Bub


How does bit depth (dynamic range) and sample rate (frequency range) in the digital domain compare to the analog domain? I've been reading that professional analog tape has a frequency range of 10Hz ~ 30kHz(+) so to be able to emulate analog (which is what we're all striving for isn't it?), wouldn't you need to be recording in the digital domain at at least 88.2/24?

No because for one we only need to record what is audible. So no need to record 30Khz frequencies. Secondly I would like to know which combination of tape and tape deck give you +- 0.5 dB at 30Khz. Digital does this easily. To add to this, the best analogue medium has a dynamic range of about 60dB. 16 bit audio has 96dB dynamic range. 24 bit audio about 120 dB on the very best converters. If you want an accurate recording, you sue digital.

That doesn't mean that analogue can't be useful. Tape saturates in a pleasant way that is hard to emulate in the digital domain. See it as an effect. As such, it can work very well.

Here's some good reading on Analog Vs. Digital and 96kHz.

No offence but that is not good reading at all. This is the type of explanations they give: "Bad digital sounds bad because it is bad". Sorry but that is just silly. The whole article is devoid of proper explanations or reasoning. Best avoided IMO.

BTW ... it references 'resolution' several times.

Not surprising... yet another reason not to read it. :) Anyway, if you look at some of the comments like "A 16-bit modular digital multitrack needs a lot of expensive help to sound good" you have to wonder in which decade this was written and how any of the "common sense" about gear in those days applies to gear today. (For digital, not much).

UnderTow

Audio signals that we work with do not meet the criteria for application of the theorem therefore there is no reason to believe that the theorem's expected results would apply.

Huh?

Just because most of us can not quantify the difference with current playback technology does not mean there is not a difference that has value.

Double huh?

I'm not questioning whether or not there is a valid point in there somewhere, but whatever it is it zipped right past my head!

> OK ...Ladies  ..either your song is a HIT or its not...Now How
    Bout The Montreal Canadains !!

Loptec

To even start talking about the technical things just make things sooo pathetic.. This isn't what it's about!

If you find it pathetic, don't join in a technical discussion. But don't just call it pathetic just because you have been shown to be wrong and can't accept that you are wrong.

It’s like taking your 3 year old child to a soccer field and start lecturing him about all rules and strategies of the game...

I don't assume the people that read this forum are three year olds. I assume they are all fully capable of understanding what this is about if they are interested. Maybe not directly if they are missing some bits of information but anyone that wants to know more can always ask for a clarification or pointers to more information. Telling people something that is technically wrong is not going to help anyone.

Btw, I found an interesting article about sampling theory and Video where they are also saying that there is no point in going over certain sampling rates and numbers of pixels etc. It seems that it is not only in audio that people get this wrong. Not surprising considering that it is is not directly intuitive. See here: http://www.cognitech.com/pdfs/samplingTheory.pdf

And also... How can someone complain about a metaphor regarding digital audio and a digital image and then later in the thread compare Swedish with Dutch?! Should I start complaining about this comparison now?

1) This is not a forum about language but one about audio and Sonar. 2) Of course they can be compared! Linguists compare languages all the time! 3) Everything I said about English, Dutch and Swedish was 100% correct for the simple and obvious reason that I said I was guessing. I know my limitations. I know when I don't know enough about a subject not to present things in absolute terms.

Everyone has already acknowledged that it is best to record at 24 bits. That does not mean that your analogy was correct. Can you really not live with that?

UnderTow

Here's some good reading on Analog Vs. Digital and 96kHz. <- This information is leached from another page that is linked at the bottom. This page has an interesting analog to digital reference chart at the bottom that's not on the page the original information came from. BTW ... it references 'resolution' several times.

That article's not bad, just dated. It was written in 1997 and was probably a little bit dated even then. Those cited factors leading to "bad digital" were valid concerns in the 1980's, but today none but the absolute lowest of the low end converters suffer from those problems.

rabeach

John

It is important to note that the nyquist theorem applies to signals that are sampled for infinite time and any time-limited signal cannot be perfectly bandlimited.

What does that mean?

Audio signals that we work with do not meet the criteria for application of the theorem therefore there is no reason to believe that the theorem's expected results would apply. Sampling at the nyquist frequency may not offer the accurate signal sampling "the can be perfectly reconstructed part of the theorem" that people choose to believe it does. Over sampling could have benefits in these regards and of course drawbacks. Just because most of us can not quantify the difference with current playback technology does not mean there is not a difference that has value.

That depends on how you define value. As regards to audio destined for human consumption, I would say that if no difference can be perceived by humans, the difference has no value.

UnderTow

bitflipper

Here's some good reading on Analog Vs. Digital and 96kHz. <- This information is leached from another page that is linked at the bottom. This page has an interesting analog to digital reference chart at the bottom that's not on the page the original information came from. BTW ... it references 'resolution' several times.

That article's not bad, just dated. It was written in 1997 and was probably a little bit dated even then. Those cited factors leading to "bad digital" were valid concerns in the 1980's, but today none but the absolute lowest of the low end converters suffer from those problems.

That's exactly what I was going to say ... thank you. :)

All I can say is, there are a lot of benefits on my system to running 96/24. Much better latency, I seem to have less noise when using a lot of effects, and most importantly, my system can handle it with no issue's at all.

It could be due to the fact that 96/24 is the max the Fast Track Ultra will run at and it is optimized for 96/24, whereas another audio interface may work better at a lower sample rate. I really think it all depends on individual configurations.


Thanks,

Bub.

UnderTow

rabeach

John

It is important to note that the nyquist theorem applies to signals that are sampled for infinite time and any time-limited signal cannot be perfectly bandlimited.

What does that mean?

Audio signals that we work with do not meet the criteria for application of the theorem therefore there is no reason to believe that the theorem's expected results would apply. Sampling at the nyquist frequency may not offer the accurate signal sampling "the can be perfectly reconstructed part of the theorem" that people choose to believe it does. Over sampling could have benefits in these regards and of course drawbacks. Just because most of us can not quantify the difference with current playback technology does not mean there is not a difference that has value.

That depends on how you define value. As regards to audio destined for human consumption, I would say that if no difference can be perceived by humans, the difference has no value.

UnderTow

Can't disagree with that; the point is I guess that humans don't perceive it due to the technology they use to acquire it. The value could be undiscovered.

bitflipper

Audio signals that we work with do not meet the criteria for application of the theorem therefore there is no reason to believe that the theorem's expected results would apply.

Huh?

Just because most of us can not quantify the difference with current playback technology does not mean there is not a difference that has value.

Double huh?

I'm not questioning whether or not there is a valid point in there somewhere, but whatever it is it zipped right past my head!

Audio signals that we sample are not signals that are bandlimited and sampled for infinite time therefore per the theorem cannot be perfectly reconstructed using the nyquist frequency.

Were not there yet ..are we...