Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 04:40:13
(permalink)
Freddie H
Loptec
best possibl Freddie H
Okay boys and girls are you all ready for the truth?
Okay I use 24 bit, 32bit, 64bit 48kHz or 96kHz and all kinds of dithering and hoghend AD DA converters too etc......but can we hear the difference...?
You can't hear any dithering go on at all , infact you can't even hear the difference between 12-14 bit or 16 bit whatever...
Still we should always use the best possible quality we have..but you should be aware of the facts why and what's real or not..
Watch this Video and you will learn alot of all kinds AUDIO myths floating around out there...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ
Sorry I can’t agree with this.
You hear a huge difference just by changing from 16bit 44..1kHz to 24bit 48kHz!
And it’s not just what you hear in the basic recording it’s what you can do with the sound afterwards..
It’s like editing an image..
Let’s say you have a HUGE photo of a flower with a fly sitting on it.
* If you have great resolution you can zoom in and draw a hat on the fly.
* With low resolution all you can do is putting a blob in the fly’s head and say.. “well.. it kind of looks like a hat”
In other words you get SO MUCH more control over the sound when working with higher resolution. And even if you compress the audio to mp3 or whatever after, the final product sounds SO much better if it wasn’t all blurry from the start
My friend... I'm with you.. I'm not saing that...
Its Sunday take your time watching the VIDEO I posted.. I think you will like it. It it will take one hour to watch the Video.
Haha.. Yeah, I'll do that ..but later :) First I think I'll get out in the sun for a bit.. :) ..If I'm not mistaking you're from sweden too, yes? Then you know that if you want to get any sun before winter you'd better be fast! :) Also, I didn't see the line "We should always urge and use the best possible quality we have..but you should be aware of the facts why and what's real or not.." in your message before. I couldn't agree more with this! :)
post edited by Loptec - 2011/04/17 05:43:27
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
 DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
wilqen
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 74
- Joined: 2006/09/26 22:02:35
- Location: Eastern Oregon
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 05:04:42
(permalink)
Hi all. I have found that a higher bit rate makes a noticeable difference in audio quality so I always record in 24 bit. I do any editing, rendering, fx, looping etc., in a higher bit rate often either 32 or 64bit and I use the double precision 64bit audio engine in SONAR. This does require dithering at export. I use powr 3 mostly, with powr 1&2 used also when appropriate. Using the default triangle preset is an older method that is not used in professional studios any longer because it has been improved upon by Powr, Radius, Apogee (UV22HD) and others. I feel that I can hear a clear difference between files recorded at 16 and 24bit, and files recorded at 24bit then dithered to 16bit. The latter still retain an improvement over 16bit recorded files. Differences in sampling rate are more subtle. Yet there is a known qualitative difference the higher you go in sampling rate. This has been documented by many experts and well known audio engineers. 44.1khz and it's multiples, 88.2, and 176.4khz, are used for music which will mostly have final distribution to the public in CD form. The Higher multiples of 88.2 & 176.4khz are used rather than other sample rates because of their ease of sample rate conversion to the final sample rate of 44.1khz. Most other audio media distribution, including video and internet, are typically finished at 48khz. Often higher sample rate multiples (96 and 192khz) are used to record with for these formats, and are then down converted to the 48khz sample rate. By the way the idea that 48khz is better than 44.1khz, and the reason these frequencies are used in digital audio is because of the Nyquest theory. Google it, or look it up somewhere. It's important !!
post edited by wilqen - 2011/04/17 05:12:52
Will Intel Core i7 3820, 16GB DDR3, Emu 1212m, 1.6+TB HDs WIN 7x64, SONAR ext X1d, Vegas Pro 11, Sound Forge Pro 10c, various others
|
Chregg
Max Output Level: -51.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2382
- Joined: 2010/02/22 06:14:27
- Location: Perth, Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 05:09:22
(permalink)
My friend... I'm with you.. I'm not saing that... I use 32bit floating 48kHz mostly myself..
