Become a Site Supporter and Never see Ads again!

Author Topic: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?  (Read 10676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline evilchris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 943
  • Gender: Male
  • Audio, ergo sum.
    • dimwell.net
24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« on: March 21, 2008, 05:13:20 PM »
OK ... I understand the gains of 24-bit over 16-bit (greater dynamic range), but I don't see the advantage of 48kHz over 44.1kHz.

All of my listening is exclusively on my iPod or from CD audio, so would it make sense for me to stick to 44.1 for the sampling rate?  Or is the jump to 48 enough to outweight the potential rounding errors in the dithering process?

Thanks.
nothing > nada > R-09

Offline KLowe

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3477
  • Gender: Male
  • CrossFit....check you ego at the door
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #1 on: March 21, 2008, 05:16:35 PM »
I stick with 44.1

If my ears could hear the extra 3.9k samples....then I'd be superman

--I guess there is some signal to noise explanation though....buy my home stereo sucks...so I'd never know the diff.  And is one less step to have to do in post production.
I actually work for a living with music, instead of you jerk offs who wish they did.

bwaaaahahahahahaha.... that is awesome!

Offline evilchris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 943
  • Gender: Male
  • Audio, ergo sum.
    • dimwell.net
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2008, 05:19:10 PM »
I thought SNR was a function of bit depth?

 ???
nothing > nada > R-09

Offline KLowe

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3477
  • Gender: Male
  • CrossFit....check you ego at the door
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2008, 05:21:02 PM »
I thought SNR was a function of bit depth?

 ???
ummmmmmm.....yeah..it is.  I really have no clue as to what I'm talking about..

OK...more samples equal more "detail" of the music.
harmonics, subharmonics...etc.

The 16-bit/44.1kHz technology used for Redbook Standard (commercial) CDs cannot capture or convey enough audio detail in the transients, harmonics and sub-harmonics, the ambiance (room noise, air noise) etc., that creates the full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation. That is why many people complain of CD recordings that sound harsh or brittle or missing the "room" sound. Recording at 24-bit/96kHz allows us to capture a world of sounds in the 10kHz-20kHz range that include all those extra transients

Paging DSatz......
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 05:25:11 PM by KLowe »
I actually work for a living with music, instead of you jerk offs who wish they did.

bwaaaahahahahahaha.... that is awesome!

Offline evilchris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 943
  • Gender: Male
  • Audio, ergo sum.
    • dimwell.net
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2008, 05:24:58 PM »
I really have no clue as to what I'm talking about..

haha ... +t for being able to admit that.  :P
nothing > nada > R-09

Offline George2

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2008, 05:31:19 PM »
Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k
Sennheiser 418s>SDMixPre-D>RO9HR
Beyer MC930>Fostex FM3>NagraSD
Couple of Schoeps CMT441 too.

Offline philR

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5820
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2008, 05:32:15 PM »
Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k

why's that?
Neumann AK40 > LC3KA > KM100 > V2 > 744t

Offline Gordon

  • Trade Count: (22)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 11786
  • Gender: Male
    • my list
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2008, 05:42:15 PM »
Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k

why's that?


audio on a dvd HAS to be 48 or 96.
Microtech Gefell M20 or M21 > Nbob actives > Naiant PFA > Sound Devices MixPre-6 II @ 32/48

https://archive.org/details/fav-gordonlw

https://archive.org/details/teamdirtysouth

Offline philR

  • Trade Count: (2)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5820
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2008, 05:46:23 PM »
Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k

why's that?


audio on a dvd HAS to be 48 or 96.

ah, did not know that.
Neumann AK40 > LC3KA > KM100 > V2 > 744t

Offline evilchris

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 943
  • Gender: Male
  • Audio, ergo sum.
    • dimwell.net
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2008, 05:53:59 PM »
Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k

audio on a dvd HAS to be 48 or 96.

... I did not know that.  I always thought that DVD could do 44.1k.

