Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Ask The Tapers => Topic started by: Duncan on June 22, 2007, 08:42:23 AM
-
...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
-
I assume you mean 24/96, and not 48/96.
personally, everything I record these day is 24/96, for a few reasons...
1) I can definitely hear a difference over 16/44.1. it sounds more "real, lifelike, and natural"
2) I often record music that is fairly dynamic. the 24 bit resolution allows me to set the levels a bit more conservatively, and not worry about "wasting bits" by not running my levels high enough.
3) when I downsample/dither a show to 16/44.1 format for CDs, often times, my primary listening environment is my car. in that situation, a very dynamic recording is often tough to listen to. because of this, many times I'll apply some compression. usually just a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. for any sort of processing, I've found the results to be much more pleasant when the original recording is at 24 bit. much fewer digital artifacts. and of course, I still have the original 24 bit version, unedited and uncompressed, to listen to when I'm at home and listening on my nice playback system.
and lastly, digital storage is relatively cheap these days. so why not record at the higher resolutions if it is available to you.
but, on the other hand, with my new 16 gig CF card, I could, in theory, be recording at 24/192 and still get 4 hours of recording time, enough for most shows. yet, I choose to record at 24/96, because I've deemed 24/192 "overkill" and I think 24/96 is just dandy. so ultimately, you may decide that 24/96 is "overkill" and that's your choice to make. personally, though, I think 24/96 it's worthwhile.
-
I agree with Jason. I also tend to record a lot of "acoustic" music, either on stage/ stage lip or even unamplified sources. Therefore I am wanting to capture everything that I can with my recording, and 24/96 will give me just that.
I can also hear an immediate difference between redbook (16/44.1) and 24/96 even with my PA recordings. I don't know how to compare the 2, but I had never heard my mics sound the way they do when I first started running 24/96.
When hi-res audio becomes more standard in a few years, I will be thankful that I spent the extra time and hard drive space recording 24/96 now. I'll be able to enjoy them much more for a long time in the future.
:)
-
i would do 24/48 at least
-
Have any who can hear the difference done so in a double blind test yet?
-
Have any who can hear the difference done so in a double blind test yet?
I did it to my friend who doesn't have a clue about 16 bit vs 24 bit and he heard the difference.
and I hear it as well.
-
Sorry if this is so basic, but help me out... In order to playback a source recorded at anything above 16/44.1, you will first need the higher resoultion source/equipment (more than likely your taper gear, right?) to do the playback, but then you need a DAC that supports the same bits and resolution which your source recording was made on, in order to be able to listen back to the higher resolution recording, on your home stereo, correct?
Harold
-
Totally OT but just wondering if you taped Alabama 3 down in Bournemouth the other week Duncan?
I had heard the sound was really poor (and not for the first time) so was just wondering if you did or how it turned out?
Dave.
(Yes I realise this should have probably been a PM, but I am drunk)
-
Sorry if this is so basic, but help me out... In order to playback a source recorded at anything above 16/44.1, you will first need the higher resoultion source/equipment (more than likely your taper gear, right?) to do the playback,
yes. to play back recordings done at higher resolution than 16/44.1 you need equipment that can play those formats, but it does not have to be your taping gear. DVD Audio players will work just fine as well as many high quality PC sound cards (like the squeezebox). so you don't have to use your taping deck as the playback device.
but then you need a DAC that supports the same bits and resolution which your source recording was made on, in order to be able to listen back to the higher resolution recording, on your home stereo, correct?
right. although some devices that can't playback higher resolution files can resample the recordings on the fly.
-
Harold: yes
Thread:
As many on this board have said, I find the greatest advantge is had when going to 24 bits. The difference in quality between 48 and 96 is negligable at best. When using my mics, I personally can't hear a difference between the two. My mics also don't pick up anything over 20k anyway, so the signals not there to record. Perhaps if I get mics with a wider range in the future I will hear a difference. I don't now. I would also have to make sure my preamp has a wide range too.
I'd also make note that some who espouse the benefits of 96 and 192 argue that we are subconsciously hearing harmonics in the high frequencies that add to our perception of the over-all sound. It would have to be subconscious because studies have shown, with rare exception, the limit of human hearing is just around 20k. But I am willing to bet on the results of another study. Sit a random sampling of music listeners in a room and play 2 samples of identical music for them. But tell them one is higher quality than the other and spell it out with technical data. Ask them which sounds better. Which one do you think they'll pick?
