Topic: What's the point of recording at 48/96...

[evilchris]

So ... 24/44.1 vs 24/48?  Any opinions?

[bgalizio]

So ... 24/44.1 vs 24/48?  Any opinions?

I do 24/48 so people can make a DVD-V disc of the 24bit files. Not everyone can do 24/44.1 as a DVD-A. Running 24/44.1 may be easier for redbook distribution, but resampling doesn't take too much extra time.

[Nicola Fankhauser]

hi

I also use 24/44.1 with my R-09, because I think a lot of shows have such a problematic PA that it does not matter whether you dither it down to 16bits or not. however 24bit is important as said before to keep headspace, since you never will get out digital clipping once it happened.

for classical music I think 24bit is a must, but only because it has so muc more dynamics than popular music.

regards
nicola

[Nick's Picks]

I"m still of the opinion that a very well recorded 16bit source is *very* fine to listen to.
especially when recording a PA.

but...you might as well master at the highest resolution you can.  why not.
thats the way studios do it.
 

[Craig T]

So ... 24/44.1 vs 24/48?  Any opinions?

24/48 for DVD-V.

[F.O.Bean]

i recorded at 24/44.1k for awhile. and while i dont really hear a diff AT ALL, even between 24/44.1k vs 24/96, I still record at 24/48 because of dvd-a and dvd-v playback and the faster processing time at 24/48 vs 24/96. i did record at 24/44.1k for awhile, but why not record at 24/48 for higher resolution and also, dvd-v playback? what is 5 mins MAX out of your life for a lil higher resolution? If recording at 24/96 was only an added 5 mins, id record at 24/96, but it takes signifigantly dealing with files over 2GB for me. and double the space. once i burn off the 250+GB of phish on my external HDD, i will prolly start recording at 24/96, but for now, i am quite happy with 24/48 or 24/44.1k.

i must say, 24/44.1k is very tempting and i think it sounds fine for recording PA's mostly. i think the biggest jump is just getting to 24-bits, especially for smaller or more local bands

[Nick's Picks]

I pretty much ran 24/44.1 w/my 24bit rig...after years of 24/48 or higher.
can't hear a difference really, and the ease of making redbook discs just won me over.

[JackoRoses]

I pretty much ran 24/44.1 w/my 24bit rig...after years of 24/48 or higher.
can't hear a difference really, and the ease of making redbook discs just won me over.

Really downsampling is that much more work? You already have to dither to make redbook so whats the problem with sampling?
I use the batch feature in wavlab and it doesn't take more than 8 minutes (24/96 > 16.44.1) I would say for a full 2+ hour show to process. Were you downsampling than dithering before? Could that be the difference?
I have been thinking for recording soley 24/88.2 for the math if nothing else.
I like 24/96 just to have a high resolution recording for archival purposes alone.
24/192 would be even better for archiving as an argument yet I'm still not sold on CF being able to keep up at least my cards even though they claim to be able to..

I have an acoustic grand piano recording duet with a world class violinist concert recording done with DSM baffled mics into external pre/microtrack (24/88.2 mode) at ~12 foot distance/height that clearly shows violin sounds exceeding 35,000 cycles being recorded.   While difference from 16 bit over 24 bit seems easily heard, I have yet with my hearing to tell the difference from 24 bit/44.1 over master quality 24/88.2. 

Thanks for that input, Guy!  I guess I haven't wanted to thread hijack this thread, but to me the question isn't whether to record at 24bits, it's whether to record at something higher than 44.1k sampling.  I do my listening using a Squeezebox which can only do 44k or 48k, though it does play 24bit.  Since 48k is the most I can listen at and since 44k is what I'd need for CD distributing, to make my life easier and to keep post processing down, I've been recording at 44.1k.  Been wondering if the folks recording at 88k or 96k feel they hear a significant improvement over 44k or 48k....

I have not done any blind tests on the different sample rates in 24 bit. I was able to tell the difference in 16 bit between 44.1 and 48 by the highs. At this point as I mentioned above the higher sampling is more archival than for listening pleasure.

[Church-Audio]

...when the source is a stack of speakers in a crowded room?

Would you ever hear the difference between that rate and 16/44100

Is it over kill?

Duncan

The source is not always a "stack of speakers in a crowded room" sometimes its something more then that. Now with good quality PA systems we have absolute CD quality reproduction provided the sound man has a clue. So things have changed that's why sample rates are getting bumped up all the time. My attitude is this capture things as the best rate your recorder/storage will allow for. You can always down sample but you can't up sample. Is there a difference... Yes when the sample rates go up so does the quality of the
"capture" you start to get closer to analog. Some people can here it others can not,  that's why some of them still thing MP3 @ 128 kbs sounds good... But I dont think many here would argue it does not. When your talking about a sample rate difference of 44.1 to 48k things get harder to sort out. But there are differences. One major difference is the higher the sampling rate the higher the high frequency ceiling is. So for example the basic frequency response of 44.1 is 20hz to 20khz the frequency response limits of 48 is 20hz to 25khz 96k is 20hz to 40khz and so on there are variances in the frequency response limitations based on the anti aliasing filter being used and the slope. But there you have it solid differences.

Now you might say hey man I cant hear above 20k. I would say your right but harmonics exist above 20k that have a direct effect on frequency in the audible band. Provided your mics can actually record them. They do exist and they do change the way we hear things from about 2k to 20khz. So better sample rates do equal better audio if not for this reason alone.

[Nick's Picks]

good point.
recently sharpened?

[Nick's Picks]

oh...
and I would resample then dither.  and I also use wavlab.

the less processing I have to do, the better.
thats my gig any way.  I never edit any of my recordings.  raw...all the way.

[Mr.Fantasy]

Yes when the sample rates go up so does the quality of the
"capture" you start to get closer to analog.[quote/]

As in analog is better?

Please excuse my ignorance if that seems trivial.....

[Church-Audio]

Yes when the sample rates go up so does the quality of the
"capture" you start to get closer to analog.[quote/]

As in analog is better?

Please excuse my ignorance if that seems trivial.....

Good analog is better then the best digital.... In the sense that as long as the frequency response of the device is full bandwidth. Analog records sound with out quantizing it, turning it into little 0's and 1's so IMO analog is better at capturing a continuous waveform with out chopping it up into little bitty peaces to fit a sample rate.

We humans dont quantize sound we hear things with out disruption of the wave form. When you are using digital the waveform is being chopped up into slices of time, there are always peaces missing from the slices of time due to the lack of a big enough sample rate but part of the conversion is "guessing" what was missing between the quantization points. The only problem with that is there is a side effect called sample rate error when the converter "guessed wrong" .

That's why companies like Korg have pushed for 2Mhz sampling rates to increase the amount of dissection and increase the accuracy of the copied waveform so that when its reconstructed in the D-A there will be more "data" available for the reconstruction. With analog there is no reconversion there is only the linearity of the transfer function from point A to point B. This is just my two cents..

Can most humans tell the difference between good digital and good analog some say no. But I say if you can hear the difference between a cable that has been broken in or not then I am pretty sure you can tell the difference between good analog recording and digitalis distortion and nonlinearity of a reproduced signal.

Chris

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

Yes there is a distinct difference in sound quality. If you can train yourself to listen past the surface noise and the clicks, you can hear a signal signal that is smoother and more pure than any CD.  24/96 gets very close though and the reproduction is crystal clear.

[Mr.Fantasy]

So why do we not record in analog?

Is it just because a digital recording is easy to get onto a PC for editing?