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!

[aaronji]

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.

It's really not possible for there to be some advantage in the future.  As long as you sampled at more than twice the highest frequency of your source, you can perfectly re-create the original signal...You can't improve on perfect.  Although if bionic ears become widespread, that might change the equation a bit!

To my previous point, that the bandwidth of the signal is already considerably limited before it even gets to the recorder, see the attached figure.  It's the frequency analysis of a 24/96 recording I made a few months ago (moe., Jam in the Dam).  The red line is 20 kHz.  There is nothing above 18 kHz or so.  This is pretty typical and is probably due to the PA.  Spot checking some other files, I haven't found any where there's signal past 23 kHz.

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.

It's my understanding that this problem has been greatly minimized by sigma-delta ADCs of the kind usually found in today's crop of recorders (even the cheaper ones, like the Zoom H2 have an oversampling sigma-delta)...

[George2]

[/quote]
It's my understanding that this problem has been greatly minimized by sigma-delta ADCs of the kind usually found in today's crop of recorders (even the cheaper ones, like the Zoom H2 have an oversampling sigma-delta)...
[/quote]

Hey, could you point me to a link about the Zoom H2 using Sigma-Delta?

[aaronji]

Hey, could you point me to a link about the Zoom H2 using Sigma-Delta?

I think I first saw that on the Zoom forum (http://www.2090.org/zoom/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=9745&sid=eb0abb9770ef451047defec8550562cb&start=17, the post from trevmar 7th from the top).  The manual for that chip states the sigma-delta'ness (http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tlv320aic32.pdf)...I have also read that the M10 has a sigma-delta; I thought that was on taperssection, but I can't find it at the moment (although this post says the DAC is, which might imply that the ADC is too:  http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=139638.msg1836579#msg1836579).  I was also told that the PMD620 and 661 have sigma-delta ADCs by a well known mod'er of those machines...

[aaronji]

^^^ Thanks, Jon!  Maybe I can put a few questions to you?  If the initial analog signal is already bandwidth limited to somewhere below the Nyquist frequency for a given sampling frequency, is aliasing even possible?  My understanding is that aliasing occurs when the signal contains frequencies between Nyquist and the sampling frequency.  If those frequencies don't exist in the sample, it would seem that aliasing is a non-issue.  If that is the case, would the quality of the filters matter anymore? 

The concerns you listed seem to relate to lesser quality chips.  Is the quality of these chips in typical taper's recorders, such as the Sony M10 or the R-05, poor enough that these are pertinent?  I assume the higher-end stuff, like the SD boxes, have no problems?  Also, is there a rule of thumb for interpreting the passband attenuation and stopband attenuation measures (cut-off values or a difference or something)?

Really, I am most interested in having good quality audio.  I am by no means wedded to 48 kHz sampling; from what I have read, the advantages of higher sampling rates are negligible in terms of the sound.  The reduced computing and storage demands tipped the balance for me thus far.  I would switch to 96 kHz in a second, though, if there was a real, audible benefit to doing so...

Interesting tip about upsampling for some of the processing, by the way...And thanks for all of your excellent posts on this topic!  I have learned a lot from you...

[TimSmith]

I dont use 24/96, only 24/48. Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm a noob):
1) most people cant hear much higher than 20kgz
2) cheaper mics (like CA14) and cheaper playback systems have flat freq. response up to only 20kgz (maybe little higher, but not 48 anyway)

So I dont see any need for myself in taping in 24/96. Now I even want to start using 24/44. Less steps in post processing (usually make two filesets - 16 and 24 bit) and for video in mkv container I dont have to use 48, 44 is ok.

PS. Funny when someone uploads 24/96 MASTER recorded with $100 unit like Zoom H1. 8-) Pity that it cant record 24/192...

[aaronji]

Technically, yes, but an analog signal is not going to be naturally bandwidth-limited to the extent that it would need to be to avoid all aliasing (>-100dB).  By that, I mean all alias products must be below the noise level of the ADC.  That's a pretty strict criterion that is probably not relevant in concert recording, but that's what an engineer would aim for.

Pretty close, though.  I looked at the 24/96 files I have (an admittedly small sample of six, but fairly representative of the range of stuff I record).  Three were below -100 dB at 24 kHz, one was essentially -100 (-99.998), and the other two were close (-98 and -99.45).  Even at 22.05 kHz, one was below -100 and the other five were all below -92.  I interpret that to mean that, at least for my shows/venues/gear, 96 kHz won't result in any improvement, even if the ADC filters are poor.  Really, at 44.1, it seems like I wouldn't have any audible artifacts, given the levels of ambient noise are way above -92 dB (I assume that's what you meant about concert recording?)...

Thanks for your help, Jon!

