UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 18:55:49
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Yes, that part is obvious. But in the context of extrapolating or filtering data during a sample rate conversion I fail to see how it's more accurate.
I guess I starting to visualize the timeline and the idea that in for example 44.1kHZ sampling the absolute times are arbitrary and the idea of rounding in either direction isn't really an option without calling it a clock distortion of some sort.
You mean rounding the timing of the sample? Yes that would be wrong. The idea is to keep the samples were they are supposed to be, equidistant to each other in time, and figuring out what the value of each sample would be had the original signal been sampled at that sampling rate. Conceptually speaking, you start off with a sample every 48th thousand of a second. These all have values. Multiply the number of samples by 147 and use some interpolation scheme to fill in all the new intermediate sample values. You now have samples every 7 million 56 thousands of a second. (Although as we are talking about off-line SRC timing is not really relevant). Filter out anything above 22.050 Khz. Get rid of all the intermediary samples to go back down to 441000 samples per second. You end up keeping one in every 160 samples. You have a new file at the target sample rate.
at 44.1kHz, 2000 samples covers exactly 0.04535147392290249433106575963718_ seconds and any rounding other than the accepted figure for that exact sample length is not accurate.
Don't look at the sample length. Forget timing completely (for this mental exercise). Jut look at the sample values. UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2008/08/19 19:25:12
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 19:23:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
I am not sure what you are asking. But the way I am answering is that with understanding what dither is and how it works its a necessary evil. To me its a thing that in another context I would do everything in my power to avoid.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Dither is an intrinsic part of the sampling process. It shouldn't be seen seen an add-on to counter side-effects or something like that. I'm not saying you are. I'm just a bit mystified by your comments. UnderTow
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 19:46:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: John
I am not sure what you are asking. But the way I am answering is that with understanding what dither is and how it works its a necessary evil. To me its a thing that in another context I would do everything in my power to avoid.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Dither is an intrinsic part of the sampling process. It shouldn't be seen seen an add-on to counter side-effects or something like that. I'm not saying you are. I'm just a bit mystified by your comments.
UnderTow
In digital work in the past dither was not used and was not a normal part of the process. It was developed to counter truncation artifacts when high bit depths became possible. If we stayed at say 16 bits no 24 bits or anything higher including the audio engine dither would not be used. Also even today in Sonar dither can be bypassed or turned off. Also not all dithers are equal. Its not a good thing but better then the alternative. I am not sure about "intrinsic" to the process. Its added to the process.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 19:50:19
(permalink)
Sonar cuts off some of the highs and still aliases. True, but the cutoff is well above 20KHz and the alias is at about -120db. I'd be surprised if you could actually hear the difference between SONAR's SRC and R8Brain's, even though the latter appear to be technically about as perfect as you can get according to the graphs. It would be interesting to post two waves, each a 44.1KHz file created from the same 96KHz original but using different software for the conversion. I wonder how many listeners would be able to pick which was which.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 20:05:58
(permalink)
It would be interesting to post two waves, each a 44.1KHz file created from the same 96KHz original but using different software for the conversion. I wonder how many listeners would be able to pick which was which.
Thats not fair! Could I at least have a hint?
|
DonM
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4129
- Joined: 2004/04/26 12:23:12
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 21:54:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
It would be interesting to post two waves, each a 44.1KHz file created from the same 96KHz original but using different software for the conversion. I wonder how many listeners would be able to pick which was which.
Thats not fair! Could I at least have a hint?
