Topic: Any drawbacks to recording in 24/96

[raymonda]

I'm not sure which crappy ADC are being used that compromise a 24/96 recording.....Mytek....Benchmark....Sound Devices...Apogee......Grace? Please let me know so I can sell my crappy ADC and buy one that can do its job at 24/96.

I agree that if you are looking to do thing quickly, and working with a stereo file at 24/96 might take you 10-15 extra minutes in the end.....then by all means record at something that will save you those extra minutes. However, for 2 track recordings I always record at 24/96. For 1-8 tracks I record at 24/96 and for 9-24 tracks I record at 24/48. I would record at 24/96 for the later but my system won't handle it. Maybe in a few years I'll have something that will. Beyond this I'm not seeing any need to record at higher than 24/96.

To me there is no down side. Unless I own one of those crappy ADC that make MP3's sound good. And I've never noticed it! My ears must be shot!

I would agree that if you record mostly PA's the 24/96 might be overkill.....but at least it is not underkill.

[DSatz]

raymonda, I respect your able use of sarcasm. Most of it is on point here--no one's criticizing the quality of any particular converter or recorder at 96 kHz, or saying that it would sound better at a lower sampling rate. Quite possibly no one here has any immediate cause to do so. Comparing one sampling rate against another fairly--with no other, uncontrolled variables in the comparison--is a very difficult task for most of us who merely drag our equipment and our sorry asses around to various concerts.

What I'm saying, though, is that 96 kHz doesn't give an automatic improvement in sound quality over a lower sampling rate, or even equivalence--that higher sampling rates have potential audible disadvantages. That was my proposed answer to the original question.

So if you believe as I do, it's a matter of listening and measuring and comparing the best we can, rather than simply taking higher spec-sheet numbers as if they necessarily indicate higher quality.

As an extra-credit option, a bit of rational thought might be thrown in at times, e.g. "if I'm recording sound that's all coming through a 9 kHz public address system, how much does it make sense to spend for the added storage to preserve the noise and distortion above the human audible range?"--but such use of the frontal-lobe cells is strictly a matter of personal choice IMO.

--best regards

[easyed]

I read yates comment to read as "there are no scientific drawbacks," but completely agree that practical drawbacks are abundant. I'm sure scientific drawbacks are possible and exist, but unlike the many documented drawbacks of recording at the 192kHz sampling rate, I've rarely, if ever, heard people complain about most modern 96kHz implementations.

Scientific drawbacks?  Noise and distortion introduced when resampling to 44.1k.

If you record in 48 or 96k and then resample to 44.1 you introduce noise and distortion and you would have had a better result if you had made the original recording at 44.1k.

People who claim to regularly listen back on systems that natively play 48 or 96k files, like their computer, would be severely limited by their speakers or monitors and the huge noise floor that the fans in computers create.  If people who claim to regularly listen back on systems that natively play 48 or 96k files are listening on playback devices other than computers, I'd be curious what those devices are.  So even if anybody could hear the difference between 44.1k and higher sampling rates (which they can't) they don't have quality playback systems for music at sample rates other than 44.1k

My conclusions: 1) an original recording made at 44.1k will sound better than a recording made at a higher sampling rate and downsampled and 2) very few people have quality playback systems to conveniently listen to music at sample rates other than 44.1,

Nobody resamples to 44.1k you say?  Then how do they listen to the music?

I think all those people who record at 48 or 96k are making their recording WORSE than if they recorded at 44.1 in the first place.

[raymonda]

Try any of the USB servers that can read from outboard drives. Oppo 93 or 95 will let you plug and play your wav files. DVD A has been around for a very long time and allows you to listen to higher Rez. I only listen to a cd in my car. At home it is either wav files of my hard drive or DVD A.

[raymonda]

raymonda, I respect your able use of sarcasm. Most of it is on point here--no one's criticizing the quality of any particular converter or recorder at 96 kHz, or saying that it would sound better at a lower sampling rate. Quite possibly no one here has any immediate cause to do so. Comparing one sampling rate against another fairly--with no other, uncontrolled variables in the comparison--is a very difficult task for most of us who merely drag our equipment and our sorry asses around to various concerts.

What I'm saying, though, is that 96 kHz doesn't give an automatic improvement in sound quality over a lower sampling rate, or even equivalence--that higher sampling rates have potential audible disadvantages. That was my proposed answer to the original question.

So if you believe as I do, it's a matter of listening and measuring and comparing the best we can, rather than simply taking higher spec-sheet numbers as if they necessarily indicate higher quality.

As an extra-credit option, a bit of rational thought might be thrown in at times, e.g. "if I'm recording sound that's all coming through a 9 kHz public address system, how much does it make sense to spend for the added storage to preserve the noise and distortion above the human audible range?"--but such use of the frontal-lobe cells is strictly a matter of personal choice IMO.

--best regards

I have always made the same comment regarding Recording a PA.  However, I notice that most people here record more than PA s. Many record from the lip of the stage, up close to get get real instruments and in small room where real sound is happening. Not just frequency limited PA s.

