before i could justify going 24bit it was higher priority to upgrade my playback.
qft
this may be the most intelligent thing anyone's said on this site in months...
actually, I think it's an interesting dilema. as soon as I upgraded my playback (to the point where 16 bit vs. 24 bit is dramatic, IMO), I decided that I needed to get more 24 bit material to listen to (don't ask why I'm still running a D8).
So, the question is, do you upgrade your playback first so you cen better hear the deficiencies of 16 bit recordings? or do you upgrade your recording rig, so at some point in the future, when your playback rig is up to snuff, you can enjoy your older recordings in full 24 bit glory?
BTW, the "correct" answer is to do both. get yourself a nice playback system and start recording in 24 bit
I did some critical listening last night, albeit with only the handful of 148>722 shows I have. I do think the a/d is solid, but a *little* vague sounding, and with the tiniest grain to it. Need to listen some more. To my ears, very comparable with the HHB a/d. Which is to say very good, but not quite up to uv22 standards, definitely a few major notches above the trashcan.
not sure exactly what you mean "up to uv22" standards. it is my understanding that uv22 is a dithering scheme to go from 24 bits down to 16 bit resolution. (and a dithering scheme that is generally regarded as very good). but in this context, as a comparison for the 722 A/D, I'm not really sure I understand your comparison. were the 148>722 sources that you were listening to still at 24 bit? or had they been dropped down to 16 bit? and if they were now 16 bit, what program was used for the processing. Wavelab has the uv22 dither, right? it is possible to use that dithering process in post, not just "live" when using Apogee products.