Okay - I think I should get some kind of award for my very short post at the head of this thread - y'all know how I can go on and on... (BTW nice post from Dave I think it was above...) I asked WHY 96/24 - here is one reason why in my opinion: If you are doing what I call a true stereo recording and delivering it on SACD - then by all means 96/24 makes sense 100% of the time. For me a true stereo recording is NOT up for discussion - it is the optimal placement of typically two Omni mics in front of a sound source - that no EQ / Compression or any 'mixing' will be done. The higher sample rate will contribute to a more stable true stereo image - Can anyone say DSD? All along I was waiting to see if the genre and recording approach were going to be discussed - the thread did go in and out of that as an issue - but in fact - my sense is that a typically Pop/Rock production - for release in iTunes and Red Book CD - will work in 48Khz sample rate just as well as 88.2 or 96. I just sat in on the mix of a Metal record (my ears are ringing as I type this!) it was really really well recorded and equally well mixed - my only observation (pre-master stage mind you) is the absence of a good stereo image on the drums (btw 99% replaced) and the rigid pans of the two guitars did leave me a bit wanting for some breathing room in the center for some other frequencies. But to the point the entire project was a 48khz project - I think 88.2 or 96 would have had zero impact on the punch and image as it stands now. Were going back to listen to the pre-replaced drum tracks to consider image but I'd not go back - the record sounds very good. Kudos to the folks that did the work. So for me genre and tracking approach have everything to do with my SR selection as does delivery. -D
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/19 23:14:32
(permalink)
Actually, the thread began with the question "what are pitfalls of 96k?" It got interesting when it was suggested that SONAR's conversion was poor - a fact that, if true, we'd all really like to know about. Unfortunately, that rather obtuse reference to sinc resampling being "not the best way to do it" has yet to be explained. If there is a fidelity benefit to 96k sampling, it's small. Too small too matter to most folks, as you say. Metal music is but one example. I still remember the first metal CD that was released. I've forgotten now who it was (AC/DC?) but I remember chuckling about it at the time. CD was being touted as a way to increase dynamic range! Remember the warning labels on early CDs that told you it was possible to blow your woofers right out of their boxes? Wow, was that benefit ever realized? Not for long. And Don, you're also correct in assuming most of us have spent little time at 96KHz. That's certainly true for me. But in my world, my computer has finite resources. By not recording at 96k, I can do twice as much processing before maxing out the CPU, store twice as much data before exhausting disk space, cache twice as many samples before running out of RAM. That's more important to me than gaining an infinitesimal improvement in the sonic accuracy of my pitiful voice. EDIT: Oops, sorry, Don. I attributed the "we don't know about 96K" thought to you, when it was actually Dave Clark who made that statement. My apologies to both of you.
post edited by bitflipper - 2008/08/19 23:40:47
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 00:39:48
(permalink)
Bit I am completely with you on this. Your logic, as usual, is impeccable.
|
DaveClark
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 956
- Joined: 2006/10/21 17:02:58
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 02:12:26
(permalink)
Greetings all,
Dave (bitflipper) claims I said that SONAR's resampling was "poor." That's not what I said. I said that there were better ways to resample for constant rate conversions than sinc resampling. Noel has on at least two occasions within the last year or two posted here on this forum that this is what SONAR does, or so I understood him to say --- and I was paying attention because I've worked on this problem. By "sinc resampling" I mean specifically that method described by Julius O. Smith III of CCRMA on his web pages and implemented in various codes, for example those widely used in so-called "Linux audio" circa 2005. This method is a time-domain method that is very localized --- very few samples --- and is not accelerated. Along with some examination of Dave's SIG, this should suffice. If it doesn't, I won't go any further because it won't help. I've already wasted a lot of time trying to explain this to other people. Most people are not sufficiently prepared to discuss this subject, and becoming prepared takes a lot of time. I should also say that "sinc resampling" may mean different things to different people --- a lot of details can be changed (and I certainly did that myself in my own implementations --- uh --- which I don't use, really! I use an FFT-overlap technique and BIG windows).
Listening tests, where resampling is done immediately prior to listening, are by themselves not sufficient to determine whether or not 96K is a better sample rate to work with than, say 44.1K. Assuming that they are sufficient is the cause of much unnecessary argumentation and even ill feelings. If listening tests were the criteria for acceptable practice, and given the fact that many folks listen to MP3's with earbuds even though mixing techniques are totally wrong for that listening condition, we could easily drop everything to 22K, 12-bit, mono.