I've also seen discussion on the accuracy of clocking for high sample rates. It seems the higher the sample rate, the higher the rate or error. So you would need a pretty high quality clock for the benefits (if any) of the higher sample rate to outweigh the degradation due to clocking issues.
Just some stuff to think about.
-
Thanks for the answers. Re: ShawnSmith's reply that you can use a DVD Audio player though, I didn't know that you can transfer and record from a high resolution source onto a DVD Audio player, so that you can then listen back to the high resolution source on the DVD Audio player, through your home stereo(or am I missing something in that scenerio?). And his point about using PC soundcards(like the squeezebox), is strictly for playback through a computer setup and speakers, and not a regular home stereo, I think. And devices that re-sample on the fly (if they can't playback at higher resolution), are more prone to timing errors, correct?
I record on a Sony D100 at 44.1, and transfer to an HHb cdr-830 standalone cd recorder. I record at 44.1 on the D100, instead of 48kHz, since in the transfer to the HHb, it would down sample on the fly to the redbook standard of 44.1. Would that be the way most people here would go, given those equipment limitations?
taper420 - points well taken. I found it interesting after putting together a home hi-fi set up ~10 years ago that I could hear differences in my digital cables. Personally I stay away from TosLink optical cables. I like Kimber Kable AGDL coaxial cables. At the time I also bought a Genesis Digital Lens, due to concerns regarding timing/clocking issues(I had Genesis modify it to accept a 48kHz signal too).
It really hurts having the following equipment sitting in storage, while I am using inferior equipment currently: the Digital Lens, McCormack Micro Line Drive(pre-amp), McCormack DNA 0.5 Amp, and Dahlquist DQ32 speakers. I still have and use the aragon D2A2 DAC I used in that set-up though.
-
Have any who can hear the difference done so in a double blind test yet?
I did it to my friend who doesn't have a clue about 16 bit vs 24 bit and he heard the difference.
and I hear it as well.
You did not answer the question, however. ;o)
-
2/18/2002
The last time I recorded 16/44. ;D
My playback might not dictate 24/96 now but once the kids are gone look out! ;)
-
My playback might not dictate 24/96 now but once the kids are gone look out! ;)
so true. I'm in the same boat minus the kids. I also record mainly at 24/48 since its SOOOO much easier for me to edit the 24/48 files over the 24/96 files. I know, lazy taper syndrome. But for me to record 24/96, I have to split the files just right so they dont go over the 2GB limit :P save those split up files. saving cue sheets is a PITA since if i track out my 16-bit first(what I always do since the cue sheet would be a complete one, then when i go to do my 24/96 wavs to cue/track out, i have to manually track what doesnt fit on the 24/96 cue since the 24/96 stuff is DOUBLE thye space the 24/48 stuff is
plus, my ears cant tell a diff between 24/48 and 24/96 for PA stuff, so I could care less ;D And I can easily burn a DVD-A of my 24/48 stuff, and like I said, its HALF the HDD space and ALOT easier to edit. Just open 24/48 WAV per set, add gain/resample/dither save. open 16-bit wav in cdwave, save cue sheet for each set, save tracks and rename/flac/upload. no splitting files so they dont get bitten by the 2GB rule :P
anyway :P............
-
My playback might not dictate 24/96 now but once the kids are gone look out! ;)
so true. I'm in the same boat minus the kids. I also record mainly at 24/48 since its SOOOO much easier for me to edit the 24/48 files over the 24/96 files. I know, lazy taper syndrome. But for me to record 24/96, I have to split the files just right so they dont go over the 2GB limit :P save those split up files. saving cue sheets is a PITA since if i track out my 16-bit first(what I always do since the cue sheet would be a complete one, then when i go to do my 24/96 wavs to cue/track out, i have to manually track what doesnt fit on the 24/96 cue since the 24/96 stuff is DOUBLE thye space the 24/48 stuff is
plus, my ears cant tell a diff between 24/48 and 24/96 for PA stuff, so I could care less ;D And I can easily burn a DVD-A of my 24/48 stuff, and like I said, its HALF the HDD space and ALOT easier to edit. Just open 24/48 WAV per set, add gain/resample/dither save. open 16-bit wav in cdwave, save cue sheet for each set, save tracks and rename/flac/upload. no splitting files so they dont get bitten by the 2GB rule :P
anyway :P............