But if all that was being recorded was a PA from the 30th row, then it really doesn't,t matter. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[yates7592]

I have always made the same comment regarding Recording a PA.  However, I notice that most people here record more than PA s. Many record from the lip of the stage, up close to get get real instruments and in small room where real sound is happening. Not just frequency limited PA s.

But if all that was being recorded was a PA from the 30th row, then it really doesn't,t matter. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

You are absolultely right. Up front at the stage in a small club will always be my preferred method of recording (where possible) so I would always try to take advantage of the higher resolution opportunities available (rightly or wrongly).

[Gutbucket]

If you record in 48 or 96k and then resample to 44.1 you introduce noise and distortion and you would have had a better result if you had made the original recording at 44.1k

I haven't found this to be the case for my stuff converted to 44.1kHz with high quality software routines.  Most is recorded at 48kHz, a few pure accoustic classical things at 96kHz mostly done for my own comparison testing.  I didn't detect a significant difference eitherway through high a quality DAC & good phones or over speakers.  Have you found it to be an audible problem Ed?

I'm playing back from a near silent laptop, or a totally silent recorder, and am pretty hyper-sensitive to the noise floor of the room.  HVAC is one of the worst offenders, summertime I'll run it hard, then turn it off until I start to sweat for lower noise sessions!  Suffering for the art..

[raymonda]

I'm not hearing any distortions with my converstions but then again I don't seriously listen to CD's but rather I save that for DVD-A or the direct Wav. files.

[aaronji]

Try any of the USB servers that can read from outboard drives. Oppo 93 or 95 will let you plug and play your wav files. DVD A has been around for a very long time and allows you to listen to higher Rez. I only listen to a cd in my car. At home it is either wav files of my hard drive or DVD A.

My stereo has an ethernet connection, so I can connect it directly to my computer.  Actually, both, and a NAS, are connected via a switch.  I can stream the music, in many formats including flac and wav, straight to the playback...

I have always made the same comment regarding Recording a PA.  However, I notice that most people here record more than PA s. Many record from the lip of the stage, up close to get get real instruments and in small room where real sound is happening. Not just frequency limited PA s.

But if all that was being recorded was a PA from the 30th row, then it really doesn't,t matter. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

I am not sure I understand what you mean about situations where "real instruments" are being recorded, such as at stage lip.  Are you saying there is an intrinsic benefit to capturing ultrasonics?  Or that there are audible benefits from the relaxed filtering requirements?  Or something else entirely?

[easyed]

Try any of the USB servers that can read from outboard drives. Oppo 93 or 95 will let you plug and play your wav files. DVD A has been around for a very long time and allows you to listen to higher Rez. I only listen to a cd in my car. At home it is either wav files of my hard drive or DVD A.

Thanks for your response.  I will give dvd-a a try.

My personal listening is mostly over studio monitors, then on cd in the car, and then earbuds while exercising.  I'll grant than many serious tapers may listen to music at higher sampling rates than 44.1, but what about the rest of the universe?  Serious tapers (a smaller number than total number of taperssection users) comprise, what, .0000001% of the music listening population?  Let's just take the population of people we personally know with whom we share recordings - what percentage even know how to listen to a 48k file?  1%?  What percentage are listened to on cds, on computer cheap speakers, on earbuds?  Seriously, what percentage of people YOU KNOW PERSONALLY even know how to listen to a 48k file?  If they do, would they listen on a computer with crappy speakers?

My contention IS NOT that we can HEAR the noise and distortion introduced by resampling down from 48 or 96 to 44.1k, just that that it is scientifically measurable and not insignificant.  Also, since mics can't pick up frequencies over 20k, since even audiophiles with the best systems can't hear it, and since it has been proven that there also isn't any future benefit (we'll never be able to hear better, regardless of what improvements develop with playback systems), I am assserting that we tapers shouldn't routinely DEGRADE our recordings by making them at sample rates higher than 44.1 if over 99% of the listening will happen at a RESAMPLED rate.

Or to restate the case, since there is NO BENEFIT to higher sampling rates, and scientifically verifiable and measurable DEGRADATION from resampling (even with the best software - it's the nature of the process to add noise and distortion), and only 1% of the people who listen to our recordings will listen at 48k or higher rates and of that generous figure of 1% only a tiny percentage listen on quality playback systems, the costs outweigh the benefits (none).

If I'm wrong I don't mind hearing about it.  I'm wrong all the time and I usually do end up hearing about it.

[scb]

I record at 96khz because I listen to these 96khz recordings.  I don't care how many other people listen to them at 96khz.  I do

[easyed]

I record at 96khz because I listen to these 96khz recordings.  I don't care how many other people listen to them at 96khz.  I do

Damn it, you're right.  There I go worrying about what other people do.  Of course folks should do what pleases them.

And whatever I think of the benefits or lack thereof of, say, 96k, the costs are negligible: media space and indiscernible degradation if ever resampled.  No big whoop.

(in my best Gilda Radner voice) oh. nevermind.