Thanks and +t!  :)

Sounds like 24/44.1 is where it's at for audio.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 06:01:59 PM by evilchris »
nothing > nada > R-09

Offline aegert

  • Trade Count: (1)
  • Taperssection Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 321
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2008, 06:00:43 PM »
THis is the big argument!

A
B&k 4022's > Grace Lunatec V3 > Self Built  Neutrik/ Mogami XLR to TRS > Korg MR1000

Schoeps CMT44's > Self Built Neutrik/ Tuchel 2 ch Snake > Switchcraft Phantom to T-power Adapters > Grace Lunatec V3 > Sound Devices 722

www.motb.org

The bus came by and I got on....

Offline F.O.Bean

  • Team Schoeps Tapir that
  • Trade Count: (126)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 40690
  • Gender: Male
  • Taperus Maximus
    • MediaFire Recordings
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2008, 06:58:28 PM »
Use 48k when recording audio for video, otherwise stick to 44.1k

audio on a dvd HAS to be 48 or 96.

... I did not know that.  I always thought that DVD could do 44.1k.

Thanks and +t!  :)

Sounds like 24/44.1 is where it's at for audio.

you can still burn 24/44.1k DVD-Audio discs tho! or is that DVD-Video ???
Schoeps MK 4V & MK 41V ->
Schoeps 250|0 KCY's (x2) ->
Naiant +60v|Low Noise PFA's (x2) ->
DarkTrain Right Angle Stubby XLR's (x3) ->
Sound Devices MixPre-6 & MixPre-3

http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/diskobean
http://www.archive.org/bookmarks/Bean420
http://bt.etree.org/mytorrents.php
http://www.mediafire.com/folder/j9eu80jpuaubz/Recordings

Offline DSatz

  • Site Supporter
  • Trade Count: (35)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *
  • Posts: 3349
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2008, 09:14:34 PM »
KLowe, first of all there are no such things as subharmonics. That's a holdover from 17th century music theory. They were a fantasy all along and they simply don't exist. Difference tones, sure, but subharmonics, no.

Second, transients don't put any special strain on a digital recording system; electrons just don't have enough mass or inertia. If a system's frequency response covers the audible range and if it can handle a full-scale sine wave at the top of that range without clipping or spewing crap all over the spectrum from slew rate limiting, then it can handle the audible part of any transient you care to throw at it. Anything with a rise time faster than the signal I just described is putting out energy above the Nyquist limit by definition--so yes, when you retrieve that signal it won't look the way it did originally, but there's no reason for it not to sound identical.

That's not even a digital issue; it's just as true for analog tape and vinyl LPs, which have high-frequency limits, too. You can't cut a 2 kHz square wave on an LP that will look anything like a square wave when you play it back, but so what? Music still sounds right on a good system and wrong on a crummy one. That's as true for 16/44.1 digital as it is for analog tape, records, or radio. There are examples of purely analog systems that have audible and measurable problems in this area, and there are examples of digital systems that have no audible or measurable problems in this area.

Lots of people seem to get confused about transients. It's important for the audio circuitry to do either (or both) of two things: (1) cleanly filter out any signal components that are so high in frequency that we can't hear them, and/or (2) follow the original signal through all its rapid twists and turns. In terms of human audibility, either approach is precisely as good as the other, and they can be combined nicely, too (e.g. a circuit preceded by a clean, simple low-order low-pass filter at, say, 40 kHz can also be designed with a moderately high slew rate--but then it doesn't need to be extremely high, since the filter guarantees that nothing much above 40 kHz will ever have to go through it).


> The 16-bit/44.1kHz technology used for Redbook Standard (commercial) CDs cannot capture or convey enough audio detail in the transients, harmonics and sub-harmonics, the ambiance (room noise, air noise) etc., that creates the full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation. That is why many people complain of CD recordings that sound harsh or brittle or missing the "room" sound. Recording at 24-bit/96kHz allows us to capture a world of sounds in the 10kHz-20kHz range that include all those extra transients

I can't agree with a single thing in that whole remarkable statement, sorry.

