Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Recording Gear => Topic started by: vegeta_ban on February 16, 2014, 01:42:20 PM
-
I was running with the extra two inputs, 5 channels total. Upon startup with a 32 gb card it would not load until i removed the card and started the device. It worked the night before when i was running 48/24 but when i was running 192/24 it froze.
-
My recommendation would be to stop recording at 192 kHz. It's a waste of space and will provide no tangible improvement in sound quality. There is a prevalent theory that most ADC chips actually sound worse at 192 kHz vs. 96 kHz or lower, but it's really not worth debating here. There's no beneficial reason to record this high, period.
You have some very nice recorders in your signature. Why use a Zoom? :'(
-
its a backup, i will only record on it at 24/48 now. My main gear is telefunkend ela m 260 field kit>Sd722.
-
Ran a total of 7 mics last night, i like the backup to be small since i stream and would die trying to carry bigger stuff :P
-
ok, ok ok... I'll give you the +t for running 7 mics. That's impressive! ;D
Any sample rate from 44 - 96 is fine. I personally stick to 48, but if you want to do 96 or 88.2 that's ok too. Just test to make sure you aren't locking up at those higher sample rates as well.
-
cool, i will start just doing the 96/24 lol
-
Also got room for one more lol
-
Actually, I would say always use the highest available sampling rate, providing your ADC is capable and your recorder and memory card can cope with the data onslaught (which yours seemingly can't). The benefit of a higher sampling rate is primarily enhanced detail, particularly stereo width and more obviously, depth. Hijack over.
-
Actually, I would say always use the highest available sampling rate, providing your ADC is capable and your recorder and memory card can cope with the data onslaught (which yours seemingly can't). The benefit of a higher sampling rate is primarily enhanced detail, particularly stereo width and more obviously, depth. Hijack over.
"Stereo width and depth?" I'm don't buy that use of jargon, at all. Please help me understand how stereo width and depth, which is a function of mcirophone angle and spacing in a mutli-channel recording setup, can be improved by sampling rate, which is a function of bandwidth and frequency spectrum. If I record a mono channel in 192, does it magically become stereo?
-
Actually, I would say always use the highest available sampling rate, providing your ADC is capable and your recorder and memory card can cope with the data onslaught (which yours seemingly can't). The benefit of a higher sampling rate is primarily enhanced detail, particularly stereo width and more obviously, depth. Hijack over.
"Stereo width and depth?" I don't buy that use of jargon, at all. Please help me understand how stereo width and depth, which is a function of mcirophone angle and spacing in a mutli-channel recording setup, can be improved by sampling rate, which is a function of bandwidth and frequency spectrum. If I record a mono channel in 192, does it magically become stereo?
Nyquist would have something to say about that... As long as you're not doing recordings for bats or dogs, and you're recording in PCM, then there isn't a reason to recorder higher than a 48khz sampling rate.
-
Nyquist would have something to say about the "enhanced detail" too (assuming the bandwidth is limited)...
-
Nyquist would have something to say about the "enhanced detail" too (assuming the bandwidth is limited)...
Yeah, especially.
That's not to say there aren't reasons for having higher sample rates, but recording for human audiences isn't one of them. Sound effects generation (where you slow down things like bat squeaks) is one such, and plugin/digital processing where you are trying to spread out the aliasing effect of processing over a much larger area is another.
-
That's not to say there aren't reasons for having higher sample rates, but recording for human audiences isn't one of them. Sound effects generation (where you slow down things like bat squeaks) is one such, and plugin/digital processing where you are trying to spread out the aliasing effect of processing over a much larger area is another.
I seem to recall that the esteemed Mr. Stoppable, in one of the earlier sampling rate discussions, mentioned that up-sampling/processing/down-sampling would also accomplish this.
-
That's not to say there aren't reasons for having higher sample rates, but recording for human audiences isn't one of them. Sound effects generation (where you slow down things like bat squeaks) is one such, and plugin/digital processing where you are trying to spread out the aliasing effect of processing over a much larger area is another.
I seem to recall that the esteemed Mr. Stoppable, in one of the earlier sampling rate discussions, mentioned that up-sampling/processing/down-sampling would also accomplish this.
It does (thats what I do actually as I record at 44.1). Note, I said "having higher sample rates" not "recording at higher sample rates." ;D
-
Actually, I would say always use the highest available sampling rate, providing your ADC is capable and your recorder and memory card can cope with the data onslaught (which yours seemingly can't). The benefit of a higher sampling rate is primarily enhanced detail, particularly stereo width and more obviously, depth. Hijack over.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention improved transient response as well. Silly me.
-
I was running with the extra two inputs, 5 channels total. Upon startup with a 32 gb card it would not load until i removed the card and started the device. It worked the night before when i was running 48/24 but when i was running 192/24 it froze.
Doesn't this instantly cause you to question the SD card performance?
Fran
-
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention improved transient response as well. Silly me.
Nyquist'd have something to say about that too...
That's not to say there aren't reasons for having higher sample rates, but recording for human audiences isn't one of them. Sound effects generation (where you slow down things like bat squeaks) is one such, and plugin/digital processing where you are trying to spread out the aliasing effect of processing over a much larger area is another.
I seem to recall that the esteemed Mr. Stoppable, in one of the earlier sampling rate discussions, mentioned that up-sampling/processing/down-sampling would also accomplish this.
It does (thats what I do actually as I record at 44.1). Note, I said "having higher sample rates" not "recording at higher sample rates." ;D
I kind of figured that from some of your previous posts, but thought I'd mention it anyway. It's kind of counter-intuitive (to me at least), and I'd imagine it is more so for the 192 kHz believers.
-
I was running with the extra two inputs, 5 channels total. Upon startup with a 32 gb card it would not load until i removed the card and started the device. It worked the night before when i was running 48/24 but when i was running 192/24 it froze.
What class SD card?
Try class 10 with UHS-1 that will have 400x or 600x; lots more bandwidth for all the data you are trying to write at once to the disk.
Sandisk Extreme Pro
Lexar Professional
-
plus, always best to test, test, test, test in a controlled environment before venturing out into the real world. I'd be sure to thoroughly test how the system works at 24/96 before assuming that it will reliably operate at that sample rate/bit depth
-
Being a backup, I test it in the field because my SD 722 has yet to fail me.
-
I have yet to have any problems recording at 24/96 with my H6, as that has been the only Bit and SR I have run with the H6. I am using both Monster 32 and 64 gig SDHC C10 cards. I also run the optional backup through the H6 at times while recording at certain venues and or bands. No issues at all...knock on wood!