WORD! plain and simple. that's the way I roll.
-
I assume you mean 24/96, and not 48/96.
Yes indeed I do
Cheers
Duncan
-
Totally OT but just wondering if you taped Alabama 3 down in Bournemouth the other week Duncan?
I had heard the sound was really poor (and not for the first time) so was just wondering if you did or how it turned out?
Dave.
(Yes I realise this should have probably been a PM, but I am drunk)
Yes I did tape them but for some reason I haven't transfered the recording yet. I don't remember the sound being bad. Sounded good from 6 feet in front of the stack (with ear-plugs)
I'll get it up on Dime this w/e
Duncan
-
I also record mainly at 24/48 since its SOOOO much easier for me to edit the 24/48 files over the 24/96 files. I know, lazy taper syndrome. But for me to record 24/96, I have to split the files just right so they dont go over the 2GB limit :P save those split up files. saving cue sheets is a PITA since if i track out my 16-bit first(what I always do since the cue sheet would be a complete one, then when i go to do my 24/96 wavs to cue/track out, i have to manually track what doesnt fit on the 24/96 cue since the 24/96 stuff is DOUBLE thye space the 24/48 stuff is
The post editing thing is one of the things that concerns me when I start using my SD722 (on Monday ;D)
I recorded at that rate/setting once using my PDaudio Core Sounds system and it was a right pain doing the post recording stuff.
Anyone got any tips on that topic? I think the only program that I could open the file in was CEP.
I assume that the down-sampling should be done after any EQing that you might want to do.
And what is the best way (and tools) to do this.
Duncan
-
Have any who can hear the difference done so in a double blind test yet?
I have not been a subject in a test myself but like another mentioned previously, I have played comparison recordings to people who claimed that I was wasting my time because they they weren't audiophiles so wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Every single time the subject picked out the 24-bit recorder and commented that they were amazed at the difference - especially on commercially released material. On my playback system the difference is striking. If you use an upsampling DAC, the difference might be less obvious.
-
All this makes me want to buy my R-09 *today* so I can split the signal @ PGroove to it and my MD for comparison.
-
I couple more questions about high res taping and computers: If you tape at 24/48 and want to dump it onto your computer to free up your flash card, do you need any special software in order for the computer to retain it at 24/48? I have an Apple Mac Mini (w/ a DVD-R burner) and Toast w/Jam6 - but that is only good for 16/44.1, correct?
Let's say that your computer has retained it at 24/48, and you want to play it back on your home stereo(not computer). I think what is required is special optical media - DVD-Audio disc's, for the computer to burn the audio on (does that require a special burner?), and a DVD-Audio player to playback the high res recording through a home stereo, correct? Any other options?
When recording at 24/48, how long is typical to stretch recording time, on a 4GB card? And exactly half if on a 2GB card?
What are the longest lasting brand of AA rechargeable batteries, specifically on a R-09? And how long do people push that envelope? Can you switch rechargeable batteries in a R-09 while recording in the middle of a 4GB card(if the card lasts longer than the batteries)? Thanks
Harold
-
I don't know I tend to believe Mr. Nyquist and his sampling theory.
I'm sure this has been hashed out before here and almost every audio forum . But I wonder who is right ?
Mr. Nyquist and his mathematical/scientific approach or our biased ears.I also would be interested in knowing
what type of "Pepsi" taste test was done.
I will continue my own research into this as this subject matter interests me greatly.
If anyone is interested in The Nyquist Sample Theory I have a copy in PDF format.
flame on and all that.
Phillip
The correct title of this PDF is "Sampling Theory for Digital Audio" its written by Dr. Dan Lavry of Larvy Engeering Inc. it does reference Mr Nyquist however.This probably has circulated in this forum already.
