Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: phatdats 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
+1 24/48
-
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