Its Sunday take your time watching the VIDEO I posted.. I think you will like it. It it will take one hour to watch the Video.
i watched it, wicked, i want that power cord to reduce ear fatigue, and the pebbles lol
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 05:53:11
(permalink)
Loptec
You hear a huge difference just by changing from 16bit 44..1kHz to 24bit 48kHz!
Then you need some new converters. ;-) It’s like editing an image..
Actually no it is not. Comparing audio to images (or video) is always flawed because they work so differently. UnderTow
|
Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 06:15:57
(permalink)
UnderTow
Loptec
You hear a huge difference just by changing from 16bit 44..1kHz to 24bit 48kHz!
Then you need some new converters. ;-)
It’s like editing an image..
Actually no it is not. Comparing audio to images (or video) is always flawed because they work so differently.
UnderTow
But pleeeease... Are you serious?? I didn't mean that editing audio actually IS like editing an image! All I meant was, the better material you have from the start, the better the final product will be! And I'd say that the better audio converters you have, the more difference you will hear with different resolutions. With good converters you hear clairity and detail in the sound. With crappy ones it all sounds the same.. I would have said "The chain is never stronger than the weakest link". But since you seem to have problems with metaphors it'd probably be a bad idea, since this thread isn’t about chains..
post edited by Loptec - 2011/04/17 06:58:48
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
Chregg
Max Output Level: -51.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2382
- Joined: 2010/02/22 06:14:27
- Location: Perth, Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 06:40:45
(permalink)
see the with sampling rate as well, if your recording at say 44.1 and then record the same source at 88.2, is the 2 snapshots per sec with 88.2 compared to 44.1, is that not going to better define what you are recording ??
|
Chregg
Max Output Level: -51.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2382
- Joined: 2010/02/22 06:14:27
- Location: Perth, Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 06:42:04
(permalink)
what am saying is 88.2 is double the amount of snap shots compared to 44.1
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:05:55
(permalink)
wilqen
Hi all.
I have found that a higher bit rate makes a noticeable difference in audio quality so I always record in 24 bit.
Yes, recording at 24 bits is a good idea. Using the default triangle preset is an older method that is not used in professional studios any longer because it has been improved upon by Powr, Radius, Apogee (UV22HD) and others.
This is not true. You have to listen to each case individually and decide which dither works best. If you can't hear a difference at all, you might as well use triangular. All these fancy noise shaped dithers trade lower noise levels in the more sensitive frequencies of our hearing for a higher noise floor in other frequencies. On some material this can become obvious. (Increased sharpness for instance). That said, for most pop or rock music, the type of dither you choose will make as much difference to the music as the colour of socks you wear while mixing. ;-) On more dynamic material, use your ears. I feel that I can hear a clear difference between files recorded at 16 and 24bit, and files recorded at 24bit then dithered to 16bit. The latter still retain an improvement over 16bit recorded files.
For recording, yes. On a finished track of any modern pop rock music it shouldn't make any difference. In other words, 16 bits is fine as a delivery format but not as a recording format. Differences in sampling rate are more subtle. Yet there is a known qualitative difference the higher you go in sampling rate. This has been documented by many experts and well known audio engineers.
Actually it has not. There is no proper test done with any converters made in the last decade that indicates anyone can hear a difference. At least none that have been published. This of course does not include all the anecdotal evidence and wild claims that people make. Once these people are properly tested, the differences they thought they perceived tend to vanish... 44.1khz and it's multiples, 88.2, and 176.4khz, are used for music which will mostly have final distribution to the public in CD form. The Higher multiples of 88.2 & 176.4khz are used rather than other sample rates because of their ease of sample rate conversion to the final sample rate of 44.1khz.
Again this is not true any more. The way modern sample rate converters work, the sample rates do not need to have an integer releationship between them. A good SRC will do as good a job going from 96Khz to 44.1Khz as going from 88.2Khz to 44.1Khz. My personal favorite SRCs are the iZotope one available in iZotope RX (and a few other places) and the free SoX one. Most other audio media distribution, including video and internet, are typically finished at 48khz. Often higher sample rate multiples (96 and 192khz) are used to record with for these formats, and are then down converted to the 48khz sample rate.
