Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: what's the point of recording at 24/192?  (Read 8977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JasonSobel

  • Trade Count: (8)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3327
  • Gender: Male
    • My show list
what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« on: January 11, 2005, 08:27:42 AM »
Hey folks, this is sort of a theoretical question...

let me start by saying, I'm looking forward to the next wave of 24 bit recorders as much as anyone else. it'll be great to finally use the V3 at 24 bit, to stop buying DAT tapes, and be recording at 24/96...  and as far as 24 bit recordings go, a few months ago, I bought myself a DVD burner, discwelder Bronze, and Denon DVD player to play DVD-audio discs.  my playback consists of DVD player > digi out > grace 901 > grado rs2 headphones.

I have about 30 shows in 24 bit format right about now.  most are at 24/48, but several are also at 24/96.  now, I don't have a direct, head-to-head comparison to base this on, but it is hard for me to discern the differences between 24/48 and 24/96.  the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit is huge for me.  so I'm thinking, am I really going to be able to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 ??? 

or is this question more along the lines of the DAT question, why record at 16/48 instead of 16/44.1?  just because you can?  and in theory, it's a higher resolution recording?  but the differences in media space between 16/44.1 and 16/48 was minimal.  a 24/192 recording will be twice as large (file size) as a 24/96 recording.  is it really worth it?  maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal to me because the grace 901 only goes up to 24/96?   but even with 24/192, I'm sure my Denon isn't too shabby at D/A, and could output an analog signal to the 901.  I just don't think the benefits gained from 24/192 over 24/96 outweigh the double the file size...

just sort of thinking aloud here.  I'd like to hear everyone elses thoughts on this.

 - Jason

Offline MattD

  • Taper Emeritus
  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 4634
  • Gender: Male
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2005, 08:59:04 AM »
I will step up and say that I bet I couldn't pass an ABX test with 24/96 vs. 24/192 on any playback system. Around that point, the weak link becomes my ears, rather than the system. I think the extra file size (and editing time) won't be worth the benefit of a higher samplerate.
Out of the game … for now?

Offline BC

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2269
  • Gender: Male
  • Bongo Bongo
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2005, 11:50:19 AM »
Yeah, we are probably pushing the limits of hearing as well as reaching a point of quickly diminishing returns past 24/96. I would say that the best argument so far for it would be just because you can, and that you can always throw away resolution but can never get it back. I would think maybe 24/192 would make sense for high quality acoustic recording in ideal environments but for taping PA systems probably a waste of time and storage.

Ben




 
In: DPA4022>V3>Microtracker/D8

Out: Morrison ELAD>Adcom GFA555mkII>Martin Logan Aerius i

Offline wbrisette

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2855
  • Gender: Male
    • Homepage
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2005, 12:26:13 PM »
Yeah, we are probably pushing the limits of hearing as well as reaching a point of quickly diminishing returns past 24/96. 

Anybody who really thinks that 24/48 or 24/96 is inferior to 24/192 needs to study Nyquist theorem. There are reasons you can't hear a difference between 96 and 192. In fact, odds are good that 48 to 96 won't be heard either, the ever so slight increase that can theoretically be heard usually isn't.

Wayne
Mics: Earthworks SR-77 (MP), QTC-1 (MP)

Editing: QSC RMX2450, MOTU 2408 MK3, Earthworks Sigma 6.2

Offline muj

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1544
  • Gender: Male
  • Certifiable Nevaton Fluffer
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2005, 12:37:59 PM »
dan lavry proves here that 24/192 is a waste of time
http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

Offline scb

  • Eli Manning should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie, son?
  • Trade Count: (11)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 8677
  • Gender: Male
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2005, 11:10:22 AM »

Offline relaxing

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Gender: Male
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2005, 03:12:10 PM »
So you can detect the presence of bats flying overhead at outdoor venues?
dpa 4061s -> marantz pmd620

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2005, 03:39:05 PM »
Reposted from my post in the FR2 thread:

Nyquist gets misused all the time for justifying a lower sampling rate.  The maximum reproduced frequency is only part of the equation when reproducing multi channel sound.  quoted from http://www.24bitfaq.org/ :


0.3.5        Which is said to provide greater benefit to the listener over conventional 16-bit 44.1/48kHz recordings: Increased sampling rate or increased word length?

