If you wanna run cool, you got to run

On heavy, heavy fuel

[esldude]

My credentials at building and tuning high performance and race engines go back to the mid 60s, not to worry. She's been built to run, last dyno pulls had her in the high 120s on good air days without any squeeze.

 

If you wanna run cool

If you wanna run cool, you got to run

On heavy, heavy fuel

 

That's all well and good. You should not be doing that at everyone else's expense. No matter how cool it is.

[crenca]

That's all well and good. You should not be doing that at everyone else's expense. No matter how cool it is.

 

It's general aviation that uses the bulk of "leaded" fuel. Racers would be quite a bit smaller of a contributor to lead pollution I would think. Not that I can think as I grew up in the leaded highways and byways of America...

[Sal1950]

Faster bikes-cars

Looser women

More money

Dems da rules

[4est]

What performance? It looks to be a Harley Davidson.

Pouring 110 octane leaded fuel into a street machine makes no sense and in my experience doesn't improve performance. YMMV

[JSWolf]

Please stop the off-topic chatter.