And often they are not. ;-) (I mean not recorded at 96Khz). By the way the idea that 48khz is better than 44.1khz, and the reason these frequencies are used in digital audio is because of the Nyquest theory. Google it, or look it up somewhere. It's important !!
Actually no. The Shanon-Nyquist theorem says you only need twice the audible bandwidth to perfectly reproduce any audible signal. In other words, 44.1Khz is sufficient. So don't just google it. Read it too! ;-) UnderTow
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:09:57
(permalink)
Loptec
All I meant was, the better material you have from the start, the better the final product will be!
Absolutely. But please don't compare to working with images, it just confuses things. And I'd say that the better audio converters you have, the more difference you will hear with different resolutions.
With good converters you hear clairity and detail in the sound. With crappy ones it all sounds the same..
Actually it should be the opposite. The better the converters, the less the difference as they have better filters. I would have said "The chain is never stronger than the weakest link". But since you seem to have problems
with metaphors it'd probably be a bad idea, since this thread isn’t about chains..
I don't have problems with metaphors. I have problems with the wrong metaphors that just cloud the issue! :-) UnderTow
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:14:03
(permalink)
Chregg
see the with sampling rate as well, if your recording at say 44.1 and then record the same source at 88.2, is the 2 snapshots per sec with 88.2 compared to 44.1, is that not going to better define what you are recording ??
No. Not at all. You only need two points to fully define a circle. (The centre and any point on the diameter). Adding more points does not in anyway define the circle better. The same thing goes for sampling. Remember that a sine wave is just a circle drawn out over time. With two points, that sine is perfectly defined. This is an oversimplification but it should give you a hint as to why adding sampling points does not add any more definition to the signal being sampled. If you want to learn more about how sampling works, I suggest you read this paper from Dan Lavry: http://www.lavryengineeri...ts/Sampling_Theory.pdf UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2011/04/17 07:16:14
|
Chregg
Max Output Level: -51.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2382
- Joined: 2010/02/22 06:14:27
- Location: Perth, Scotland
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:24:22
(permalink)
If you want to learn more about how sampling works, I suggest you read this paper from Dan Lavry: http://www.lavryengineeri...ts/Sampling_Theory.pdf
undertow am finishing year 2 of a BSc in audio, covered all that, it's just me pondering over this digital thing, i appreciate what your saying, but if all this is the case why have such high sampling rates ?? one of my lectures claims he gets more crisp highs and well defined lows in his music, when recording at 32bit float, 96, says hes doesn't really notice it till its all in the mix.............i think personally its all open for experimentation??
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:36:49
(permalink)
Chregg
If you want to learn more about how sampling works, I suggest you read this paper from Dan Lavry: http://www.lavryengineeri...ts/Sampling_Theory.pdf
undertow am finishing year 2 of a BSc in audio, covered all that, it's just me pondering over this digital thing, i appreciate what your saying, but if all this is the case why have such high sampling rates ??
Originally because of filtering. With older converter designs it really did make a difference. Now a days it doesn't any more. At least not with the better converters. And anything above 96Khz was always pure marketing and was never developed for any sound related reasons. The same goes for DSD/SACD (which uses outdated 1 bit technology which was abandoned for better stuff a decade ago). one of my lectures claims he gets more crisp highs and well defined lows in his music,
The " more crisp highs" could have been attributed to sub-optimal converters but "well defined lows" is pure bollocks and a dead give away that the guy/gal doesn't understand sampling theory. The low frequencies is one thing increasing the sampling rate will certainly have zero influence on. This isn't even controversial. If they think they heard this difference, they are most probably imagining things. It is called expectation bias. when recording at 32bit float, 96, says hes doesn't really notice it till its all in the mix.............i think personally its all open for experimentation??
Of course. :-) But your lecturers should educate themselves before spreading misinformation. UnderTow
|
Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:38:41
(permalink)
Loptec
All I meant was, the better material you have from the start, the better the final product will be!
Absolutely. But please don't compare to working with images, it just confuses things.
Easily confused, are we? ;) I’m sorry if it got confusing. I’m a visual artist as well as musician/producer so it felt natural for me to use this metaphor since I just wanted to underline that: It’s better to work with as good quality as you can and then convert down, cuz going the other way isn’t possible.
