Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: question about recording formats...  (Read 772 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline phatdats

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 163
    • phatdats.com
question about recording formats...
« on: July 29, 2016, 06:42:04 PM »
I have been a taper for a looong time (used to be pretty good with my quick tape flips on my marantz PMD430!!) then went to dat, then a viao with VXpocket.......etc

then I stopped about 5 years ago when the kids came and I am now getting back in with an R44.  here is the question:

When I was taping, it was an arms race trying to get the highest resolution recordings. 16/44 then 16/48 then 24/48 and I was on top of the world (7 years ago) at 24/96, burning them to my DVD-A player... now I seem to notice most people are recording 24/48k.  why?  what gives?

Thanks for any explanations :)

Steve

Offline dyneq

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Taperssection Member
  • *
  • Posts: 277
Re: question about recording formats...
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2016, 06:57:34 PM »
As you might imagine, this has been covered here, but I have always found this article to be useful for understanding the technology.

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

I run 24/44.1, but only to avoid quality loss during post-processing. I only listen to 16/44.1 because of the explanation in the article, and my own ABX tests (blind testing of 2 different audio files containing the same musical passage. It helps that I'm 49 and can't hear high frequencies.

Offline Gutbucket

  • record > listen > revise technique
  • Trade Count: (12)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 10882
  • Gender: Male
Re: question about recording formats...
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2016, 07:04:22 PM »
Can you actually hear a significant difference between 24/48 and 24/96 in a proper blind test?

Most who honestly test themselves (done correctly) cannot.  Just takes extra space to store the larger files.  Practicality prevails, sometimes.

24/48 is enough for me, providing a slight safety buffer over 16/44.1 and little excess penalty.  If the difference there is inconsequential it doesn't matter much.
volition > vibrations > voltages > numeric values | numeric values > voltages > vibrations > virtual teleportation time-machine experience

"Narrow or widely spaced microphone configurations are preferred. It is well-known experience that pure coincidence microphone concepts are not able to produce a satisfying natural spatial impression, due to the lack of adequate interchannel temporal relations (time-of-arrival, phase, correlation)" -G√ľnther Theile
"The mix of the Double M/S signals with a large A/B configuration of omnis results in the spacious sound that is often desired. This option also provides decorrelated low-frequency signals." -Helmut Wittek

Offline jagraham

  • Trade Count: (19)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2327
  • Gender: Male
Re: question about recording formats...
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 08:54:17 PM »
Agreed with the last two posts. I run 24/48 even though my DR-70D can potentially run 24/96. 24/96 are a high file size vs. 24/48. I feel like when recording at 24 bit, we are already recording at a rate higher than will typically be utilized for playback. The only reason I even do that is for the potential to amplify or normalize levels in post.
Mics: Nak CM-300s, Nak CM-100s, CP-1s, CP-2s, AT-853s(Cards, Hypers, Omnis) CA-14s(Cards, Omnis)
Pres: CA STC-9200, CA-UBB
Recorders: Tascam DR-70D, DR-2D, Edirol R-09

ISO: 1 Teac ME-120, CP-3 Caps, AT-853 Subcard Caps

Offline daspyknows

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Gender: Male
  • Don't ask, don't tell, don't get get caught
Re: question about recording formats...
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2016, 09:25:44 PM »
Can you actually hear a significant difference between 24/48 and 24/96 in a proper blind test?

Most who honestly test themselves (done correctly) cannot.  Just takes extra space to store the larger files.  Practicality prevails, sometimes.

24/48 is enough for me, providing a slight safety buffer over 16/44.1 and little excess penalty.  If the difference there is inconsequential it doesn't matter much.

My thoughts exactly  24 48

Offline nolamule

  • Trade Count: (18)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
  • where's my mule?
Re: question about recording formats...
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2016, 09:39:29 PM »
+1 24/48

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Is a 4 channel slut and
  • Trade Count: (117)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40375
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
Re: question about recording formats...
« Reply #6 on: July 30, 2016, 07:31:15 AM »
I record at 24/96 for bigger shows or my fav bands just because I can honestly, and 24/44.1 for festies and everything else! I certainly cant hear a diff between 24bit vs 16bit! But I record in 24/96 just because of post processing advantages like noise floors/dynamic ranges etc, just like all of you guys do, and the fact that storage is soo cheap there's no reason for me NOT to record in at least 24/44.1, but most often, 24/96 lol ;) Plus, I STILL burn everything I've recorded the last 15+ years to DVDRs ;D
Schoeps MK4's & MK41's ->
Schoeps | NBob 250/05 KCY's ->
Schoeps VMS02IB | Naiant +60v PFA's ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's ->
Tascam DR-70D's ->
128gb & 64gb SanDisk Extreme Pro SD Cards

FiiO E10K DAC/HP Amp & E11K HP Amp ->
Sony MDR-7506 Cans & SA-VA15 Speakers | Monster iSport Victory Earbuds

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean | http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420 | http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 28 queries.
© 2002-2017 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF
Website Design by Foxtrot Media, Inc., a Baltimore Website Company