On my 11 kHz comment picked up by Undertow: Now that was "obtuse." Or hyperbole that didn't work. Sorry about that. I didn't mean literally everything was thrown away at 11 kHz. I was referring to the fact that in many audio programs, programmers introduce a LPF at some low frequency to ensure that what comes out drops off to imperceptibility at the Nyquist limit --- or to "low" levels anyway. Some do it to minimize support, others do it to keep users from injuring themselves (not literally!), others do it because they think they have to, etc. Now consider the situation where a programmer *hardcoded* this low freq and what happens to 96 kSamples/sec. That's where I'm saying you might really want to be more informed about what is going on inside of your plugins, etc. if you use 96 kSamples/sec. That's all. A "pitfall." One advantage of 96K is that these types of catch-all filters can have cutoffs beyond hearing limitations.
Regards,
Dave Clark
P.S. I really don't want to spend more time on this subject, having spent soooo much in the past so probably won't participate further. Please accept my apologies.
|
Marah Mag
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1000
- Joined: 2008/07/12 18:27:12
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 03:02:20
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DonM
All along I was waiting to see if the genre and recording approach were going to be discussed.....
They're rarely discussed in these kind of discussions. I'm sometimes amazed to read requests for and offers of advice on things like bass or vocals or drums or guitars, and how to or whether to eq or reverb or compress these things, and genre doesn't come up even as an afterthought. Not to take this off topic..... I started DAWing at 96/24 because it was available to me and was theoretically better. I would overstress my computer (a now 4 1/2 year old P4) to the point where all I could manage to do was crawl under the covers and think of ways to off myself. Last spring I converted a few projects to 44/24 and got some relief. I also started all new projects at 44/24. I can't say I hear any difference, but I also can't say I spent a lot of time listening for any (or any time at all trying to set up even an imitation scientific method of finding such differences.) My thinking is that even if there *is* a difference, it doesn't actually *make* a difference. So instead of worrying about that, I rely on the knowledge that, by following a handful of general guidelines and methods, the equipment I'm working with is capable of producing higher quality *audio* than most people (including me) will ever actually hear, which frees me to concentrate on producing *music* that other people (including me) would hopefully want to hear. ORIGINAL: DaveClark
Second, and related, is the fact that if you use other material than that which you recorded, it will often be recorded at, targeted at, or optimized for 44.1 or perhaps 48, not 96. So here you face a decision as to not only how to optimize resampling, but whether or not the material you are integrating should be resampled, or if your recorded and/or submixed material should be resampled. That is, when and where to resample what material constantly arises. This issue doesn't come up if you do all your own material at 24/96.
I found that part of Dave's post (along with the rest of it) very interesting. It was right around the time that I switched from 96 to 44 that I also realized, or gave any thought to, the fact that the samples I worked with were all 44, as are the non-digital outs of my POD (and I suspect though I don't know for sure that the higher sample rate of the spdif out is internally upsampled anyway.) I never asked about that, but it didn't seem to make a lot of sense to record 44 sounds at 96. Plus there was this, also from Dave's post. Third, very closely related, is that a number of synthesizers are not target at nor optimized for 96,000 samples/second. For example, the Cakewalk synths Dimension Pro and Rapture do not work properly at 96,000 samples/sec --- distortion and/or pitch-bend screeching. The samples used in most synths are not recorded at 24/96 to begin with, so the second problem mentioned above comes up in dealing with most synths --- when and where to resample what material.
