Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz  (Read 53839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

adrianf74

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2012, 07:48:30 PM »
Sill burning discs and love it whorez!!!!  :-*
I know quite a few people who put 16/44 flacs on their portable players after downloading as well as burn cd's.
Maybe it's a NH thang?
Maybe I am biased because I have been taping at 16/44 for four years but,
 I don't really see much improvement going to 24/48. I was going to just do it and get a dr100mkII
 but I am fully satisfied with my box. Probably don't have the playback and ears to notice anyway.
I get the not running levels so hot but once again, I know people who run and shoot for -6db hitting close to zero.
I do that with my 660 and have zero complaints. Raising the volume(if even necessary) -2db is nothing in the way of noise
that I hear.
24-Bit over 16-Bit gives you better headroom and if you need to boost levels, you'll boost less hiss.   I think the general rule has been either 24/44 or 24/48 as a rule.   My question was to whether or not 24/96 was worth recording at if I've got the ability to which I've learned is likely NOT worthwhile.    As far as CDs... hm...  I buy CDs and rip them to flac and put 'em away (or download the hires version if its available).

adrianf74

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2012, 07:49:29 PM »
If I was in a controlled taping environment (studio), I would likely run 24/96. For us who are recording PA stacks, beer bottles being thrown away, chatty people near your gear, and sometimes a poor band...24/96? C'mon Man!
The one time I would've liked 24/96 would've been in an environment far removed from the one you describe, however, that would more often than not be the case.  :(   24/48 it is.

Offline newplanet7

  • Hasn't heard a muddy 460/480 tape. EVER. Mike Hawk
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
  • Gender: Male
  • The Place To Be...... Akustische u. Kino-Geräte
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #47 on: February 21, 2012, 08:00:32 PM »
I know about all the headroom and hiss jargon. Not new here. The headroom stuff is obviously the only reason to "upgrade"
I think though I would just run hot in 24bit also. HOWEVER, I would be getting more data.
I just don't see it as a huge factor in how I tape.
The outboard pre, probably not. Some of the pres on these all in ones are good stock.
Fr2le and r-44 are good.
 I dig two pres in particular though. Portico 5012 and PSP3.
MILAB VM-44 Classic~> Silver T's~> Busman PMD660
News From Phish: Will tour as opening act for Widespread Panic for Summer
hahaha never happen, PHiSH is waaaaayyyy better the WSP

They both ain't got nothing on MMW... Money spent wisely if you ask me...


FYI, it is a kick ass recording of a bunch of pretend-a-hippies talking.

Offline dnsacks

  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1640
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #48 on: February 21, 2012, 08:19:17 PM »
food for though -- many portable mp3 players (iphone and android included) have zero problem playing 48k mp3s (and zero problem playing 24bit mp3s).  I don't believe that halving the 96k sample rate to 48k introduces nearly the artifacts realized from a 44.1 conversion.  Another option for those that see 44.1k as a foreseeable final step is to record at 88.2k . . .

I've been recording everything at 24/96 for a few years now and have tweaked my post show workflow to the point where it doesn't really take any more time to combine wavs, track in cdwav and save as 24/96 flacs.  I either track out the first file up to the split and combine the track "orphaned" by the split with the next file or simply combine multiple files before tracking in CD Wave.  Once tracked, flac'ed and tagged, I can load entire shows into foobar2000 (even use foobar2000 on my macbook with WINE) and use Foobar plugins (including SoX) to automagically resample and/or dither and/or convert to mp3 as necessary. 

I record at this resolution to best "future proof" my recordings -- suspect I couldn't hear the difference on my current equipment through double blind testing, but given the cheap price of hard drives ($240 for a pair of 2tb drives capable of providing redundant storage for over 500 complete shows at 24/96), and the unknown advances we may see in the not too distant future, I see no reason NOT to record at the highest resolution that I can.

