Topic: 96Khz on the old R09?...Yes

[xweirdo]

Hi, i've managed to change the samplerate to 96khz 24bit in my R09. It appears to record at this new samplerate and when the info on the recorded file is viewed it shows as a 96khz. However the R09 won't playback the file. The file can be played back when copied to my PC tho.
Anybody else been fiddling with the debug menus?
[EDIT] i can also change the amount of reverb send/return amount and more parameters even the eq type 
[EDIT #2] Ok it plays back at the new samplerate (more settings found)..It will hang if i goto the record menu and change the bit-rate/samplerate there. But if i change it in the debug menu and leave it i have stability. Noticed that the file sizes are alot bigger ( ) so apart from doing A-B tests looks like i've got a 24/96 recorder. I await your comments.

Pat

[udovdh]

I think we need more details so we can perform these steps as well and do some measurements on the recorded files.
Please explain what/how/etc.

[xweirdo]

Disclaimer etc 
Ok, i'm using the latest firmware. Full Batteries.
Power off-Hold the repeat and finder buttons-Power on
'Test mode' is shown in bottom corner of screen, then it shows the version numbers.
Press the finder and reverb buttons (same time). New screen appears. Scroll down to 'debug menu' and select it (Rec button)
Select the 'parameter' option New screen appears showing 1 of 5 pages. Change your samplerate- change your bitrate.
Press finder button to return. And again to the 'startup menu'.
Select 'start' and press the 'Rec' button.
Now record something. And checkout the file info. Also have a look in the 'Recorder Setup' and you'll see your new samplerate and bitrate.
I'll let people with more spare time have a mess around with file comparisons.

Pat
Apologies if this is old news, but i've searched n searched and believe i've found summat new

[fmaderjr]

You're wasting your time even if the R-09 is capable of this unless you are using it with a good external preamp. As guysonic writes on his site:
"Additional good news is both mic/line R-09 inputs have tested adequately quiet and of sufficient bandwidth for at least 16bit podcasting, interview, and amplified venue recording requirements using high output electret or phantom powered external mics. However, clear audible improvement of audio quality/lower noise acoustic 24 bit depth recording is mostly only practical using LINE level input with a mic preamplifier".

[udovdh]

You're wasting your time even if the R-09 is capable of this unless you are using it with a good external preamp. As guysonic writes on his site:
"Additional good news is both mic/line R-09 inputs have tested adequately quiet and of sufficient bandwidth for at least 16bit podcasting, interview, and amplified venue recording requirements using high output electret or phantom powered external mics. However, clear audible improvement of audio quality/lower noise acoustic 24 bit depth recording is mostly only practical using LINE level input with a mic preamplifier".

Thanks, but
Who needs a pre-amp? (I go mics -> BB -> line-in)
Who said we aren't using one? (other people might have one)
S/N performance on R09 is roughly same as on R09-HR.
We were discussing an increase in samplerate, not in S/N ratio.

Now can we find out if the 96 Khz is stable (no dropped samples, etc), and of reasonable audio performance? S/N, frequency response, linearity, etc?
Maybe Guysonic can investigate?

[M]

So, I followed the process and recorded a file and it is still 48kHz.  I did see 88.2kHz in the menu as well but as I already said I can't make it stick.

V1.31

Edit - I got it to stick and the rec time shrunk in half.  The file I recorded will not open and doesn't say the stats in properties. The recorder freezes once I go to the "normal" frequency menu after changing it in the debug menu to 96kHz.

In "File Information" on the r09
date:0000
size:0byte
type:wav-01bit
sample rate:05.2kHz
write protect: off

[xweirdo]

Hello again.
Here's a pic of a file i've just recorded (ignore the date)
Mine froze to (batts out job) i did a factory reset and tried again. So far (3/4 days) its been 100% stable on the 16/44.1  24/96 settings and i'm able to playback the selected files on the r09 no probs
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m174/howlingterror_2006/IMG_0032.jpg

and

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m174/howlingterror_2006/screenshot.jpg

Pat

[xweirdo]

Would of thought they'd be more questions by now...[shrug]
Right O try this. (Disclaimer...i knoiw what you americans be like    )
Factory Reset-switch off

Follow original instructions until you get to page 1 of 5
Change the sample rate and bitrate to 24/96.
On page 4 of 5 scroll to the bottom and change the cheekily entitled 'Use High Rate' to ON
On page 5 scroll down and change the samplerate and bitrate here aswell (like you did on page 1)
Press 'finder' button to return. And again to the 'startup menu'.
Select 'start' and press the 'Rec' button.
Switch off
Turn on and record.
This afternoon i managed to get the R09 to hang when playing back a mixture of sample and bitrates. But like most people i just choose my format and stick with it for that session. I choose 24/96 and thats what it records and plays back at no probs

Another nice feature is the ability to have 1 touch recording. Handy for me as i use my R09 to collect samples on my day to day travels. I've also changed the amount of time the peak meter holds for from 1sec>2 secs. And i've altered the contrast...Ooo stop me 

Pat

[M]

I appreciate your effort.  I'll play around a little more and see what I can get it to do.

Is v1.31 the most recent firmware that you are using?

Michael

[xweirdo]

Firmware v 1.31
This info shown when booted into test mode (Rpt & Finder + power button)
Program v 1.31
Boot v 1.10
Updt v 1.10
Build 0033 2008/04/16 11:12

R09 serial # FV53317

Pat

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Another nice feature is the ability to have 1 touch recording.

There is a lot to be said for that.  It seems like it would be simple to press record TWICE and verify that the elapsed recording time is increasing..... But under some circumstances (sunlight making the display very hard to see, time pressure, stress, or whatever), that doesn't go as expected... As a result, I have had non-captures due to that design feature..  Very frustrating to find that the recorder was paused and the hold was on....

Thanks for documenting this and sharing your efforts!

The 96khz ability is very interesting and deserves more testing and investigation.. One basic test would be frequency response - how much does it increase at 96khz vs. 48khz.

And of course the big question is subjective... how does the 96khz sound?  We've had some comps here where most folks liked v3 > r09 over the v3's internal a/d.   That outcome really surprised me (and I made the recordings)... I would have thought the internal a/d would have ruled.  That the r09, connected by an unbalanced cable, was preferred (in multiple tests) was shocking....  So that outcome makes me question assumptions, and whether the 96khz actually sounds better. I wouldn't assume it does.

Unfortunately, I'm traveling and not in a good situation to do any testing.

[DSatz]

Freelunch, just let me suggest that the main sonic advantage that could be gained from a higher-than-minimal sampling rate (since 44.1 kHz is nearly the minimum rate possible for recording up to 20 kHz) is not that it extends the high frequency response beyond what humans can hear, but that the handling of signals between 20 Hz and 20 kHz might be improved.

Some people imagine that there are "more dots" at higher sampling rates, and therefore the sound wave is more accurately described; that whole concept is fundamentally mistaken. But the low-pass filtering which is required prior to (or as a part of) quantization can be simpler when the incoming signals already have no significant energy at or above 1/2 the sampling rate. And that can readily be the case when the sampling rate is higher than the minimum.

If I test a 96 kHz digital recorder and find that this opportunity to improve its audible fidelity has been wasted on extending its bandwidth far beyond 20 kHz (which is not audible), I am rather disappointed. But since most modern audio equipment manufacturers are dominated by their marketing and sales departments, unfortunately I think that it will be hard to find a 96 kHz recorder that is optimally designed for sound quality rather than for the specification sheet.

--best regards

[M]

The way I understand it is the advantage to recording at the higher sample rates is less quantization errors.

The more gradual and higher starting of the roll off of high frequencies means that frequencies just above what we can hear are left as is.  But if the there is a sharp high frequency roll off (ie 44.1kHz) then frequencies just above the 22.kHz could be misrepresented as frequencies that are actually lower and we can hear the misrepresentations.

[audBall]

The way I understand it is the advantage to recording at the higher sample rates is less quantization errors.

The more gradual and higher starting of the roll off of high frequencies means that frequencies just above what we can hear are left as is.  But if the there is a sharp high frequency roll off (ie 44.1kHz) then frequencies just above the 22.kHz could be misrepresented as frequencies that are actually lower and we can hear the misrepresentations.

I think you may be confusing sample rate with sonic perception.  The sample rate (44.1, 48, 96, etc..) is merely the number of digital samples (per second), not a high frequency roll-off. 

[M]

I know the difference.  They both exist together.

edit- maybe I could be a little more clear. 

The high frequencies are rolled off before they hit the quantizer to reduce quantization errors.
If this roll off starts off in an inaudible range then it is less likely to have audible quantization errors. 

If I got to pick where to start the roll off I would pick 60kHz and have no information available at 96kHz to be misinterpreted when encoded.
It may seem like a bit of a waste of bandwidth but I think it is good insurance knowing all of your encoded information is accurate.