That was a major eye-opener, and also an ear-closer, when I discovered for myself that not one of Cakewalk's synths worked properly at 96k and that Dimension in particular could put out a deafening and terrifying +99db screech if all you did was play a note or turn the pitchwheel on the wrong patch. Other plugins from that same line -- including Session Drummer and Drop Zone -- also have issues operating at 96k. (And not just in Sonar; I've seen this in Reaper too.) If these kind of things could survive beta testing and in-house use -- the default Project5 template will blow your speakers and eardrums as easily as loading it and using it -- then it becomes obvious that 96k is a relatively fringe format. What else can it mean when Cakewalk releases their flagship synths in a condition that they don't work with their flagship DAW at the most "pro" settings available, and that a year after this was reported and confirmed there's still no fix for it? Right? Which to me means that even if 96k does offer some objective positive difference that translates into realworld mixes -- and continues translating to consumer copies and streams of those mixes -- working at only 44 is still not enough to put me at a competitive disadvantage, since relatively few others are working at 96 either. On the other hand, not being able to actually work and get stuff done at 96 cos the computer is melting down is the mother of all disadvantages. All that said, if my computer could easily handle my projects at 96, I'd probably use it. Why? Why not?
post edited by Marah Mag - 2008/08/20 07:59:32
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 06:25:28
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DonM
If you are doing what I call a true stereo recording and delivering it on SACD - then by all means 96/24 makes sense 100% of the time. For me a true stereo recording is NOT up for discussion - it is the optimal placement of typically two Omni mics in front of a sound source - that no EQ / Compression or any 'mixing' will be done. The higher sample rate will contribute to a more stable true stereo image - Can anyone say DSD?
If no processing or editing is being done, why not record straight away in DSD format? And if processing/editing is being done, why not DXD? UnderTow
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 06:34:09
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: bitflipper
If there is a fidelity benefit to 96k sampling, it's small.
I would say that if there is a benefit it has more to do with implementation than theory. (Not to negate the importance of implementation!) One issue is the extra latency and/or cost needed to implement the filters correctly. Regardless of whether the latency is an issue in the real world, no converter manufacturer likes to have higher latency specs for their equipment. UnderTow
|
DonM
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4129
- Joined: 2004/04/26 12:23:12
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 06:52:59
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
ORIGINAL: DonM
If you are doing what I call a true stereo recording and delivering it on SACD - then by all means 96/24 makes sense 100% of the time. For me a true stereo recording is NOT up for discussion - it is the optimal placement of typically two Omni mics in front of a sound source - that no EQ / Compression or any 'mixing' will be done. The higher sample rate will contribute to a more stable true stereo image - Can anyone say DSD?
If no processing or editing is being done, why not record straight away in DSD format? And if processing/editing is being done, why not DXD?
UnderTow
Exactly my point for that type of recording. Check out Super Audio CD . Net -D
|
Marah Mag
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1000
- Joined: 2008/07/12 18:27:12
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 07:17:22
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DonM
Check out Super Audio CD . Net
How interesting! << SONY BMG Masterworks and Zenph Studios release Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations (1955) ... Zenph captures the musical nuances of the original piano recording’s every note, with details about the pedal actions, volume and articulations – all with millisecond timings. The digital data is transcribed into high-resolution MIDI files and played back on a state-of-the-art Yamaha Disklavier Pro™ concert grand piano. The process allows for the production of new recordings that transcend the limitations of the original recording process. >> http://www.sa-cd.net/shownews/43
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 07:41:45
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
In digital work in the past dither was not used and was not a normal part of the process. It was developed to counter truncation artifacts when high bit depths became possible. If we stayed at say 16 bits no 24 bits or anything higher including the audio engine dither would not be used. Also even today in Sonar dither can be bypassed or turned off. Also not all dithers are equal. Its not a good thing but better then the alternative.