[TimeBandit]

in most venues the PA doesn't go further then 20 khz so theres no sense with 96k.

for full acoustic, nature , atmo, 96k makes sense

[stevetoney]

I don't record in 24/96 because I record live music.  If I were recording in a studio when I could control everything, I'd go 24/96 or 24/192.

For live music, even with my Schoeps rig, I think it's overkill to record music with ultra high bit rates, when most of the time the sound is kinda crappy anyway and especially when you can't hear a difference between 24/48 and 24/96 in that situation anyway.  All this technical mumbo jumbo is great when you put on your gear head hat, but where the rubber meets the road for live recordings, IMHO it just doesn't matter. 

Another reason I don't use 24/96 is it takes twice as long for my software to load and process the files.  Not a big deal, unless you go to lots of festivals and have 30 or 40 shows to master and you don't want to spend twice the amount of time waiting for your software to process the files. 

Finally, if you ever want to share your music over the web, your files are double the size so it takes twice as long to upload/download them. 

[yates7592]

I don't see any of the "drawbacks" noted previously as real issues - SDHC memory, battery life, time - most of us have all of these in abundance.

My philosophy has always been to try and maximise the sound quality, and that to me, means once I have bought the best gear I can afford and positioned myself in the best spot (subjective I know), I then record at 24/96 (or sometimes 24/88.2).

I am puzzled about the screenshot in the earlier post showing nothing in a 24/96 recording above a fequency of 20kHz. Here's my last recording using B3 mics, a Church preamp and R-09HR. There is much data above a frequency of 22kHz and 24kHz, whether I can hear it is another question! This was from the front, so not much PA sound, mainly drums, amps and monitors.

[aaronji]

If you are at a large venue it's likely the audio has passed through a digital conversion somewhere which would explain the lack of ultrasonic content.

They weren't particularly large venues (the biggest has a maximum capacity of 1500; the others range from 300 to 1000), but I am positive that several had digital soundboards...

My philosophy has always been to try and maximise the sound quality, and that to me, means once I have bought the best gear I can afford and positioned myself in the best spot (subjective I know), I then record at 24/96 (or sometimes 24/88.2).

So what you are saying is that the ADC in the R09HR introduces audible artifacts at/below 48 kHz sampling during concert recordings?  Otherwise, what do you mean by "maximize the sound quality"? 

I am puzzled about the screenshot in the earlier post showing nothing in a 24/96 recording above a fequency of 20kHz. Here's my last recording using B3 mics, a Church preamp and R-09HR. There is much data above a frequency of 22kHz and 24kHz, whether I can hear it is another question! This was from the front, so not much PA sound, mainly drums, amps and monitors.

As Jon pointed out, it is likely that there was a digital conversion somewhere in the venue's sound system.  Up front, most of that ultrasonic energy is probably coming from the direct capture of cymbals and some other percussion, maybe some horns, and not from the amps/monitors...

[stevetoney]

I don't see any of the "drawbacks" noted previously as real issues - SDHC memory, battery life, time - most of us have all of these in abundance.

My philosophy has always been to try and maximise the sound quality, and that to me, means once

If you have time in abundance, perhaps you can come to my place and help me with my weed patch that doubles as a lawn. 

I don't disagree with your statement, assumging 24/96 provides increased sound quality over 24/48.  I do recall a long time ago a blind sound test was conducted and people couldn't reliably choose 24/96 over 24/48 for live music recordings, which is again why I think most people use 24/48. 

The point is, for live recording, there seems to be a point of diminishing returns.  To drive this home, I'm sure some people would use 24/384 or 24/768 (or whatever it would be) if it was available, but what difference does it make if you can't hear any difference?  You certainly wouldn't convince me that the 24/768 file is a higher quality sound than the 24/48 if I don't hear any difference on any playback systems.

[yates7592]

No, the high frequency patches you can see on the spectrogram (?) come mainly from the lead guitar, you can see how the high frequency (30-35kHz) concentration drops off in patches, that is where the guitarist stepped back and the horn player stepped in....so, I would guess that all that high frequency business is actually part of most, if not all, shows.

[DSatz]

yates7592, a good P.A. system might have a 12 kHz bandwidth. During a live performance there will almost certainly be some sound energy above that limit as the result of non-linear distortion. (Spurious sound energy is also produced at frequencies in the main part of the audible band, of course; it doesn't just "go up" in frequency.) Whether that distortion is beneficial or harmful is entirely a matter of personal opinion. It's part of the live sonic experience, and I could agree with anyone who feels that it should be captured in a recording. Also, I don't know what anyone could do about it if they considered it to be harmful; you can't "record around it."

The same issue came up in the 1980s when CDs were introduced to the public. Defenders of vinyl showed that the playback of vinyl LPs often includes sonic information above 20 kHz which the CD couldn't reproduce. However, when you consider the limits of studio microphones, tape recorders, disc lathes and the whole vinyl pressing and playback process, you realize that very little of that "information" was put there by the record company! Rather, it was mostly tracing distortion--a fact which the vinyl advocates didn't generally choose to mention.

Most home loudspeakers are doing well if they can reproduce 18-20 kHz cleanly. If you record signals beyond 20 kHz, playing them back through an amplifier and loudspeakers can cause audible artifacts. Again this may be experienced as subjectively pleasant, unpleasant or neutral--but since this can also happen with signals that are below the Nyquist limit for 44.1 kHz sampling, as far as this is concerned it might not even make much difference what sampling rate is chosen for the recording.

Some 96 kHz converters are technically and, potentially at least, audibly superior to some 44.1 kHz converters, while some 44.1 kHz converters are technically and, potentially at least, audibly superior to some other 96 kHz converters. There's no such thing as 44.1 kHz sampling having one certain level of quality and 96 kHz sampling having a certain other level of quality. There are only specific implementations that use those two sample rates. In many cases the bandpass filtering rather than the conversion (as such) has the greater effect on sound quality.

--best regards

[yates7592]

I understand that the benefit of recording at 96kHz / 192kHz and upwards is not proven, but my simple spectogram (based on a stage-side recording of "raw" music, not processed through a crappy PA) shows that some frequency content >24kHz is there (and it is instrument-specific).

As I previously stated, I'm not sure I can hear that sound, but for archiving purposes at least, if you have that capability to record, save to disc with acres to spare and playback, without any inconvenience or cost above recording at 24/48, then why not? I see at a festival you might be wise to step down, but for a one-off show, what do you have to lose?

To answer the original question, no, there are not drawbacks to recording in 24/96, only (possible/probable) benefits.

[vanark]

To answer the original question, no, there are not drawbacks to recording in 24/96, only (possible/probable) benefits.

This is your opinion.  Several of us have pointed out the drawbacks related to increased processing time, at the very least.  This may not be important to you, but to some of us, it is a large enough drawback to not record at 24/96.

[DSatz]

yates, just talking about the objective quality of A/D conversion, I don't think that your statement ("there are not drawbacks to recording in 24/96") is correct when it's made in an absolute, all-encompassing way.

High sampling rates offer technical disadvantages as well as advantages. Higher sampling frequencies correspond to shorter sampling intervals. With the simplest types of linear converters (old-fashioned nowadays, but more recent types of converter are in some respects still based on them), less time is available at higher sampling rates for the converter to settle on its best approximation of the value for each desired output sample. The result is generally an increase in the quantization error. With smart design this error will manifest itself mostly as random noise, i.e. the error, considered as a signal, isn't notably correlated with the input signal. "Noise shaping" techniques can concentrate this error signal (which always exists to some degree) into a high-frequency range that playback systems don't reproduce well and that humans can't directly hear, but too much or the wrong kind of that is definitely not a good thing.

As a result this all, once again, really depends on how the particular converters are implemented. Sampling rate is not a magic specification that automatically indicates conversion quality. It just isn't supportable to claim that all converters having a 96 kHz sampling rate perform in every respect as well or better at 96 kHz than they do, say, at 48 or 64 kHz or even at 44.1. And whatever you find to be true of a given converter type in this respect may not be equally true of another converter type. So I think you might want to watch out for the generalizations.

--best regards

[Teen Age Riot]

So how would one go about testing the converter quality of a given deck and determining the sampling rate at which it performs best?

[yates7592]

It just isn't supportable to claim that all converters having a 96 kHz sampling rate perform in every respect as well or better at 96 kHz than they do, say, at 48 or 64 kHz or even at 44.1. And whatever you find to be true of a given converter type in this respect may not be equally true of another converter type. So I think you might want to watch out for the generalizations.

--best regards

I don't believe I claimed anything of the sort, but I would also be interested to hear your views on Teen Age Riot's question above ^

[Brian Skalinder]

yates, just talking about the objective quality of A/D conversion, I don't think that your statement ("there are not drawbacks to recording in 24/96") is correct when it's made in an absolute, all-encompassing way.  < snip >  So I think you might want to watch out for the generalizations.

I don't believe I claimed anything of the sort

Here:

no, there are not drawbacks to recording in 24/96, only (possible/probable) benefits.

Of course, there are drawbacks.  Some potential, as DSatz mentions, and dependent on individual ADC design & implementation (e.g. a given recorder's ADC may perform better at 24/48 than 24/96), and some practical and/or personal (file size, recorder storage, archival storage, processing time, etc.).

Glad to hear you don't find any of these drawbacks an issue for you, but they are drawbacks for some people.

[hi and lo]

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.

[yates7592]

If some of the 96kHz recorders and their built in A/D converters are crap, how do we tell the good ones from the bad?

[F.O.Bean]

I record in 24/48 because the file sizes and recording PA systems you cant hear a diff between 24/48 and 24/96. Now if I was doing some stage-lip/onstage jazz or acoustic stuff, I might consider 24/96, but for PA's, I roll at 24/48

[yates7592]

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.

Me too, but I'm no expert.....however, Jon seems to know what he is talking about:

Eventually you reach some point where you start to lose precision, and then some point where that loss of precision becomes audible.  That probably isn't at 96, maybe 192 but I would guess usually not, maybe in some implementations.  When you go beyond that I would guess you do start to audibly lose precision in the audible band in exchange for very high frequency information that isn't useful at all. 

So, both these contributors seem to be of the opinion that recording degeneration is unlikely at 96kHz. From limited personal experience, I would tend to agree with them. I use an R-09HR and R-26 (medium price/quality recorders I would say) and have not heard artefacts at 96kHz. But I have an open mind on this and I would be interested to hear from others who believe it can happen, to tell me which recorders are "good" and "bad" at 96kHz A/D conversion in that respect?

[aaronji]

From what I can piece together, from the posts here and a variety of other sources, the potential audio advantages/disadvantages of 48 vs. 96 kHz sampling are mostly in the realm of theory or are essentially miniscule differences around the edges [EDIT: assuming a "decent" ADC].  Particularly for concert recording, I am not sure if you'll ever hear a real, audible difference between the two.  If that is true, then it comes down to the more practical considerations people have mentioned and, in the end, personal preference...For what it's worth, the AES recommends 48 kHz for most applications. 

With respect to an earlier question about hearing above 24 kHz, I have a more solid opinion on that.  I reviewed the literature on the range of human hearing and found that a large body of research, stretching back for decades, supports 20 kHz as the upper limit, and that's in young, healthy individuals (the upper limit decreases, often substantially, with age).  There are a few papers that suggest that some people can hear pure tones above 20 Khz, up to a maximum of 24 kHz.  Those papers described studies that were conducted with very small samples under ideal laboratory conditions (and with high SPL signals), so their conclusions may not be entirely reliable and are decidedly not relevant for "real world" conditions.  So a more liberal interpretation of the data would peg the upper bound at 24 kHz, while a more conservative interpretation would favor 20 kHz...

[runonce]

Everybody needs to turn on the Spectrum view in FooBar - and give a listen (and watch) to what is happening in the higher frequencies(compared to low and mid)...not much activity beyond 10k and really almost nothing above 14...(heh - at least with my gear..YMMV)

Now - thats not to say "it doesnt matter" - I think quite the opposite - it makes accurate high frequency reproduction even more important...since all that information is so low in level.

Treble seems to be the textural dressing that "finishes" sounds...its like the shellac of music...

[aaronji]

Everybody needs to turn on the Spectrum view in FooBar - and give a listen (and watch) to what is happening in the higher frequencies(compared to low and mid)...not much activity beyond 10k and really almost nothing above 14...(heh - at least with my gear..YMMV)

Now - thats not to say "it doesnt matter" - I think quite the opposite - it makes accurate high frequency reproduction even more important...since all that information is so low in level.

Treble seems to be the textural dressing that "finishes" sounds...its like the shellac of music...

The audible high frequencies will be well reproduced even at 44.1 kHz (48 kHz if you stretch the definition of "audible" a little)...

[StarkRavingCalm]

I just switched to 24/48 the other day after reading this thread and the other one (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=157049.0)
The file split during a song and I would like an application capable of merging the two files without saving it as 16/44.1

Is there a free solution out there? In the past I always used WavMerge.


Thanks in advance

[bryonsos]

I just switched to 24/48 the other day after reading this thread and the other one (http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=157049.0)
The file split during a song and I would like an application capable of merging the two files without saving it as 16/44.1

Is there a free solution out there? In the past I always used WavMerge.


Thanks in advance

I would think most programs would do this. I use Audacity for everything including file splits.

[StarkRavingCalm]

I couldn't seem to get Audacity to merger them without silence.
Looks like foobar2000 is the winner. Relatively simple to join and kept the original 24/48 format.
I do wish WavMerge was still being updated and could support the newer formats. It was so simple, open file1, open file 2, join, done.

[bryonsos]

I couldn't seem to get Audacity to merger them without silence.
Looks like foobar2000 is the winner. Relatively simple to join and kept the original 24/48 format.
I do wish WavMerge was still being updated and could support the newer formats. It was so simple, open file1, open file 2, join, done.

Open both files as separate projects, go to the second one and highlight both channels. Then, File > Find Zero Crossings, followed by File > Copy. Go to the first file and put the cursor to the right of the end of the file, then paste and save.

[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.