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??

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 The same goes for DSD/SACD (which uses outdated 1 bit technology which was abandoned for better stuff a decade ago).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  
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. ;)

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

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!

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

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)

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.

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

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