Not sure I understand. Are you talking about using 16 bit in processing? I thought nobody argues for doing that. Or do you mean that if the final result is going to be converted to 16 bit then earlier stages (in 24 bit or more) need to be careful to not negatively affect that last stage?
Given a choice though, we don't way to try to hear our music through that noise.
We like it to be noise-free which is the concept behind having 120 db of dynamic range. It is only then that we can show that the noise added by the channel is below our threshold of hearing.
I don't know. Considering the popularity of LP maybe the hot ticket is dithered 12 bit. With that EQ curve thrown in.Given a choice though, we don't way to try to hear our music through that noise.
Everything 24 bit until the end.
I don't know. Considering the popularity of LP maybe the hot ticket is dithered 12 bit. With that EQ curve thrown in.
Ugh. Yes, your credibility now hangs by a tenuous thread. SQ Quad in the analog domain? My hunch is a lot of not very expensive Mch AVR's might do a far better job via someting like DTS:Neo 6 or even Dolby Pro logic in the digital domain. Seriously, Mch, especially discretely recorded, but even synthesized from 2.0, has come a very long way since the quad days. And, quad 4.0 just does not measure up to 5.0/.1 or higher, with the critical center channel in place.
That's the apparent dilemma. "Effortless dynamics" are the goal, but almost no systems achieve it - why? Because the level of audible anomalies are too severe when the SPLs are increased to an appropriate level - and the brain rejects the sound as being wrong, wrong, wrong. This is one of the obvious markers of competent playback - that the dynamics of acoustic music making are all in place, there is nothing that irritates our hearing systems and causes us to find fault with the sound. This means, for example, that the intensity of the reproduction masks all other sounds, depending on the type of music - this has nothing to do with PA crud pulverising one's eardrums.
I have a fascination with the dead ends of audio, like Quadraphonics. I've also a 1963 Reel-Reel Ferograph tape machine I'm restoring, and have just repaired a 1971 Cambridge Audio P50 amplfier, so hopelessly nostalgic about the old stuff I grew up with.
Hey, I was there. This is a very bad, old photo of my Marantz 2270 receiver and the 2440 quad add-on amp. They had SQ, QS, and CD4 plug in modules available for it IIRC. A planned obsolescence proof design that was killed when Quad playback itself died
Nothing in my collection meets the above criteria.
I hear nothing in -110 16bit.flac. No noise, no music. So either or all of the followings are true:
Ah, yes. Quad. Even back then, I had a keen interest in Mch after some experiments with Hafler's Dynaquad, and some other approaches. I never adopted those approaches, and I was never tempted to make any investment in SQ or QS Quad. I thought it an overhyped gimmick, based on the atrocious, compromised delivery via the LP. Even back then in the early 70's, I had serious problems with vinyl as a playback medium, even for stereo, and, even then, I speculatively envisioned and fantasized about a form of digital playback using light beams from some new type of media rather than a dust laden LP and stylus. Within the decade, I was proven right when the Philips Laserdisc appeared, followed by the CD. I was excited. But, commercially viable Mch for music still had to wait a few more decades.
Though an admitted fan of hirez and greater bit depth. I don't think you need 120dB to be delivered to your listening room. I think the advantage of greater bit depth may be primarily in recording production, considering all the processing stages a recording goes through. I think it adds useful headroom to recording production, possibly even benefitting music downrezzed for RBCD media.
All the twaddle about the importance of hires is exactly that - competent playback of ridiculously limited quality source material delivers a powerful, overwhelming experience, where questions about dynamic range are just laughable ...
