Topic: Microtrack: 24/96 over S/PDIF

[Jhurlbs81]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

[JasonSobel]

there is more reason to record at 96kHz than just being able to capture higher frequencies.  our hearing can detect very small differences in time that a music "event" happens, we can hear smaller than 1/48000th of a second between acoustical "events".  by recording at 96kHz, we are more precisely able to define *when* something happens, like a drum beat or whatever.  being able to record exactly when something occurs, it creates a better and more realistic soundstage.

I agree that there is a point of diminishing returns, and I'd question whether or not recording at 192kHz is worth it (which, of course, is a moot point when talking about the MicroTrack anyway).  but I think 96kHz can be used to create better recordings when compared to 48kHz.

[poorlyconditioned]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

I'm with you!  Unless you're doing ultrasound, no need to go over 48k!

The only reason I would consider 96k is if I wanted to multiplex two 44/48k streams onto a single signal. Ie., to get four tracks recorded on inexpensive "consumer" gear.  Wasn't Len at CoreSound talking about a four input preamp/ADC with one 96k SPDIF/optical output?

  Richard

[Chanher]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

I'm with you!  Unless you're doing ultrasound, no need to go over 48k!

The only reason I would consider 96k is if I wanted to multiplex two 44/48k streams onto a single signal. Ie., to get four tracks recorded on inexpensive "consumer" gear.  Wasn't Len at CoreSound talking about a four input preamp/ADC with one 96k SPDIF/optical output?

  Richard

yes. I emailed him, and he claims that if you have a recorder that can reliably record stereo 24/96 via s/pdif, then you can record four unmixed channels (or two stereo channels) with his new preamp via "multi-plexing". shit, if len comes through with this, I'll test it out...

[it-goes-to-eleven]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

So what happens when a 30khz sound collides with a 31khz sound?

[eric.B]

I am a somewhat new 24 bit listener on modest gear and I can hear a difference between 16 and 24/48... and Im liking it.. 
 I would agree with this as to the reason for what I hear...   
snip

our hearing can detect very small differences in time that a music "event" happens, we can hear smaller than 1/48000th of a second between acoustical "events".  by recording at 96kHz, we are more precisely able to define *when* something happens, like a drum beat or whatever.  being able to record exactly when something occurs, it creates a better and more realistic soundstage.

unsnip   jsobel

as 24/96 becomes cheaper and cheaper to playback(its allready *cheap* in terms of audiophilia), I see no reason not to be using it exclusively in the next five years for most..

[poorlyconditioned]

  I wouldn't record at 96 even if it was fesible with the MT.  48k is more than sufficent to capture the full audio spectrum.   Am I on my own here people?

So what happens when a 30khz sound collides with a 31khz sound?

What do you mean "collides"?  If you mean two are produced by a single (linear) source, they add (superposition) and you just have a 30k and a 31k and you hear nothing.

If you mean something nonlinear happens, then you may generate lower frequency 'beating' as well, eg.,, based on the difference in the two tones.  In that case, you hear the low frequency part.

That's all!

  Richard

[Jhurlbs81]

and if you dont like 96kHz, dont use it. personally i would rather use it when possible.

boogie

I humbly retract my post from last night.  I get antagonistic when I have a few.  apparently there is more to this debate than I had realized.  So you feel the difference is worth a file twice the size?  Is hould probably do an A-B listen before I open my mouth.


Jesse

[JasonSobel]

and if you dont like 96kHz, dont use it. personally i would rather use it when possible.

boogie

I humbly retract my post from last night.  I get antagonistic when I have a few.  apparently there is more to this debate than I had realized.  So you feel the difference is worth a file twice the size?  Is hould probably do an A-B listen before I open my mouth.

Jesse

well, to decide whether or not it's worth it, that's entirely up to each individually.  I think the jump from 16 bit to 24 bit makes a much bigger difference than the jump from 48kHz to 96kHz sampling rate.  I originally started this thread to note that the MicroTrack could now, indeed, record at 24/96 via the digital input.  However, in the first post, I stated two reasons why it was not worth it for me, at the moment.  Right now, it's not worth it because 8gig CF cards are still very expensive, and it is too much of a problem because the MicroTrack has not implemented an autosplit feature.  BUT, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to record at 24/96.

In the future, prices on larger CF cards will drop.  that's a given.  it'll happen, just a matter of time.  when 8 gig CF cards are reasonably priced, than it will be worth it to record at 24/96.  (assuming they've implemented an auto-split feature by that time).

That's a comparison as to whether it's worth it in terms of cost.  is the difference worth a file twice as big?  DVD storage is cheap, that's not really an issue for me.  the issue for me is storage on a CF card.  right now, it's not worth it.  my 4GB card can only hold 2 hours at 24/96.  not enough.  but as larger storage cards drop in price, than the file size issue will be a no big deal...

[cmoorevt]

Right now, it's not worth it because 8gig CF cards are still very expensive, and it is too much of a problem because the MicroTrack has not implemented an autosplit feature.  BUT, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to record at 24/96.

I submitted a Technical Support Incident to M-Audio about the need for a 2GB auto-split feature and their response was some generic "Thanks for the idea.  We're always looking for ways to improve our products", so I wouldn't hold my breath. 

They did however, acknowledge that monitoring via the headphone and rca outs when using the spdif input would be part of an upcoming firmware upgrade.  Of course no mention of when that firmware upgrade would be arriving.....