And I'd say that the better audio converters you have, the more difference you will hear with different resolutions.
With good converters you hear clairity and detail in the sound. With crappy ones it all sounds the same..
Actually it should be the opposite. The better the converters, the less the difference as they have better filters.
Yeah. You’re right. I got a bit confused there for a moment as well it seems.. ;) I would have said "The chain is never stronger than the weakest link". But since you seem to have problems
with metaphors it'd probably be a bad idea, since this thread isn’t about chains..
I don't have problems with metaphors. I have problems with the wrong metaphors that just cloud the issue! :-)
I really don’t think my metaphor was that bad.. But, then again.. That’s just me.. I’ve always known my mind likes to sneak away to take different paths and try to see things from all possible angles. ..Maybe I need new converters after all, just as you said. Better converters that can convert my thoughts into understandable messages without confusion. ;)
post edited by Loptec - 2011/04/17 07:43:38
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 07:47:43
(permalink)
Loptec
Loptec
All I meant was, the better material you have from the start, the better the final product will be!
Absolutely. But please don't compare to working with images, it just confuses things.
Easily confused, are we? ;)
No but it seems you are!  (See below) I’m sorry if it got confusing. I’m a visual artist as well as musician/producer so it felt natural for me to use this metaphor since I just wanted to underline that: It’s better to work with as good quality as you can and then convert down, cuz going the other way isn’t possible.
Yes but we are talking about the bandwidth of the recorded signal so if you really want to make an analogy with picture then you should compare to recording ultra-violet and infra-red to get better pictures in the visible range. Not exactly common practise is it? :-) But even that is not a perfect analogy. Our hearing and sight senses work so differently that it is best not to compare them with simple metaphors like this. It really does needlessly confuse things. EDIT: Upon rereading your post, I see you are talking about both changing the bit depths and the sampling rate. Your analogy does make more sense when talking about bit depth. (But is still not entirely accurate). UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2011/04/17 08:01:44
|
Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 08:05:57
(permalink)
UnderTow Loptec
Loptec
All I meant was, the better material you have from the start, the better the final product will be!
Absolutely. But please don't compare to working with images, it just confuses things.
Easily confused, are we? ;)
No but it seems you are! (See below)
I’m sorry if it got confusing. I’m a visual artist as well as musician/producer so it felt natural for me to use this metaphor since I just wanted to underline that: It’s better to work with as good quality as you can and then convert down, cuz going the other way isn’t possible.
Haha.. Yeah, yeah..
Yes but we are talking about the bandwidth of the recorded signal so if you really want to make an analogy with picture then you should compare to recording ultra-violet and infra-red to get better pictures in the visible range. Not exactly common practise is it? :-)
But even that is not a perfect analogy. Our hearing and sight senses work so differently that it is best not to compare them with simple metaphors like this. It really does needlessly confuse things.
UnderTow
Yeah. I guess it would be more appropriate to compare the bandwidth with the color depth rather than the resolution of the image. But if we compare the color depth with the bandwidth and leave it there.. Couldn’t we compare the bit depth of the sound with the resolution of the image? When recording sound with a high bit depth you get more dynamics and “a larger area” to work with before you find yourself outside the work space and everything gets messy. Just as you get more space to work with when you have a high resolution image? As we’ve already established that I'm probably very confused I see no reason to comment this any further.. ;P Cheers! :)
EDIT: Upon rereading your post, I see you are talking about both changing the bit depths and the sampling rate. Your analogy does make more sense when talking about bit depth. (But is still not entirely accurate).
EDIT: Haha!! :P I just saw your edit, and well… I know it’s not entirely accurate!! =) I just wanted to make this point: Use as good quality as you can! Cuz quality’s awesome!
post edited by Loptec - 2011/04/17 09:12:39
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
petey
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/10/01 16:08:04
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 08:56:05
(permalink)
I'm new to 24 bit recording (been out of the loop for awhile) and I have have Windows 7 sound recording set for: 2 channel, 24 bit, 48000 Hz.