I believe that it wasn't added in the first generation of audio converters for cost reasons (both monetary and computational) and/or the assumption that the inherent noise floor in the recordings would "self-dither" the signal. The first generation of converters didn't sound too good compared to what we have now. Lack of dither was just one of the many issues with those converters. The same goes for any system that did all calculations at 16 bit. Such a system might not properly dither the signal but this has to do with limitations of the system. Not for any sonic benefit. Any calculation applied to a signal will increase the word length so there is always a bit reduction to get back to the native bit depth. In any modern properly implemented system based on fixed point calculations, dithering should be applied. I would say that the fact that you can turn dither of in Sonar has more to do with flexibility: You can use your own favourite dither plugin instead of using the built in dither in Sonar.
I am not sure about "intrinsic" to the process. Its added to the process.
That is a way to look at it. To me it is intrinsic. In my view a system that does not dither properly is "broken". UnderTow
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 07:47:43
(permalink)
Dave Clark,
Thanks for clarifying your comments.
UnderTow
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 08:03:40
(permalink)
yes, thanks to everyone for elaborating.
best regards,
mike
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 08:48:30
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
yes, thanks to everyone for elaborating.
best regards,
mike
Just in case someone is still wondering about this, another way of looking at it is as fixed grids. You have a grid with delineations every 44100th of a second. You have another grid with delineations every 48000th of a second. The first grid that overlays both these grids completely is a grid with delineations every 7056000th of a second. UnderTow EDIT: Typo corrected
post edited by UnderTow - 2008/08/20 10:12:44
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 09:24:35
(permalink)
I understood the basic idea of least common multiple. What I didn't understand and I think may not be obvious is that you have to place the intervals at the correct time to have any hope of accurately interpolating the sample data. I was thinking the process eliminated the rounding of the sample value itself... but I guess that's unavoidable. I see now that there are two places for error. If the timing location of the sample being created through the process of interpolation is not accurate then there will be some error before you even begin rounding the final sample value. I do have a basic question about your figures re least common multiple. 705,600 / 44,100 = 16 705,600 / 48,000 = 14.7 the 14.7 surprises me... I guess I thought both equations would produce whole numbers. I tried going at it from a different perspective... but the results seem the same: 1 / 44,100 = 0.000022675736961 1 / 48,000 = 0.000020833333333 1 / 705600 = 0.00000141723356 0.000022675736961 / 0.00000141723356 = 16.0000000007056 0.000020833333333 / 0.00000141723356 = 14.7000000007056 what am I missing now? thanks, mike edit to add: I just went here: http://www.mathematicsmagazine.com/applications/GCF_LCM.htm and calculated the least common multiple of 44,100 and 48,000 Undertow, I think I got distracted by a typo in your post. with all respect, the grid with delineations every 1/7,056,000 second all the best, mike
post edited by mike_mccue - 2008/08/20 10:00:34
|
skullsession
Max Output Level: -57.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1765
- Joined: 2006/12/05 10:32:06
- Location: Houston, TX, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 09:27:04
(permalink)
I try to stay out of these conversations because people often tell me I'm crazy. And I'll probably get hammered for this post because many people here have tried to tell me why - based on MATH - it's impossible for me to hear what I hear.
But to the OP....just to quantify WHAT my experiences are based on...
I always record a full drum kit...what could be as little as 3 or 4 mics one day becomes 12 or more the next, depending on the kit and song.
I always record live guitars and bass.
I always record keyboard parts with external keyboards and sound modules straight to audio - via direct inputs.
And, of course, I always record vocals via mic and external preamp.
I never use midi or any soft-synth stuff. Just so happens that the bands I record just don't use those things.
I can't speak to the advantages or disadvantages to using soft synths at 96, because I never use them.
I built a system that allows me to record at 24/96 AND allows input monitoring (through Sonar) all the way through the process, with a latency that is not noticeable to the players. I've been running at 24/96 now for a couple of years. So maybe I'm the only guy here who runs at that rate day in and day out? I would have doubted that, but with the previous conversation, maybe I'm the rare bird.
