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

[Duncan]

I assume you mean 24/96, and not 48/96.

Yes indeed I do

Cheers

Duncan

[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

[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 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  )
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

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

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.

[evilchris]

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.

[taosmay]

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

[FiKe]

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.

[JasonSobel]

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

in summary, at 24/48, it's about a GB of space every hour.  so ~4 hours of record time on a 4GB card.

[db]

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.

[KLowe]

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

[taosmay]

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

[Lil Kim Jong-Il]

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.

[goodcooker]

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.

[guysonic]

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. 

[Todd R]

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....