In Sonar X1 Producer, the menu "Utilities - Change Audio" has "24".
In the Preferneces - Audio Data menu, it has the following:
Record Bit Depth 16
Render Bit Depth 32
I want to be recording at 24 bit, 48000 so do I need to change "Record Bit Depth" to 24 and "Render Bit Depth" to 24? I guess I'm confused why one is at 16 and the other at 32 while the "Change Audio" is at 24.
Thanks for any advice,
Petey
|
Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 08:59:18
(permalink)
If you want to record at 24bit the most important thing is that "Record Bit Depth" is set to 24 :) I have my render bit depth set to 24 as well, but you can set it higher. Just don't set it below. :) (If you set it below you'll still record at 24bit, but it won't be any use since it's not what you'll be hearing when listening to it)
post edited by Loptec - 2011/04/17 09:00:53
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
jyeager11
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 61
- Joined: 2011/01/23 09:05:19
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 09:32:10
(permalink)
mudgel
No. What i'm saying is that once you uncheck that box and Don't share drivers with other programs you will be able to play something in Sonar while at the same time play something completely different in another program; though why you'd want to do that I don't know.
While that makes absolutely no sense to me (logic dictates that the whole point of having a "Share Driver With" option is to allow you to "Share Driver With" when it's checked, not unchecked) -- the entire argument is moot because whether checked or not, I can't get Sonar X1b to let me play anything else as long as it's running. It doesn't even need to be playing anything, or even have the window focus. As long as it's simply PRESENT, nothing else will play. Not WMP, not IE, not FF, nothing. Alternatively, if another application is already playing a sound (such as FF playing a YouTube video, for instance) and THEN I load Sonar X1b, then I'm told by Sonar that the drivers are unavailable and am offered the option to disable or use them anyway. As you might imagine, using them anyway produces no sound from Sonar X1b. But if I'm on YouTube and the video is stopped, and then I load Sonar X1b, then Sonar hijacks the driver for as long as it's loaded. The YouTube video will not produce sound, and Sonar X1b will. Until I shut down Sonar. Conclusion : The "Share Driver With" option in Sonar X1b preferences has absolutely ZERO effect on my Echo Gina 3G. Whichever application is playing sound first is the one hijacking the driver. In the case of Sonar X1b, it doesn't even need to be playing the sound first to hijack the audio driver - it just needs to have been launched while no other applications were emitting any sound. Any of this make sense to anyone else? Using ASIO.
post edited by jyeager11 - 2011/04/17 09:39:15
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 09:58:12
(permalink)
The reason why comparing digital audio to digital images is flawed from the start is that a digital image is an approximation of a picture made up by pixels. Digital audio, when heard after conversion, is not an approximation but actual sound (air moving in waves). This sound is a perfect reendition up to the Nyqust frequenzy (sample rate/2).
Sven
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:08:03
(permalink)
SvenArne
The reason why comparing digital audio to digital images is flawed from the start is that a digital image is an approximation of a picture made up by pixels. Digital audio, when heard after conversion, is not an approximation but actual sound (air moving in waves). This sound is a perfect reendition up to the Nyqust frequenzy (sample rate/2).
Sven
If the pixels (or dots on printed paper etc) wouldn't be emitting photons or reflecting photons, we wouldn't be able to see anything. What our eyes capture are just regular photons... That said, with audio, we do reproduce the full dynamic and frequency range of human hearing. I don't think we ever do with video. At least not any consumer products. But I could be wrong. I am not sure what the exact limits of our sight are and what the maximum video resolution/bandwidth etc etc is. There might be stuff that covers the whole range. TV (even Full HD) certainly doesn't. :-) UnderTow
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:12:42
(permalink)
Undertow, I'm pretty sure you got my meaning: Digital images are still a mosaic when looking at them. You can actually see the pixels of you go close enough. They're not converted to a continuous image the way digital audio is. With digital images, your eyes and brain play the role of the D/A converter. Sven --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited multiple times for improved clarity and slightly better English at each step
post edited by SvenArne - 2011/04/17 10:26:56
|
rabeach
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2703
- Joined: 2004/01/26 14:56:13
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:26:23
(permalink)
The Shanon-Nyquist theorem says you only need twice the audible bandwidth to perfectly reproduce any audible signal. That is absolutely not what it says.
