scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
> Do you have a link to a 24/96 sample file I could use to compare?

  Do you really have a soundcard capable of playing 24/96 sounds?
Those soundcards which can are usually quite expensive pro cards.
  If you have a regular soundblaster or whatever, it will just
downsample it to 16/48 (supposing it doesn't refuse to play it
at all) and naturally you won't hear any difference (or the
24/96 may even sound worse if the soundcard makes a crappy
downsampling job).

  But to answer your question: Nope. I have no idea where you could
get those kind of samples.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Ive <ive### [at] lilysoftcom> wrote:
> > > Somehow this
> > > reminds me on people who seem to think a 64bit CPU is twice as fast as a
> > > 32bit one.

> Yes, sure you are right and your example is much better. It was just the case
> that a few minutes before writing this I did read a posting where somebody
> seriously did say this.

  It's nothing new. When Intel introduced their 386 processor some people
claimed that 32-bit programs would run twice as fast as the back then
current 16-bit programs... :)

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Severi Salminen <sev### [at] not_thissibafi> wrote:
> I don't think there are many printers (or 
> video cards) that accept 48bit data - does anyone know?

  For grayscales it would be enough if the printer supported 16-bit B/W
images... But I suppose you won't find those in your nearest store
either. :)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] spamcom> wrote:
>> Do you have a link to a 24/96 sample file I could use to compare?
>
>   Do you really have a soundcard capable of playing 24/96 sounds?

Yes.  Although my current speakers only go up to 22kHz.

> Those soundcards which can are usually quite expensive pro cards.



>   If you have a regular soundblaster or whatever, it will just
> downsample it to 16/48 (supposing it doesn't refuse to play it
> at all) and naturally you won't hear any difference (or the
> 24/96 may even sound worse if the soundcard makes a crappy
> downsampling job).

Indeed.

>   But to answer your question: Nope. I have no idea where you could
> get those kind of samples.

Post a reply to this message

> 
> Midiman Delta Dio
> 

Thank you for this info! I though Midiman was only making midi 
interfaces... But they seems to be making hi-quality sound cards (and 
your's, as well as most of their other ones, is totally compatible with 
Linux. Joy!)

 > (snip)
 >
> After a bit more testing, I found I could hear frequencies up to about
> 18.5kHz, so for me, a sampling rate of 41kHz would sound the same as
> anything higher (assuming 10% bandwidth for non-perfect analogue filters).
> 
> This has all got rather OT :-)
> 
> 

Damn! Well, there are some people that can hear it. I will have to test 
it, when I will have the according hardware to generate the tests 
waveforms. Last time I checked, I could hear up to 20KHz. Let's see if 
it has changed.

Regards,

-- 
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)

Post a reply to this message

> 

> 

I just looked on M-Audio's web site:
USD 249.95


Regards,

-- 
Laurent ARTAUD (lau### [at] freefr)

Post a reply to this message

laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:
>> Midiman Delta Dio
>>
>
> Thank you for this info! I though Midiman was only making midi
> interfaces... But they seems to be making hi-quality sound cards (and
> your's, as well as most of their other ones, is totally compatible
> with Linux. Joy!)

Yes, I would recommend them.  I've never had any problems with mine and they
had WindowsXP drivers available as soon as XP was released, so they seem
very up to date with software and their website.  The only disadvantage
about mine was that it doesn't have any analogue inputs, but my plan was to
find a good external ADC.

At the time it was only a bit more expensive than the SB Live cards but
absolutely knocked the socks off them!  Now the SB Live cards are so cheap I
have one of those too (for the Joystick port and surround sound).

>> After a bit more testing, I found I could hear frequencies up to
>> about
>> 18.5kHz, so for me, a sampling rate of 41kHz would sound the same as
>> anything higher (assuming 10% bandwidth for non-perfect analogue
>> filters).
>>
>> This has all got rather OT :-)
>>
>>
>
> Damn! Well, there are some people that can hear it. I will have to
> test it, when I will have the according hardware to generate the tests
> waveforms. Last time I checked, I could hear up to 20KHz. Let's see if
> it has changed.

Well, you'd be able to test yourself up to 22050 Hz with a normal soundcard
(assuming your amp and speakers could reproduce this ok).

Post a reply to this message

laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr" <"laurent.artaud[AT]free.fr wrote:

>>
>
> I just looked on M-Audio's web site:
> USD 249.95


The first page of Googling "delta dio 2496" gives $189, it's surprising how
the price has stayed the same for so long, whereas SBLive and the likes have
become so cheap.  I guess it's a completely different market.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Severi Salminen <sev### [at] not_thissibafi> wrote:
> > I don't think there are many printers (or
> > video cards) that accept 48bit data - does anyone know?
>
>   For grayscales it would be enough if the printer supported 16-bit
> B/W images... But I suppose you won't find those in your nearest store
> either. :)

Am I being daft or does it not depend on the contrast ratio as you what bit
depth you need?  If you could produce a display or print where the white is
1000000 times brighter than the black then you would need lots of bits to
not see any banding.  However on my mobile phone in reflective mode
(contrast ratio about 10) you don't see any banding with 5-bit, and in
transmissive mode (CR about 100) with 6-bit you don't see any banding.

There must be a minimum contrast ratio that the human eye can typically
distinguish between, from my quick calculations I reckon it's about 1.07, or
a 7% increase in brightness.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Severi Salminen <sev### [at] not_thissibafi> wrote:
> 
>>But I doubt if there are many professionals who can hear the 
>>difference between 16/44 and 24/96 _all other things being equal_.
> 
> 
>   Believe me: There are.

And it's easy to see the banding in some images resulting from the use 
of 8-bit channels. However, the number of cases where this is both 
visible and problematic are mercifully small, such that 24-bit color is 
"good enough" for these newsgroups, even though it's not ideal for many 
professional applications.

If one is personally unsatisfied with that, or if the image needs 
special handling (HDRI map, maybe?), then they can provide readers here 
with URLs or low-quality versions of their work, and publish the "real" 
copy on their own server space.

If IMBJR had done this, instead of trying to ram his preferred (and 
functionally redundant) format down everyone's throats, I suspect that 
no one would have complained.

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message