A: Increased word length.  From Ken Pohlmann’s “Principles of Digital Audio,” 4th edition, p390-391:

“The use of high sampling rates such as 96 and 192kHz may seem unnecessary.  In rare cases, a person may be able to hear frequencies of 24 or 26kHz, far below the cutoff frequencies of 48 and 96kHz [for 96 and 192kHz sampling rates respectively].  In most cases, high frequency hearing response is below 20kHz.  Thus, for steady-state tones, the higher frequency response may not be useful.  However, it can be argued that high sampling frequencies improve binaural time response, leading to improved imaging.  For example, if short pulses are applied to each ear, a 15 microseconds difference between the pulses can be heard, and that time difference is shorter than the time between two samples at 48kHz.  Some people can hear a 5 microseconds difference, and that corresponds to the time difference between two samples at 192kHz.  In theory, this high sampling rate may improve spatial imaging.  Thus, it may take two ears to distinguish between a recording at 48kHz, and one at 192kHz.”
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline wbrisette

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2855
  • Gender: Male
    • Homepage
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2005, 03:47:54 PM »
Reposted from my post in the FR2 thread:

Nyquist gets misused all the time for justifying a lower sampling rate.

For our uses, I would challenge anybody to tell the difference in blind hearing test (using identical equipment) to tell the difference between 24/96 and 24/196. My guess is that there maybe one or two people who can tell the 24/48 vs. 24/96. Personally for me, it's not worth the extra drive space (and I have space to spare) for the very, very minute differences that might be heard.

I can record at 24/96, but choose 24/48. In my listening tests, I haven't been able to tell the difference with the type of material I've been recording and in the venues that I have been recording.

This is what I urge (and continue to urge people to do) folks to do. Make their own recordings, listen to them in a critical listening environment, then make their own judgements. I think that really is the best test equipment that can be used. Not some lab gear, but the gear God gave us that is between our two ears. Listen, figure out for yourself if it's worth it, then make your choice based on what you hear.

Wayne
Mics: Earthworks SR-77 (MP), QTC-1 (MP)

Editing: QSC RMX2450, MOTU 2408 MK3, Earthworks Sigma 6.2

jpschust

  • Guest
  • Trade Count: (0)
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2005, 03:55:44 PM »
this is a question and not meant to be an assertation of truth, however wouldn't conversion from 192 to 44.1 theoretically be a more accurate representation of the original sound than 96 to 44.1 since it would contain more data from which to draw its conversion?

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2005, 04:09:38 PM »
I agree that very many people will not be able to perceive a difference either because they do not have adequate playback equipment or they do not have adequate hearing.  But that would not stop me from using 192kH sampling rate.  If I were to argue against using 192kHz, I would argue that we are unlikely to encounter a concert PA source that presents a sufficiently detailed image to justify that much resolusion in the recording.  I thik that the reason most people don't hear a huge difference between 48kHz and 96kHz in their PA recordings is simply because the spatial information in those settings is not that detailed.

However, I think that an orchestral setting would present sufficient spatial detail such that 192kHz would be worthwhile.  Capturing that resolution would allow more precise placement of the individual instruments in an accoustic recording.  Whether you or I could hear it given our ears is immaterial to me.  If the spatial information is there and can be captured, I would think that it is valid to record at those higher rates.


My point was that the application of Nyquist Theorm as is common in these threads is not a fully proper justification for stereo channel recording sampling rates.  When I read comments like recording of bats or that no microphone can pick up 64kHz sounds, I have to make this point to remind people that there is a more complicated model at work here than if we were recording a point source into a single channel.