|
rabeach
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2703
- Joined: 2004/01/26 14:56:13
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:28:21
(permalink)
The way modern sample rate converters work, the sample rates do not need to have an integer releationship between them. They never did.
|
petey
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 26
- Joined: 2004/10/01 16:08:04
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:35:23
(permalink)
Loptec
If you want to record at 24bit the most important thing is that "Record Bit Depth" is set to 24 :)
I have my render bit depth set to 24 as well, but you can set it higher. Just don't set it below. :)
(If you set it below you'll still record at 24bit, but it won't be any use since it's not what you'll be hearing when listening to it)
Thanks and greetings to Sweden! 8-) Petey
|
Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:36:44
(permalink)
SvenArne
Undertow, I'm pretty sure you got my meaning: Digital images are still a mosaic when looking at them. You can actually see the pixels of you go close enough. They're not converted to a continuous image the way digital audio is.
Haha! This is getting more and more pathetic! But it’s fun :P SvenArne: I think you’re wrong. I can use the quality in an image as a metaphor when describing the quality of a sound! Just think of the image as a frame/snapshot in a film. Digital audio is also snapshots that are put together to create the continuous sound. And for the love of god.. OF COURSE there are things in metaphors that ISN’T alike!! But there are things about them that ARE alike too! We can make lists of what is and isn't alike in all our lives, but why would we? (Just for a chance to argue, isn't a good reason) When saying to someone “you’re eyes are blue as the sky” you’re NOT actually saying “You’re eyes are blue, but there are sometimes white fluffy things floating around in your iris that are called clouds and when you cry the color of your eyes gets all grey and cold” .. All you mean with a metaphor like this is “you’re eyes are very blue!” Just as with my metaphor I just meant: “Use high quality to get a good final product” .. ..Some people.. .. :P
post edited by Loptec - 2011/04/17 10:57:21
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
Loptec
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 948
- Joined: 2011/02/07 13:29:01
- Location: Sweden
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:39:59
(permalink)
petey
Loptec
If you want to record at 24bit the most important thing is that "Record Bit Depth" is set to 24 :)
I have my render bit depth set to 24 as well, but you can set it higher. Just don't set it below. :)
(If you set it below you'll still record at 24bit, but it won't be any use since it's not what you'll be hearing when listening to it)
Thanks and greetings to Sweden! 8-)
Petey
No problem! :) Me and Sweden greets you back ;)
SAMUEL LIDSTRÖM
DAW: Sonar Platinum (64bit) with Melodyne Studio - Controllers: Roland VS-700C, Cakewalk A-500 Pro, Yamaha P90Desktop Audio Interface: RME HDSPe RayDAT - Laptop Audio Interface: RME Babyface Pro
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:44:01
(permalink)
jyeager11
mudgel
No. What i'm saying is that once you uncheck that box and Don't share drivers with other programs you will be able to play something in Sonar while at the same time play something completely different in another program; though why you'd want to do that I don't know.
While that makes absolutely no sense to me (logic dictates that the whole point of having a "Share Driver With" option is to allow you to "Share Driver With" when it's checked, not unchecked) -- the entire argument is moot because whether checked or not, I can't get Sonar X1b to let me play anything else as long as it's running. It doesn't even need to be playing anything, or even have the window focus. As long as it's simply PRESENT, nothing else will play. Not WMP, not IE, not FF, nothing.
Alternatively, if another application is already playing a sound (such as FF playing a YouTube video, for instance) and THEN I load Sonar X1b, then I'm told by Sonar that the drivers are unavailable and am offered the option to disable or use them anyway. As you might imagine, using them anyway produces no sound from Sonar X1b.
But if I'm on YouTube and the video is stopped, and then I load Sonar X1b, then Sonar hijacks the driver for as long as it's loaded. The YouTube video will not produce sound, and Sonar X1b will. Until I shut down Sonar.