I can tell you it's completey possible to do. I can also tell you that no matter what anyone says about MATH, the proof is in your own ears. You either hear a difference, or you don't. YOU have to decide. I'm not even going to pretend that I understand all of the math involved.....I just use my ears. A "theoretical or mathematical" difference doesn't mean squat if I can't hear it....right?
I do hear a difference. And it's not a small difference. All it takes is a snare drum and a microphone....switch from 44.1 to 96 once and see if you hear the difference. I, personally, hear a massive difference....apples to apples.....hands down, 96 sounds better to me on my system. So much better, that the first time I heard it I had to ask the drummer if he had moved the mic. It litterally sounded like a better drum with better mic.
So...the downsides as I've seen them:
HUGE files...takes longer to load and backup.
Seems to takes longer to render a mix.
Seems to take longer to render wav pictures.
It does tax your CPU quite a bit more than the lower sampling rates.
The up side:
Everyone, and I mean EVERY ONE of my clients has noticed the improvement in my product.
I'm sure everyone's results and opinions will vary.
HOOK: Skullsessions.com / Darwins God Album "Without a doubt I would have far greater listening and aural skills than most of the forum members here. Not all but many I am sure....I have done more listening than most people." - Jeff Evans on how awesome Jeff Evans is.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 09:49:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Undertow, I think I got distracted by a typo in your post.
with all respect,
the grid with delineations every 1/7,056,000 second
all the best,
mike
Oops! Corrected.  UnderTow
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 09:58:57
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: skullsession
96 sounds better to me on my system. I don't think anyone will argue that point with you. (At least no one reasonable). The question for me is whether upping the sample rate is the best solution from an engineering point of view. I would prefer if the market would put pressure on the manufacturers and developers to improve their converters at 44.1/48Khz rather than just blindly accept the sample rate bloat. Increased bandwidth is only one solution to the problem of anti-aliasing/anti-imaging filters etc in converters. You just need to look at the Infinite Wave SRC page (http://src.infinitewave.ca) to see how different approaches and implementations can vastly affect the results of an engineering solution. UnderTow
|
DaveClark
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 956
- Joined: 2006/10/21 17:02:58
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 13:33:48
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
"the signal is first resampled to a least common multiple sample rate which makes conversion perfect."
Hi Mike, I'm terribly sorry not to have addressed this earlier --- I realized my omission this AM. IMO Undertow correctly identified this as "market speak." The problem arises in "first resampled." Some interpolation technique needs to be applied for upsampling, and this will be imperfect. -------------- To all: If I may make an additional comment (having previously excused myself), and a subjective one rather than objective, I would agree with James' (skullsession's) experience. I've worked for several years at 96/24, but more recently dropped back to 44.1 and 48 for a few projects here and there. Some of these at the lower rates had to be redone because of what I felt was excessive degradation, even though I tried to be careful. I've also found myself asking, "What is WRONG with this thing?" only to later recall that what I'm listening to was a lower-rate project. The difference is somewhat like accidentally listening to good gaming speakers rather than studio monitors and thinking, "What happened here?" This has happened too many times to be something I just imagined. I also do not regard the difference as "small." I wish this were not so because working at 96/24 is painful. Regards, Dave Clark
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 15:36:44
(permalink)
Hi Dave, ORIGINAL: DaveClark
I've worked for several years at 96/24, but more recently dropped back to 44.1 and 48 for a few projects here and there. Some of these at the lower rates had to be redone because of what I felt was excessive degradation, even though I tried to be careful. I've also found myself asking, "What is WRONG with this thing?" only to later recall that what I'm listening to was a lower-rate project. The difference is somewhat like accidentally listening to good gaming speakers rather than studio monitors and thinking, "What happened here?" This has happened too many times to be something I just imagined. I also do not regard the difference as "small." I wish this were not so because working at 96/24 is painful.