-
When recording at 24/48, how long is typical to stretch recording time, on a 4GB card? And exactly half if on a 2GB card?
this is a good reference:
http://24bit.turtleside.com/pcm.wav.file.sizes.pdf (http://24bit.turtleside.com/pcm.wav.file.sizes.pdf)
in summary, at 24/48, it's about a GB of space every hour. so ~4 hours of record time on a 4GB card.
-
I don't know I tend to believe Mr. Nyquist and his sampling theory.
I'm sure this has been hashed out before here and almost every audio forum . But I wonder who is right ?
Mr. Nyquist and his mathematical/scientific approach or our biased ears.I also would be interested in knowing
what type of "Pepsi" taste test was done.
I will continue my own research into this as this subject matter interests me greatly.
If anyone is interested in The Nyquist Sample Theory I have a copy in PDF format.
flame on and all that.
Phillip
dunno. it is logical that one should not be able to hear the difference between a wave form sampled @ frequencies that we cannot hear. however one can hear the difference between 16 and 24 without too much in playback investment. we only hear what we want to hear?
my guess is that there is benefit in that extra data that is not realted to tonal diffs, but 3d diffs -- that's what i hear anyway.
but never mind all that, it's still digital reproduction, which sucks azz by its very nature. bummer.
-
saving cue sheets is a PITA since if i track out my 16-bit first(what I always do since the cue sheet would be a complete one, then when i go to do my 24/96 wavs to cue/track out, i have to manually track what doesnt fit on the 24/96 cue since the 24/96 stuff is DOUBLE thye space the 24/48 stuff is
Maybe off topic but. Bean. Drop the 24bit files into cd wave, track, and then batch dither/resample w/ r8brain and you don't have to fuck with the que sheets. SB's still align perfectly using the trader's little helper. FWIW.
Also. My take is similar as above and pretty simple. I have the ability to record 4 channels in 24/96 so being the techno geek that I am....that is damn sure what I'm gonna do. Can I hear a difference. I "think" so....but my playback sucks.
I'll never go 16/44 again. Just on principle.
my 2 pennies
-
Thanks for answering my question regarding how long I can expect to record on different length SD cards. But I am still confused as to transfering and playing back high resolution recordings. I have an R-09, so I can do 24/48, and I have a Mac Mini computer with a DVD-R drive, and Toast w/Jam6, but I don't think that's much help for 24/48...
What do I need in order to transfer and playback recordings from my R-09 recorded @24/48, and played back at 24/48, but not on my R-09, and *through* my home stereo, not my computer speakers...I believe DVD-A can do 24/48, but aren't these usually just players, and not recorders too? If there are standalone DVD-A recorders that have optical digital inputs, is it just a matter of getting that type of deck and the optical digital cable to go from the R-09 into the DVD-A recorder? I'm guessing most people use the R-09's USB connection to their computer for this stuff though. What do I need to go that route? But you still need a DVD-A player, in order to play it back on your home stereo, correct? Thanks
-
You can burn DVDA or audio-DVD discs. There is a free tool suite that will author DVDAs but I believe that is written for PCs only. Look in the computer recording forum and you will find a lot of information. I would investigate the computer authoring options before considering the stand alone burner.
To play back 24-bit you can play out of your computer using a decent sound card line out or an SPDIF out to an external DAC or into an AV receiver. There is a bunch of related advice in the playback forum. If you have an SPDIF out and an AV receiver, that is probably the easiest solution. You can archive your shows on a NAS or USB drive and play them back directly without burning optical media.
-
I think you can def tell a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/48...but that is only my opinion. Everyone's ears are different.
If you can't hear over 20kHz why do measurement microphones (like the Earthworks M30) often go from 9Hz on the low end to 30Khz on the high end? Anybody know ?
FWIW I'm going to a 24bit 4 channel recorder as soon as the piggy bank recovers. I'm sure I'll get that same feeling as when I put the milspec silver wire on the speakers and realized what I was missing the whole time.
-
My personal tact is to record 24 bit at either 44.1 (using R-09) and at 88.2 (using Microtrack). The extra bits is useful information adding resolution over 16 bit (masters) when needing to amplify or normalize, and other post edit processes that the recording might need. 88.2 is exactly 2X 44.1 rate, so gives no (harmonic timing) quality issues when re-purposed down to 44.1 rate for making CD or other lower resolution formats.
Hearing the difference over 16 bit over 24 bit is not too hard for most, but 44.1 verses 88.2 is a tough call that depends on sound source recorded, the mics and how they were used, the playback gear, and a person's hearing ability.
I have headphones with 8-110,000 cycle bandwidth, but at 60 years of age, my ears have seen better days and hearing differences is fleeting in sometimes I am certain I do, then other times I cannot even when listening to the SAME source material.
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.
-
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....
-
So ... 24/44.1 vs 24/48? Any opinions?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
:P
-
So ... 24/44.1 vs 24/48? Any opinions?
24/48 for DVD-V.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
good point.
recently sharpened?
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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
-
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.
-
So why do we not record in analog?
Is it just because a digital recording is easy to get onto a PC for editing?
-
So why do we not record in analog?
Is it just because a digital recording is easy to get onto a PC for editing?
There are many reasons why. Number one reason is nobody wants to use tape anymore.. Number two reason Nobody wants to use tape anymore :) And yes Analog has to be transferred in real time.
-
So why do we not record in analog?
Is it just because a digital recording is easy to get onto a PC for editing?
steve albini put it best: "digital is fine for video games...." http://www.mtsu.edu/~nadam/downloads/Stevealbiniweb.html
but, this is a huge issue with lot of reasons why not. for me, i can't find any good blanks. mostly, we like our digi-toys and don't like schlepping all the extra stuff. giving the music out is easier with file dumping > computer. we're used to hearing the familiar *boom-tizz* of digital sound... so that's what we stay with. what else? i'm sure there are lotsa other reason/s.
-
the EASY way to track 24-bit audio while creating a 16/44 and/or ogg/mp3s as well
I am using a pdaudiocf+live2496, it creates wavs at 2gb and auto-splits to a new file (seamless).
You will need:
soundforge 6 or higher
latest version of cd wav
latest version of flac (1.2.0)
a computer with a good chunk of free space (20gb is nice)
say i have two files of a first set i recorded, that is 1-2 hours total, sci2007-07-27-001.wav and sci2007-07-27-002.wav
open them in soundforge, paste .002 onto the back of .001, trim ends of the sets, add fades.
save this file as sci2007-07-27s1t.w64
(note that is a w64 file, NOT a wav file!)
open the w64 with cdwav. track it. the files will automatically number themselves sci2007-07-27s1t01, 02, etc. I then rename them as sci2007-07-27s1t01-Track_name.wav
save these files with cdwav, md5 wavs, flac em with flac 1.2.0, tag using godfather (it parses the track names from the filenames , ffp, and finally md5 em. note that cdwav can write directly to flac, but its not using the latest version at this time, i'd recommend flac 1.2.0
save the cue sheet in cd wav, you'll use it later on the 16bit files
go back and open up the .w64 file in soundforge. resample to 44.1, bit depth convert to 16bit. save this file as sci2007-07-27d1t.wav. since you used 'save as' , you still have sci2007-07-27s1t.wav
(note that is a wav file, youre well under 2gb now)
open the wav with cdwav. load the cue sheet from your othertrack it. the files will automatically be numbered as before, sci2007-07-27s1t01-Track_name.wav, etc. Change all the 's's to d's, so you end up with sci2007-07-27d1t01-Track_name.wav. you will need to figure out your d2/d3 split and name accordingly.
save these files, godfather, flac, end of story.
that whole process takes less than an hour per show assuming you are resampling another set in the background while tracking in cdwav. while cdwav is writing files, its a great time to make your txt file bc the tacknames and times are right in front of you. you now have the whole show in flac in both 24/96 and 16/44 flacs, you can ditch your w64's. I like to keep the uncut w64's around until i get a chance to listen to the tracked show all the way thru. If you need to do any sort of editing/retracking/etc, its easier to go back to the uncut file, and since you saved your cue sheets, retracking is instant
I then use my flac transcoder script to make oggs/mp3s as required, since the flacs are properly tagged, its a single right-click and youre done. (http://www.simplefuels.com/tapergeek/flac-transcoder.htm).
results can be seen here:
http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=508666
I have yet to upload the 24/96 filesets of these