Conclusion :
The "Share Driver With" option in Sonar X1b preferences has absolutely ZERO effect on my Echo Gina 3G. Whichever application is playing sound first is the one hijacking the driver. In the case of Sonar X1b, it doesn't even need to be playing the sound first to hijack the audio driver - it just needs to have been launched while no other applications were emitting any sound.
Any of this make sense to anyone else?
Using ASIO.
Sorry you find what I said is illogical. I don't want to argue with you. Nevertheless it is a fact not my opinion.. Nothing I can do about that. You have come to an erroneous conclusion as there are other factors at play here besides the Share Drivers option The Sharing drivers option is included for that very reason ie. Whichever program has focus gets the audio device. that makes sense as it stops 2 programs from simulataneously playing different audio streams through the sound device. As I said there is also something else going on causing your issues. If you're using ASIO for SONAR it explains the matter. Windows and media player are not using the same drivers. Windows doesn't work with ASIO drivers. So there's another reason. Widows will be grabbing the MME or Windows sound Mapper(WDM/KS or WASPI driver for whatever programs are running in Windows but if SONAR is set to ASIO then there'll be a conflict which you are experienceing. It's just not possible to address a bit of hardware with 2 different driver models. Every bit of software has to al least be using the same driver to have a chance. Usually what we do is to use onboard sound device for Windows sounds and any associated audio programs and leave SONAR to use the Pro/Semi Pro device exclusively. if you really want all these things to be able to play simultaneously then you'll have to use the same driver for all the programs and as Wiondows doesn't use ASIO drivers you'll have to choose WDM for SONAR and Windows, then you'll be able to uncheck Share Drivers and notice the difference and away you go. that's the way it is - You have your answer.
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 10:51:31
(permalink)
Of course no metaphor is perfect, but I still think it's worth getting one's head around the difference between digital images and digital audio as to avoid falling for the sample rate myths! An image on a screen is a mosaic of pixels that looks like a picture when viewed from a distance. Digital audio is a sound wave converted to "snapshots" as you say. But these snapshots are then, unlike the video image, converted back to analog sound, and the resulting sound is continuous rather than free floating snapshots. All sound, no matter how complex can be broken down into single sine waves representing the fundamental and harmonic components. So long as these sine waves are below the Nyquist frequency they can be correctly described by only two samples! That's why digital audio (after conversion) is theoretically an exact copy of what went in (up to the Nyquist limit of the given sample rate), rather than snapshots! The limitations of digital audio only come into play when exceeding the Nyquist frequency. At 44100 Hz that's 22050 Hz, considerably higher than most people can hear. It can be discussed whether these ultrasonic harmonics can in some way contribute to the impression a recording gives, but recording at 96 kHz certainly won't make your low end tighter like some witchdoctors claim. Did that make any sense at all or have I had one coffee too many? Sven
post edited by SvenArne - 2011/04/17 11:18:30
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 11:16:36
(permalink)
the better audio converters you have, the more difference you will hear with different resolutions. Makes perfect intuitive sense! Unfortunately, in reality the opposite is true.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
adrian4u
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 568
- Joined: 2010/12/07 19:07:11
- Location: Poland
- Status: offline
Re:44000 Hz vs 48000 Hz - what rate are YOU using?
2011/04/17 11:26:01
(permalink)
for me there is a simple choice - If I want to use SPDIF output in my Triton, I have to switch my Edirol Interface to 48kHz, so all the project I put digital signal from Triton should be 48kHz. If I want to record everything using analg inputs - I use 44,1kHz because of my computer isn't so strong.
post edited by adrian4u - 2011/04/17 11:27:07
Phenom II x6 1100T (OC to 6x 4,1gHz), 8gB DDR3/1600gHz RAM, Win7/64; SONAR Producer X1c; Korgs: Z1, M50, Triton Rack, TRinity Rack; NI Maschine; Behringer BCF-R2000; MOTU 828mk3 FW; Edirol Edirol UA-1000; guitars: Cort Z-Custom, LAG JET100 totally customed, Cort SFX-DAO; some other music toys, one very musical cat *************************************** Be patient for newbie ;)
|