Offline justink

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1973
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #49 on: February 21, 2012, 08:22:23 PM »
food for though -- many portable mp3 players (iphone and android included) have zero problem playing 48k mp3s (and zero problem playing 24bit mp3s).  I don't believe that halving the 96k sample rate to 48k introduces nearly the artifacts realized from a 44.1 conversion.  Another option for those that see 44.1k as a foreseeable final step is to record at 88.2k . . .

I've been recording everything at 24/96 for a few years now and have tweaked my post show workflow to the point where it doesn't really take any more time to combine wavs, track in cdwav and save as 24/96 flacs.  I either track out the first file up to the split and combine the track "orphaned" by the split with the next file or simply combine multiple files before tracking in CD Wave.  Once tracked, flac'ed and tagged, I can load entire shows into foobar2000 (even use foobar2000 on my macbook with WINE) and use Foobar plugins (including SoX) to automagically resample and/or dither and/or convert to mp3 as necessary. 

I record at this resolution to best "future proof" my recordings -- suspect I couldn't hear the difference on my current equipment through double blind testing, but given the cheap price of hard drives ($240 for a pair of 2tb drives capable of providing redundant storage for over 500 complete shows at 24/96), and the unknown advances we may see in the not too distant future, I see no reason NOT to record at the highest resolution that I can.

this is exactly how i feel about recording in 96...
Mics:
DPA 4023 (Cardioid)
DPA 4028 (Subcardioid)
DPA 4018V (Supercardioid)
Earthworks TC25 (Omni) 

Pres and A/D's:
Grace Design Lunatec V3 (Oade ACM)
Edirol UA-5 (bm2p+ Mod)

Recorders:
Sound Devices MixPre10 II
Edirol R-44 (Oade CM)
Sony PCM‑M10

Offline newplanet7

  • Hasn't heard a muddy 460/480 tape. EVER. Mike Hawk
  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3530
  • Gender: Male
  • The Place To Be...... Akustische u. Kino-Geräte
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #50 on: February 21, 2012, 10:07:53 PM »
I record at this resolution to best "future proof" my recordings -- suspect I couldn't hear the difference on my current equipment through double blind testing, but given the cheap price of hard drives ($240 for a pair of 2tb drives capable of providing redundant storage for over 500 complete shows at 24/96), and the unknown advances we may see in the not too distant future, I see no reason NOT to record at the highest resolution that I can.
Well put!
This is why I will eventually step up. I guess I am a creature of habit. Great post sir!
MILAB VM-44 Classic~> Silver T's~> Busman PMD660
News From Phish: Will tour as opening act for Widespread Panic for Summer
hahaha never happen, PHiSH is waaaaayyyy better the WSP

They both ain't got nothing on MMW... Money spent wisely if you ask me...


FYI, it is a kick ass recording of a bunch of pretend-a-hippies talking.

dorrcoq

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #51 on: February 21, 2012, 11:30:05 PM »
If I was in a controlled taping environment (studio), I would likely run 24/96. For us who are recording PA stacks, beer bottles being thrown away, chatty people near your gear, and sometimes a poor band...24/96? C'mon Man!

Obviously you can record at whatever setting you want.  But I don't understand why you would care at all if others choose another option.

Offline Belexes

  • Trade Count: (10)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5223
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2012, 12:03:11 PM »
If I was in a controlled taping environment (studio), I would likely run 24/96. For us who are recording PA stacks, beer bottles being thrown away, chatty people near your gear, and sometimes a poor band...24/96? C'mon Man!

Obviously you can record at whatever setting you want.  But I don't understand why you would care at all if others choose another option.

I don't, but some 24/96 folks defend their actions so staunchly like *I* am doing something wrong by recording 24/48 and am absolutely insane not to step it up to 24/96.