The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline wbrisette

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2855
  • Gender: Male
    • Homepage
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2005, 04:17:57 PM »
However, I think that an orchestral setting would present sufficient spatial detail such that 192kHz would be worthwhile.  Capturing that resolution would allow more precise placement of the individual instruments in an accoustic recording.  Whether you or I could hear it given our ears is immaterial to me.  If the spatial information is there and can be captured, I would think that it is valid to record at those higher rates.

Well, let me tell about one individual up in the SF area of California. He is doing orchestral recordings for a living on a Deva V. He and I have had some pretty interesting conversations because we are two of the only people using these things outside the film industry. The Deva V can record at 24/192. However, he only does 24/96. Even with top dollar gear and full access to the orchestra, he told me that 24/96 is about all he will use because he doesn't hear, nor do his clients any difference. Now, I understand the arguments for and against it. If you want to record at 24/192, knock yourself out. Personally I'll stick with what I'm doing because I don't hear the difference (and I'm using QTC-1 mics in my setup 4 Hz - 40 KHz) and that end the end is what it is all about.

Wayne
Mics: Earthworks SR-77 (MP), QTC-1 (MP)

Editing: QSC RMX2450, MOTU 2408 MK3, Earthworks Sigma 6.2

Offline Lil Kim Jong-Il

  • Trade Count: (6)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 6498
  • large Marge sent me
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2005, 04:28:00 PM »
Fair enough.  There is a big difference between a decision based on emperical results and arguing theory.

In all honesty, I'll probably never run higher than 96kHz but mostly because that is what I can put in an audio-DVD.  I do plan to run a full suite of tests when then 722 gets here. 

edit: Wayne, I'd +T you for this discussion but you must have said something I liked in another thread because I have to wait 12 hrs.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2005, 04:30:54 PM by Maynard G. Beatnik »
The first rule of amateur neurosurgery club is .... I forget.

Offline heath

  • Laugh it up, Fuzzball...
  • Trade Count: (4)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 24817
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm score!!!!!!
    • The Upstream Mend
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2005, 04:36:30 PM »
for our purposes I agree wholeheartedly that there really is no reason to go higher than 96k.   For the archival work I do, however, 192 is a demand that most of my clients make.  We are in the business of archiving, however, and we are also working with studio productions.  FWIW, in the field, I run 48k.  At work, it's either 96k or 192k.  Some of our clients also ask for 88.2k

H
And the Sultans... yeah the Sultans play creole

 The Upstream Mend

Offline wbrisette

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 2855
  • Gender: Male
    • Homepage
Re: what's the point of recording at 24/192?
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2005, 05:13:21 PM »
for our purposes I agree wholeheartedly that there really is no reason to go higher than 96k.   For the archival work I do, however, 192 is a demand that most of my clients make.  We are in the business of archiving, however, and we are also working with studio productions.  FWIW, in the field, I run 48k.  At work, it's either 96k or 192k.  Some of our clients also ask for 88.2k

And that's what do, you give the client what they want. 88.2, those usually are old ADAT folks who had to use multi 44.1 channels to get higher resolution. I'm running 48K because that's what I've really listened to that makes the most sense for me. Here is the test, I'll offer to folks.

Last Thursday I ran my 4 mics at Cooper's Uncle (local bluegrass band). The QTC-1 mics were on stage clamped just below their mics, thus you have the QTC-1's as the main mics. Then I ran my SR-77 mics at stage lip to pick up the other stuff. I just put this on DVD-A. This was recorded at 24/48.

This Thursday I have told them I would record them again, in the same venue. I'll setup my mics the same way again, but I'll run the DEVA at 24/96. Then burn it on DVD-A as well.

I'll mark the DVD's as 1 and 2 and ship them out to anybody who wants to do a blind test. Then they can tell me which is which... If anybody is up for this, just drop me a line and I'll get you setup.

Wayne
Mics: Earthworks SR-77 (MP), QTC-1 (MP)

Editing: QSC RMX2450, MOTU 2408 MK3, Earthworks Sigma 6.2

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.096 seconds with 39 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF