Topic: Any drawbacks to recording in 24/96

[Chad]

I just got a PMD 661 and was planning on taping in 24/96. It seems to me though that most tapers with 24/96 capabilities choose to tape in 24/48. Is there any certain reasons to not tape in 24/96?

[brad.bartels]

I just got a PMD 661 and was planning on taping in 24/96. It seems to me though that most tapers with 24/96 capabilities choose to tape in 24/48. Is there any certain reasons to not tape in 24/96?

The only drawback I'm aware of is the size of the files you end up with. 24/96 files are going to be twice the size of 24/48, I think. The consensus is there is not much difference in sound quality between 48 kHz / 96 kHz, at least not enough to justify 2x file size. I haven't personally done any comparisons, but I do record 24/48, FWIW. From my experience, you get a lot more benefit with 24 bit vs. 16 bit. I'll let others enlighten us both, though.

[climbingbear]

in my expeiance, it was told to me by a chick who worked at a recording studio in nyc (the hit factory-- which is now defunct), that even though most folks only listen to & utilize  16/44.1 (cd quality)- its a good idea to record at the highest possible fidelity, even though the human ear cant typically tell the differance between a recording at its highest fidelity &  cd quality- its a good idea to record at the best you can---   because even though you cant do much with that super high quality recording at this time (2012), in the future you may be able to make a differance with that recording.  hopefully, editing technology becomes so good that there is a difference in what you can do with it.    but-- i also know holding on to a super high quality recording sucks up space on your hard drive.

also, a taper buddy of mine told me that he likes to keep his recordings in evenly numerical dervitives (ie. 16/44.1 or 24/48). yet, im not really sure why.  ----he said it happens to do with matching up alternate sources- like, if youre combining sbd/fos/stage lip recordings or alternate mic sources.  he said its easier (more effective) to change the way its derived if you keep different sources in even numbers rather than odd numbers when matching/re-deriving it together.   honestly, i dont know how much truth there is to this methodolgy.  it was just a friends opinion when we tried to match up our different recordings of a show, to come up w/ one consistant recording from both of our recordings, together (he had 16/44.1 & i had 24/48...  he said that was better that me doing 24/96 when it came time to derive the two together).

id love to hear others opinions on this matter.

[StarkRavingCalm]

Besides the increased file size, does recording in 24/96 consume any additional battery life?
In the general sense or more specifically,  the DR-2D.

[justink]

Besides the increased file size, does recording in 24/96 consume any additional battery life?
In the general sense or more specifically,  the DR-2D.

no, but you would need a faster card if you don't want to risk a failure.

[thekittycatt]

You may also want to consider what type of sound system is being used at the venue.  Some of the digital boards do not have the processing power to do 24/96 and run all the effects without crashing, so they run 24/48.

[page]

File splits would be another. You'll end up with shorter durations for files the higher the bit depth and sampling rate. If you're recorder is not bit perfect in it's splits (or doesn't even split), then that's a limitation. Second, you're resample routine should be very good, otherwise it's introducing noise. SoX and a few others are excellent (there are other threads around here detailing that), some, less so.

[eman]

You may want to record at this high rate only for the shows that are the most important to you and that have the most sonic detail- jazz, classical, acoustic. There's no sense recording your local rock and roll band at the bar at 24/96.

[phanophish]

Just posted a related thread questioning why 24/48 seems to be so popular that might also have some relevance here since this is the thread that finally prompted me to post the question.

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=157049.0

[aaronji]

You may also want to consider what type of sound system is being used at the venue.  Some of the digital boards do not have the processing power to do 24/96 and run all the effects without crashing, so they run 24/48.

The PA is probably even more of a factor.  It's worth considering the bandwidth limiting parts of the whole recording chain.  Most PA systems don't go over 20 kHz and are below the level of room noise a good deal lower than that.  If the PA isn't a limiting factor, the microphones probably are.  Even with Earthworks and no PA, the amount of energy coming from most instruments is pretty limited above the audible range.

The way I see it, there are very small potential disadvantages to both 48 and 96.  None of these are worth worrying about with a decent modern ADC.  Since there is no real benefit in sound one way or the other, I prefer to go with the smaller, more quickly transferred and processed files.  If those practical concerns don't bother you, I really don't think it matters...

in my expeiance, it was told to me by a chick who worked at a recording studio in nyc (the hit factory-- which is now defunct), that even though most folks only listen to & utilize  16/44.1 (cd quality)- its a good idea to record at the highest possible fidelity, even though the human ear cant typically tell the differance between a recording at its highest fidelity &  cd quality- its a good idea to record at the best you can---   because even though you cant do much with that super high quality recording at this time (2012), in the future you may be able to make a differance with that recording.  hopefully, editing technology becomes so good that there is a difference in what you can do with it.    but-- i also know holding on to a super high quality recording sucks up space on your hard drive.

This argument ("future-proof") comes up pretty often, but I really don't get it.  Given that the bandwidth of the recorded signal has probably been limited, you'll never do better than Nyquist.  The proof is available on the web...

Besides the increased file size, does recording in 24/96 consume any additional battery life?
In the general sense or more specifically,  the DR-2D.

no, but you would need a faster card if you don't want to risk a failure.

At least for some recorders, it appears to make a difference.  In the M10 manual, for example, Sony lists a big difference between battery life at 24/48 and 24/96.

[dnsacks]

my view is that since storage is cheap (both hdd and memory card) why not take advantage of your machine's capabilities.  Even though there may well never be an advantage (re the future proofing example) where there to be an advantage or strong reason in the future, better to have the extra bits (imho) than to not.

As far as battery life -- I always do repeated dry runs (recording the radio etc. with my complete rig) to get a clear sense of run times.  If I can repeatedly record say 6 hours of my favorite radio station on a charge running my full rig on my normal batteries, there's a very strong probability that I'll see the same run time in the field.

[vanark]

There are no technological barriers to why I don't do it other than convenience.

Drawbacks:
1. File size - need for more storage space, longer transfer times (even if only ten minutes)
2. Multiple 2 GB files that I need to combine in order to master the full show.  Just another step for me.
3. Processing time while mastering - larger file = longer times to apply amplify or any EQ. Longer times to dither to 44.1
4. Longer times to save files - In my workflow, I save the full mastered 24 bit file untracked and archive it.

I don't see the need to do this and would actually do less mastering if it took longer to do it.  As it is, I have 10 sets from Mountain Jam that will likely never be mastered.  Multiple other sources are already out there.

One thing no one brings up - I'm recording a 2 channel ambient audience recording.  I think there are many other factors to making a good recording than whether it is 48 kHz or 96 kHz - mic position and location being primary in my opinion.  If I get a mediocre pull, recording at 96 kHz isn't going to make a difference to how it sounds.

[George2]

in my expeiance, it was told to me by a chick who worked at a recording studio in nyc

My opinion.....never listen to chicks at recording studios. Do your own homework.
Most of these little recorders.. even though they do record up to 96k, can't take advantage of the increased dynamic range.... they all have some low level noise.
Better off at 44.1k24b audio for CD, or 48k24b audio for video.
And that  .. IMHO.

[Sebastian]

I recently read the Bob Katz book on mastering. One interesting thing Bob points out is that every ADC uses anti-aliasing and anti-imaging filters on the source material before conversion. These filters usually degrade the sound quality by adding (usually inaudible) distortion. With a 96kHz sampling rate, these errors are spread across a bigger bandwidth, with less errors ending up in the audible band. This might not matter much as these errors are usually inaudible. However, when doing post-processing, these errors can accumulate, making them audible eventually. This is highly theoretical, though. Other than that, Katz does not seem to see a reason for using sample rates higher than 48kHz.

That being said, I record at 24/96 just because I don't see any reason not to. The bigger file size and longer processing time during mastering do not matter to me personally. However, I would also have no problem recording at 24/48 or 24/44.1 as I would honestly not hear a difference. It's really just a personal preference.

Making informed decisions about this topic requires vast knowledge of the hardware and software used during recording and mastering. I doubt anyone here knows anything about how the portable recorders or DAW programs we use work internally. Therefore, we're all just guessing.

[ArchivalAudio]

Bob Katz' books are  excellent, he also has the book Audio In Media which is also a powerful too for learning more about all things audio!
His Mastering book is of course awesome!