Even though the technology allows, do our humans ears even decipher a difference?  Some here say yes, but that is a matter of opinion and subject to analysis of listening to the same file at two different resolutions and being able to correctly decipher one from the other.
Busman Audio BSC1-K1/K2/K3/K4 > HiHo Silver XLR's > Deck TBD

CA-14 (c,o)/MM-HLSC-1 (4.7k mod)/AT853(4.7k mod)(c,o,h,sc)/CAFS (o)/CA-1 (o) > CA-9100 (V. 4.1)/CA-9200/CA-UBB > Sony PCM-D50/Sony PCM-M10

dorrcoq

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2012, 04:08:39 PM »
Well, I do agree there may be a bit of "elitism" in recording at 24/96, but it can't hurt. ;D

Offline rjp

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 432
  • Gender: Male
  • You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2012, 06:36:03 PM »
FWIW, I flirted a bit with 24/96, but decided that it wasn't worth the extra disk space needed. 24/48 suits me just fine, and if I need 44.1, the SoX resampler does a wonderful job. Unless my target audience included dogs, cats, etc., (or I was doing scientific or engineering work that needed ultrasonic frequencies) and my entire recording chain from mics to ADC accurately handled ultrasonics, I don't feel that I could really justify the extra overhead. Then, even if the recording chain was ultrasonically accurate, what about the playback system? Let's just say I'm more in the Audio Critic camp than the Stereophile camp, and worrying about ultrasonic accuracy for music would just be a way to relieve one's wallet of extra cash. ;)

Regarding MP3, I'm not sure the concept of "bit depth" is relevant. LAME will happily digest a 24-bit source file and give me an MP3 that plays fine on any MP3-compatible hardware (assuming in VBR mode that the player supports VBR, as anything recent should). In any case, 48 kHz is a valid sample rate for MP3, and I haven't heard of a player not supporting it.
Mics: AKG Perception 170, Naiant X-X, Sound Professionals SP-TFB-2
Preamps: Naiant Littlebox
Recorders: Olympus LS-10
Interfaces: Focusrite Saffire Pro 14, Focusrite Scarlett 2i2

Offline justink

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1973
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2012, 07:12:48 PM »
FWIW, I flirted a bit with 24/96, but decided that it wasn't worth the extra disk space needed. 24/48 suits me just fine, and if I need 44.1, the SoX resampler does a wonderful job. Unless my target audience included dogs, cats, etc., (or I was doing scientific or engineering work that needed ultrasonic frequencies) and my entire recording chain from mics to ADC accurately handled ultrasonics, I don't feel that I could really justify the extra overhead. Then, even if the recording chain was ultrasonically accurate, what about the playback system? Let's just say I'm more in the Audio Critic camp than the Stereophile camp, and worrying about ultrasonic accuracy for music would just be a way to relieve one's wallet of extra cash. ;)

Regarding MP3, I'm not sure the concept of "bit depth" is relevant. LAME will happily digest a 24-bit source file and give me an MP3 that plays fine on any MP3-compatible hardware (assuming in VBR mode that the player supports VBR, as anything recent should). In any case, 48 kHz is a valid sample rate for MP3, and I haven't heard of a player not supporting it.

so, explain this to me exactly...  the difference between 48 and 96 is only the frequencies above human hearing?  if that were the case, why would BluRay use 24/96?  seems a bit wasteful, especially on hard media.

i always thought the difference between 48 and 96 was that there were 96 "snapshots" (if you will) of the entire frequency spectrum, rather than 48 "snapshots".  put together at normal speed, the recording would be more "in tact" representation of what was actually being played.

two completely different things here, so which one is it?
Mics:
DPA 4023 (Cardioid)
DPA 4028 (Subcardioid)
DPA 4018V (Supercardioid)
Earthworks TC25 (Omni) 

Pres and A/D's:
Grace Design Lunatec V3 (Oade ACM)
Edirol UA-5 (bm2p+ Mod)

Recorders:
Sound Devices MixPre10 II
Edirol R-44 (Oade CM)
Sony PCM‑M10

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3861
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2012, 07:37:22 PM »
so, explain this to me exactly...  the difference between 48 and 96 is only the frequencies above human hearing?  if that were the case, why would BluRay use 24/96?  seems a bit wasteful, especially on hard media.

Yes.  Even at 48 kHz, you are well beyond the range of almost all peoples' hearing.  At 96 kHz, more than half of your recording is above the 20 kHz usually accepted as the upper limit...Why does BluRay do it?  Marketing...

i always thought the difference between 48 and 96 was that there were 96 "snapshots" (if you will) of the entire frequency spectrum, rather than 48 "snapshots".  put together at normal speed, the recording would be more "in tact" representation of what was actually being played.

two completely different things here, so which one is it?