Regards,
Dave Clark
This kind of anecdotal evidence needs to be qualified. Without any details on your converters, processing (plugins and external) etc, it doesn't mean much. You wrote in another post (I think it was you) that you wished that 96Khz became the standard. I would much prefer if the converter manufacturers spend some time on making 44.1/48Khz work properly. It is certainly possible. UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2008/08/20 16:47:50
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 16:01:44
(permalink)
I am in a very bad position here. If any of you know I have written on this high sample rate issue often. I am sure that many of you all know the arguments both pro and con. Here i am betwixt and between some of the most respected members on this forum. Because I respect them I will not engage in debate. I will only say I am firmly anti high sample rates. Don and Dave are outstanding members So are UnderTow and Bitflipper. These giants are far and away people I truly respect too much to say anything in opposition Its a shame really because I love a good debate. May the games begin! Have fun.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 16:26:21
(permalink)
John, The only thing that counts is how it sounds in your system. If you are going to end up on CD, everything else is irrelevant as it will all be 44.1/16. The better the converters, the smaller the difference between 44.1/48 and 88.2/96 (or higher). PS: We don't need to agree. In the end, everyone will do what they do regardless of any internet discussions. UnderTow
post edited by UnderTow - 2008/08/20 16:51:42
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 16:39:35
(permalink)
Undertow very wise words but then that is to be expected from you.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 16:49:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
Undertow very wise words but then that is to be expected from you.
Thanks for that John. Now I just wish it was always true.  UnderTow
|
DonM
Max Output Level: -34 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4129
- Joined: 2004/04/26 12:23:12
- Location: Pittsburgh
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 21:30:55
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: John
I am in a very bad position here. If any of you know I have written on this high sample rate issue often. I am sure that many of you all know the arguments both pro and con. Here i am betwixt and between some of the most respected members on this forum. Because I respect them I will not engage in debate. I will only say I am firmly anti high sample rates.
Don and Dave are outstanding members So are UnderTow and Bitflipper. These giants are far and away people I truly respect too much to say anything in opposition Its a shame really because I love a good debate.
May the games begin! Have fun.
John: Humble thanks for the nod - but I will comment on my experience at 96 (just for a moment and reflect on one of my mentor's comments in Bob Katz) I have done work in 24/96 and what I notice is that after I 'live' in a 24/96 project for weeks - it does become very noticeable when I downshift to a lower SR. In fact the experience is exactly the same experience I have when I listen to vinyl recordings for a very long time and then listen to Red Book Audio CD's. I would say the following as an analogy - If you took a person from a remote area of the planet and showed them a 4:3 tube NTSC analog TV and then showed them a Blu-Raw FPHD TV - they would possibly draw no distinction between what they just saw. I also suggest if you watched that old TV for a long enough time you'd get accustom to it's ability even if you currently are an FPHD viewer. My summary is: The benefits and distinctions from high resolution can be very subtle but overtime we undoubtedly orient to them so that their benefits become much more apparent and difficult to live without. I think that it takes some folks less time to fully or partially appreciate the distinctions - for me after about two days on a project I become acclimated to it's resolution so that it may be frustration to reduce. I feel that if I start a project in 96 I will want to stay in 96, all the way through consumer delivery - if that's not the case - I'm happy at 48 right now. -D
|
DaveClark
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 956
- Joined: 2006/10/21 17:02:58
- Status: offline
RE: Recording at 24/96 ... are there any issues ?
2008/08/20 21:53:56
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: UnderTow
This kind of anecdotal evidence needs to be qualified. Without any details on your converters, processing (plugins and external) etc, it doesn't mean much.
UnderTow
Hi Undertow, Once again, absolutely right --- this anecdotal evidence is merely a personal observation and is offered as such and nothing more. Because eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate as a general rule, ear-witnesses should probably be regarded as no better than this without a huge amount of additional data. However, I know what I heard!  On edit: Just saw Don's post. Well put. Regards, Dave Clark PS Thanks to all for a great discussion.
post edited by DaveClark - 2008/08/20 22:20:48
|