Thanks a lot for uploading this. Always great to add another show to the collection :))
Tim
therhyeman
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Magda1983
Thank you :)
pittrek
OK I'm just listening to it. Can somebody fix the speed ? :-)
stark
fbrjqueen wrote: WOWWW! thank you very much for this!!! Could someone explain to me this 16-44 24-96 thing???
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick, hopefully simple, analogy: when you watch a film, you're actually looking at between 25 and 30 still photographs whizzing by every second. This fools the human eye into seeing fluid movement.
When you listen to digital audio (i.e. a CD), you're actually hearing 44,100 'photographs', or snapshots, of audio per second. Likewise this fools the ear into hearing continuous sound. Current technology can increase this to about 192,000 snapshots per second, but 44,100 is the CD audio standard.
The 16-bit part means that each of those 44,100 snapshots is stored as a 16 digit-long binary 'word' (piece of information). Again, this resolution can currently be increased to 32-bit words (maybe even 64?), but 16 is the CD audio standard.
You can see from this that the more snapshots we use per second, coupled with longer words (think of increased decimal places or accuracy of the snapshot), the greater the resolution of the captured audio will be.
Hope that helps.
And many thanks indeed to everyone involved in getting this recording to us!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quick, hopefully simple, analogy: when you watch a film, you're actually looking at between 25 and 30 still photographs whizzing by every second. This fools the human eye into seeing fluid movement.
When you listen to digital audio (i.e. a CD), you're actually hearing 44,100 'photographs', or snapshots, of audio per second. Likewise this fools the ear into hearing continuous sound. Current technology can increase this to about 192,000 snapshots per second, but 44,100 is the CD audio standard.
The 16-bit part means that each of those 44,100 snapshots is stored as a 16 digit-long binary 'word' (piece of information). Again, this resolution can currently be increased to 32-bit words (maybe even 64?), but 16 is the CD audio standard.
You can see from this that the more snapshots we use per second, coupled with longer words (think of increased decimal places or accuracy of the snapshot), the greater the resolution of the captured audio will be.
Hope that helps.
And many thanks indeed to everyone involved in getting this recording to us!
Harry_queenrecordings
This is fantastic! A new US 1974 recording, really exciting!
Many thanks to everyone who is involved for making the share!
Many thanks to everyone who is involved for making the share!
FriedChicken
It's running too slow!
Why don't people check these things before uploading?
Why don't people check these things before uploading?
pittrek
FriedChicken wrote: It's running too slow!
Why don't people check these things before uploading?
-------------------
A speed corrected version is also here
Why don't people check these things before uploading?
-------------------
A speed corrected version is also here
The Real Wizard
stark wrote:
Quick, hopefully simple, analogy: when you watch a film, you're actually looking at between 25 and 30 still photographs whizzing by every second. This fools the human eye into seeing fluid movement.
When you listen to digital audio (i.e. a CD), you're actually hearing 44,100 'photographs', or snapshots, of audio per second. Likewise this fools the ear into hearing continuous sound. Current technology can increase this to about 192,000 snapshots per second, but 44,100 is the CD audio standard.
The 16-bit part means that each of those 44,100 snapshots is stored as a 16 digit-long binary 'word' (piece of information). Again, this resolution can currently be increased to 32-bit words (maybe even 64?), but 16 is the CD audio standard.
You can see from this that the more snapshots we use per second, coupled with longer words (think of increased decimal places or accuracy of the snapshot), the greater the resolution of the captured audio will be.
----------------------------------------------
Perfect analogy, Stark. Whenever people say that they can't hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96, I just think, "I guess not all ears were created equal."
Quick, hopefully simple, analogy: when you watch a film, you're actually looking at between 25 and 30 still photographs whizzing by every second. This fools the human eye into seeing fluid movement.
When you listen to digital audio (i.e. a CD), you're actually hearing 44,100 'photographs', or snapshots, of audio per second. Likewise this fools the ear into hearing continuous sound. Current technology can increase this to about 192,000 snapshots per second, but 44,100 is the CD audio standard.
The 16-bit part means that each of those 44,100 snapshots is stored as a 16 digit-long binary 'word' (piece of information). Again, this resolution can currently be increased to 32-bit words (maybe even 64?), but 16 is the CD audio standard.
You can see from this that the more snapshots we use per second, coupled with longer words (think of increased decimal places or accuracy of the snapshot), the greater the resolution of the captured audio will be.
----------------------------------------------
Perfect analogy, Stark. Whenever people say that they can't hear the difference between 16/44 and 24/96, I just think, "I guess not all ears were created equal."
FriedChicken
pittrek wrote: FriedChicken wrote: It's running too slow!
Why don't people check these things before uploading?
-------------------
A speed corrected version is also here
Thanks!
But still.... why would someone not check before uploading...
Why don't people check these things before uploading?
-------------------
A speed corrected version is also here
Thanks!
But still.... why would someone not check before uploading...
The Real Wizard
Not everyone has the musician's ear and can hear such things... it's as simple as that.
TimBHM
Wow - thanks Ginger, you're my favourite! ;-)
DGAA
Thank You !!!
Rick
It's nice to have a new recording, thanks to the sharer(!), but the quality is terrible. I can't listen to this. Then again, one shouldn't expect too much from such an old recording.
The Real Wizard
Rick wrote:
Then again, one shouldn't expect too much from such an old recording.
==========
Well, you should... ! It all depends on what gear they used, where in the venue they were standing, how good the sound mix was that night, etc.
The recording from next night in Portland sounds leagues better than this. And there are audience recordings from the late 60s that sound even better than that.
Then again, one shouldn't expect too much from such an old recording.
==========
Well, you should... ! It all depends on what gear they used, where in the venue they were standing, how good the sound mix was that night, etc.
The recording from next night in Portland sounds leagues better than this. And there are audience recordings from the late 60s that sound even better than that.
Rick
Sir GH wrote: Rick wrote:
Then again, one shouldn't expect too much from such an old recording.
==========
Well, you should... ! It all depends on what gear they used, where in the venue they were standing, how good the sound mix was that night, etc.
The recording from next night in Portland sounds leagues better than this. And there are audience recordings from the late 60s that sound even better than that.
==========
Exceptions taken into account of course. But generally, I think you should not expect too much.
Then again, one shouldn't expect too much from such an old recording.
==========
Well, you should... ! It all depends on what gear they used, where in the venue they were standing, how good the sound mix was that night, etc.
The recording from next night in Portland sounds leagues better than this. And there are audience recordings from the late 60s that sound even better than that.
==========
Exceptions taken into account of course. But generally, I think you should not expect too much.