You can perfectly reproduce a wave form up to a given frequency by sampling at twice that frequency. 

Offline justink

  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1973
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2012, 07:46:01 PM »
so, explain this to me exactly...  the difference between 48 and 96 is only the frequencies above human hearing?  if that were the case, why would BluRay use 24/96?  seems a bit wasteful, especially on hard media.

Yes.  Even at 48 kHz, you are well beyond the range of almost all peoples' hearing.  At 96 kHz, more than half of your recording is above the 20 kHz usually accepted as the upper limit...Why does BluRay do it?  Marketing...

i always thought the difference between 48 and 96 was that there were 96 "snapshots" (if you will) of the entire frequency spectrum, rather than 48 "snapshots".  put together at normal speed, the recording would be more "in tact" representation of what was actually being played.

two completely different things here, so which one is it?

You can perfectly reproduce a wave form up to a given frequency by sampling at twice that frequency.

right, so the higher the khz (ie.  96 vs. 48), the better, right?  the more samples you have, the closer you are to the actual analog signal/wav, right? 

or is that the bit aspect?  i'm kinda confused now.
Mics:
DPA 4023 (Cardioid)
DPA 4028 (Subcardioid)
DPA 4018V (Supercardioid)
Earthworks TC25 (Omni) 

Pres and A/D's:
Grace Design Lunatec V3 (Oade ACM)
Edirol UA-5 (bm2p+ Mod)

Recorders:
Sound Devices MixPre10 II
Edirol R-44 (Oade CM)
Sony PCM‑M10

Offline aaronji

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (9)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3861
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2012, 07:55:36 PM »
right, so the higher the khz (ie.  96 vs. 48), the better, right?  the more samples you have, the closer you are to the actual analog signal/wav, right? 

Not really.  You can't hear above ~ 20 kHz, which is perfectly reproduced (no information lost) at a 40 kHz sampling rate.  At 96 kHz, you aren't reproducing the wave at 20 kHz any better and the additional samples go to reproducing ultrasonic frequencies.  If your mics are recording them in the first place...

The Lavry paper I linked earlier explains all this in considerable detail.

Offline page

  • Trade Count: (25)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8388
  • Gender: Male
  • #TeamRetired
Re: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz
« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2012, 08:01:58 PM »
i always thought the difference between 48 and 96 was that there were 96 "snapshots" (if you will) of the entire frequency spectrum, rather than 48 "snapshots".  put together at normal speed, the recording would be more "in tact" representation of what was actually being played.

two completely different things here, so which one is it?

You can perfectly reproduce a wave form up to a given frequency by sampling at twice that frequency.

right, so the higher the khz (ie.  96 vs. 48), the better, right?  the more samples you have, the closer you are to the actual analog signal/wav, right? 

or is that the bit aspect?  i'm kinda confused now.

read up on nyquist theory which all of this stuff is bound by.

aaronji is on target, the problem is you don't get more samples per second by increasing your kilohertz settings, you get more frequency bands to sample twice per second. Hence the dog/cat comment, they can hear that, and presuming that you're recording gear is actually sophisticated to accurately capture it, humans can't hear a 30khz test tone. You're just as close to analog signal at 44.1 as you are at 192 in the realm of sampling, because your frequency bands are all being samples twice per second, regardless of which setting you use, the 2khz band which humans hear well in is still only being sampled twice...

The Lavry paper I linked earlier explains all this in considerable detail.

qft. Dense stuff, but it's without marketing fluff (which there is a ton of in hi-fi...)
"This is a common practice we have on the bus; debating facts that we could easily find through printed material. It's like, how far is it today? I think it's four hours, and someone else comes in at 11 hours, and well, then we'll... just... talk about it..." - Jeb Puryear

"Nostalgia ain't what it used to be." - Jim Williams

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.079 seconds with 40 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF