Topic: 96kHz recording with JB3

[BJ]

What would it take to record @ 24bit with a jb3?

Can't be done.

what is the reason for this...is it firmware that wont allow it?  or is it a hardware issue??

[mirth]

I thought that sample rate has nothing to do with the frequency response of your mics... Meaning, it can be compared to frame rate when making a video - higher frame rates mean that more data is 'captured'.

this has me cornfuzed...

in your analogy, the frame rate would be comparable to bit-rate in audio, not sample size

Thought bit rate is the amount of data captured and sample size is how many times per second its captured.... I know that higher can be considered 'better' but I'm still not clear on all of this. I thought I was, but apparently not.

[nic]

Thought bit rate is the amount of data captured and sample size is how many times per second its captured....

this is correct.

continuing with the video analogy, think of audio samples as the screen size.
an example(my video knowledge is sorely lacking in details):
(video)24FPS@640x480 == 16/44.1(audio)
(video)29FPS@1024x768 == 24/96(audio)

[mmmatt]

Thought bit rate is the amount of data captured and sample size is how many times per second its captured....

this is correct.

continuing with the video analogy, think of audio samples as the screen size.
an example(my video knowledge is sorely lacking in details):
(video)24FPS@640x480 == 16/44.1(audio)
(video)29FPS@1024x768 == 24/96(audio)

So is 16/48 the same as 800x600 or 640x480 with less screen flicker?   (Needless to say, I'm still lost)
Matt

[nic]

Thought bit rate is the amount of data captured and sample size is how many times per second its captured....

this is correct.

continuing with the video analogy, think of audio samples as the screen size.
an example(my video knowledge is sorely lacking in details):
(video)24FPS@640x480 == 16/44.1(audio)
(video)29FPS@1024x768 == 24/96(audio)

So is 16/48 the same as 800x600 or 640x480 with less screen flicker?   (Needless to say, I'm still lost)
Matt

staying with the analogy, I would say that 24FPS@800x600 == 16/48
remember, this is just an expression, the really do not correlate at all

[mirth]

how would a faster sample rate then allow for higher frequencies to be captured? wouldn't that be more the domain of increased bit depth and the larger dynamic range it provides?

or is it because you're taking more samples per second that the possibilities exist for capturing fleeting high frequencies?

[BC]

how would a faster sample rate then allow for higher frequencies to be captured? wouldn't that be more the domain of increased bit depth and the larger dynamic range it provides?

As Bri posted earlier, the Nyquist theorem of digital recording says that the highest freq we can record is 1/2 of the sample rate.   So at 48KHz the highest freq we can record is 24KHz.

Just to remember. in digital recording

bit depth => dynamic range (theoretical of 6dB/bit)
sampling freq => frequency response. (Nyquist)

or is it because you're taking more samples per second that the possibilities exist for capturing fleeting high frequencies?

basically, yep!

[mirth]

eeeeeeeeinteresting... Thanks Ben

[jk labs]

how would a faster sample rate then allow for higher frequencies to be captured? wouldn't that be more the domain of increased bit depth and the larger dynamic range it provides?

or is it because you're taking more samples per second that the possibilities exist for capturing fleeting high frequencies?

Ever seen a video of a forward moving car with the wheels spinning backwards?

Think of it this way. You have a nice clean 48 kHz sinusoidal coming towards you with tops and crests. Like waves in the ocean. 
And you have a 48 kHz sampler. The sampler takes snapshots (16 or 24 bit) of the wave and hits say the top every time.
The sampler sees no wave. It outputs DC!

To see the 48 kHz you have to sample fast enough to see the crest in between. If you increase the rate to 49 kHz you see a slowly varying wave. At 95 kHz you see a fast varying wave.  And finally, at 96 kHz (and over), you see the full 48 kHz.

[mirth]

+t, I get it now.

Thanks Jon (that's the J in JK, right?)

[Ed.]

this thread just made my head hurt a bit.

[creekfreak]

this thread just made my head hurt a bit.

I was thinking the same thing

[mmmatt]

this thread just made my head hurt a bit.

I was thinking the same thing

yeah... ouch

[mirth]

Mine too, but at least now I have a better understanding why folks want to record at 96Khz & beyond.

[dklein]

Once your heads stop hurting...take that example (sample rate=96k, wheel spinning at 48k) and contemplate what you would see if the wheel sped up to 49 kHz.

It would appear to move slowly, an illusion known as aliasing!  On playback we would be creating something that wasn't there - a by product of our sampling rate.  This is the reason for 'brickwall' filters that don't let any frequencies beyond 1/2 the sampling rate into the ADC - to avoid aliasing.