--best regards
« Last Edit: March 21, 2008, 09:26:12 PM by DSatz »
music > microphones > a recorder of some sort

Offline Dede2002

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Taperssection All-Star
  • ****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Gender: Male
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2008, 09:28:03 PM »
KLowe, first of all there are no such things as subharmonics. That's a holdover from 17th century music theory. They were a fantasy all along and they simply don't exist. Difference tones, sure, but subharmonics, no.

Second, transients don't put any special strain on a digital recording system; electrons just don't have enough mass or inertia. If a system's frequency response covers the audible range and if it can handle a full-scale sine wave at the top of that range without clipping or spewing crap all over the spectrum from slew rate limiting, then it can handle the audible part of any transient you care to throw at it. Anything with a rise time faster than the signal I just described is putting out energy above the Nyquist limit by definition--so yes, when you retrieve that signal it won't look the way it did originally, but there's no reason for it not to sound identical.

That's not even a digital issue; it's just as true for analog tape and vinyl LPs, which have high-frequency limits, too. You can't cut a 2 kHz square wave on an LP that will look anything like a square wave when you play it back, but so what? Music still sounds right on a good system and wrong on a crummy one. That's as true for 16/44.1 digital as it is for analog tape, records, or radio. There are examples of purely analog systems that have audible and measurable problems in this area, and there are examples of digital systems that have no audible or measurable problems in this area.

Lots of people seem to get confused about transients. It's important for the audio circuitry to do either (or both) of two things: (1) filter out any signal components that are so high in frequency that we can't hear them, and/or (2) follow the original signal through all its rapid twists and turns. In terms of human audibility, either approach is precisely as good as the other, and they can be combined nicely, too (e.g. a circuit preceded by a clean, simple low-order low-pass filter at, say, 40 kHz can also be designed with a moderately high slew rate--but then it doesn't need to be extremely high, since the filter guarantees that nothing much above 40 kHz will ever have to go through it).


> The 16-bit/44.1kHz technology used for Redbook Standard (commercial) CDs cannot capture or convey enough audio detail in the transients, harmonics and sub-harmonics, the ambiance (room noise, air noise) etc., that creates the full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation. That is why many people complain of CD recordings that sound harsh or brittle or missing the "room" sound. Recording at 24-bit/96kHz allows us to capture a world of sounds in the 10kHz-20kHz range that include all those extra transients

I can't agree with a single thing in that whole remarkable statement, sorry.

--best regards

I'm only happy when I'm learning something. DStaz, thanks for another great post. ;)
Mics..........................SP-CMC-8, HLSC-1 and HLSO-MICRO
BB and Preamps........MM Micro bb / MM Custom Elite bb / Church 9100
                              
Recorders...................Tascam DR-100MKIII, Marantz PMD 620 MKII, Edirol R-09

Offline KLowe

  • Trade Count: (5)
  • Needs to get out more...
  • *****
  • Posts: 3477
  • Gender: Male
  • CrossFit....check you ego at the door
Re: 24/48 vs 24/44.1 ... Help?
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2008, 09:29:48 PM »


> The 16-bit/44.1kHz technology used for Redbook Standard (commercial) CDs cannot capture or convey enough audio detail in the transients, harmonics and sub-harmonics, the ambiance (room noise, air noise) etc., that creates the full, warm, sweet sound we are used to hearing in a live situation. That is why many people complain of CD recordings that sound harsh or brittle or missing the "room" sound. Recording at 24-bit/96kHz allows us to capture a world of sounds in the 10kHz-20kHz range that include all those extra transients

I can't agree with a single thing in that whole remarkable statement, sorry.

--best regards

Yeah...I just found that on a quick google search of "96khz recording advantage".  This is why I "paged" you earlier  ;)

As always...thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.

KLowe
I actually work for a living with music, instead of you jerk offs who wish they did.

bwaaaahahahahahaha.... that is awesome!

 

RSS | Mobile
Page created in 0.092 seconds with 39 queries.
© 2002-2024 Taperssection.com
Powered by SMF