Topic: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz

[DSatz]

mosquito, taking you completely at your word that you hear a difference between 48 kHz and 96 kHz sampling, to me there are two big, unanswered questions.

One is: Do you have a sense of which recording is more accurate (i.e. within the range of frequencies that humans can hear, which recording has less difference from the signal that was fed into the recorder)? There's no reason to assume that a higher sampling rate necessarily gives a more accurate recording; all other things being equal, a higher sampling rate leaves less time for a converter to settle on an accurate value for each sample. So this can really fall out either way, or be a toss-up.

The other question, which is maybe more fundamental, is: How do you know that you're hearing the difference between two sampling rates and not just the difference between the way your particular recorder behaves at those sampling rates? Do you hear similar differences when you use other recorders? Are there any recorders with both sampling rates where you don't hear that difference, or where you hear "a different difference" so to speak?

--best regards

[mosquito]

DSatz, to be completely honest when I ran that test I did hear differences between several recordings.  *However* I wish I had read that Lavry paper before I'd posted that here because it gave me pause after I did read it and my previous post can sound like I think what I heard was necessarily better.  After I read the Lavry paper I remembered more of what happened.  (And somewhere in the intervening years I let myself gloss over what I thought was a personal limitation.)  My original intention was to state that I did hear a difference when I tested this, but didn't intend to imply what, in fact, I did hear.

I cannot say for sure what caused the differences I heard and I do have to say that I *liked* the 48 kHz recordings the best.  There was a marked difference from the 96 kHz recordings -- and I *thought* I could hear a similar but ever so slight difference between 96 and 192.  What I heard was a very quiet "brittle squeal" that started somewhere above 16 kHz and accompanied the lower-frequency recorded sounds.  Also, the higher rate recordings sounded "less crisp yet edgier", if that makes some sense.   I remember being disappointed... not just because the difference I heard was less pleasing but also because I was afraid that my supposed "better recordings" were not "making sense" to my ears.

For the specific questions:  ONE:  I don't know which was/were more accurate compared to the source.  I didn't compare the data files.  I wanted to know A) Could I hear a difference? and B) Did I like the difference?  Since my answers were "Yes" and "No", that was enough for me to begin choosing lower sample rates.  I didn't have the facility or resources to compare more 24-bit devices so I didn't investigate further.  OTHER: I don't know if I heard a difference between sample rates.  I did hear a difference between the playback of different recordings that used different sample rates and I wasn't speaking so precisely earlier in this thread.  Mea culpa if anyone feels as if I've misled them. 

For comparisons since then or now even, I haven't made any but would like to be able to and I might see if I can arrange something in the next few months.  If I can even hear this fine stuff now -- I *am* 45 and have been noticing changes to my eyesight, etc lately -- I suspect that I'll be able to hear differences again with the low-end recorders I'm used to using and may even be able to hear "different differences" but I think I won't hear the same sorts of things with some professional equipment I have access to right now because now, after reading the Lavry paper and letting some of the ideas in it stew, I believe what I heard from the recordings at higher sample rates were artifacts produced by my good, but ultimately lower-quality equipment, but I can't say if it was the PMD-671 or the FA-101.

--

FWIW, The recordings were made with my Marantz PMD-671 (no mods) and a pair of Rode NT5 mics.  It was running off of new batteries and recording 24 bit at 48, 96, and 192 kHz.  I recorded some ambient noise from inside my office building -- in the middle of the night, probably on a Saturday night with some sound treatment and nearby control over the HVAC -- and I recorded some music that was played back and I recorded a bit of guitar strumming.  I listened to the playback with an iMac using Soundtrack Pro and Sound Studio > Edirol FA-101 > M-Audio BX5a and Etymotic ER-4s.  I think I also compared with the iMac's built-in DSP, but it made everything nearly indistinguishable and by that time I would have been listening intently for a couple of hours and shouldn't trust any judgements from that.

[Chimney Top]

i've heard something about 88.2khz being an ideal sample rate b/c downsampling/converting is very bad for your recording.  Why 88.2kz?  b/c when you downsample to burn to CD (44.1khz) it is an exact equal share 88.2 and 44.1 - balanced.

[cd2go]

So assuming no SRC will take place, strictly for the sake of the master recording/posterity/etc., and while it may be overkill 99.9% of the time, can it hurt to record [specifically PA music] at 96kHz?

[runonce]

related thread

http://taperssection.com/index.php?topic=154021.0

[LikeASong]

I have a question which is slightly related to this topic:

Does recording in a higher bitrate and/or sampling rate consume the batteries faster? I have a Zoom Q3HD, but I suppose the battery-consumption pattern would be identical in most recorders.

Thanks.

[ilduclo]

not sure on the battery question, but I sure like 24/44.1 for recording

[cd2go]

Does recording in a higher bitrate and/or sampling rate consume the batteries faster?

I haven't tested to confirm but I'd put money on "yes", as it is writing more data at a faster rate to the card.

[aaronji]

^^^  In the PCM-M10 manual, there is a table giving some battery run-times at different bit depths and sampling rates.  Generally, battery life decreases as the others increase, but it is not entirely straightforward (at least for Sony's tests on the M10)...

[adrianf74]

Does recording in a higher bitrate and/or sampling rate consume the batteries faster?

I haven't tested to confirm but I'd put money on "yes", as it is writing more data at a faster rate to the card.

Yes, it does.  I did rip some vinyl last night and recorded at 96/24 for the heck of it -- battery life seemed to drop closer to twice as fast (i.e., with Enerloop batteries that normally give me about 8-10 hours at 48/24, it was cut closer to in half of that).

[Gutbucket]

Since it's been a few years since I last checked with different gear, I did a 24/28 - 24/94 recording comparison last night on a couple pieces of avantgarde classical material in a pristine acoustic.  Checking this afternoon on the big system and on my best phones (Mytek DAC>Senn HD650) I might hear a subtle difference, but can't really be sure.  Need to do some more listening and file analysis. They both sound really good.  Unfortunately it isn't something I can post. 

[adrianf74]

Since it's been a few years since I last checked with different gear, I did a 24/28 - 24/94 recording comparison last night on a couple pieces of avantgarde classical material in a pristine acoustic.  Checking this afternoon on the big system and on my best phones (Mytek DAC>Senn HD650) I might hear a subtle difference, but can't really be sure.  Need to do some more listening and file analysis. They both sound really good.  Unfortunately it isn't something I can post.

In all honesty, I think the "differences" will be quite minimal (if noticeable at all) but I figured since I had the room, and this was the last time I was transferring these records (especially after getting them cleaned on a VPI 16.5), I might as well do it right.

[LikeASong]

Thanks to all who answered to my battery-related question
I think I will stop recording at 96kHz (keeping the 24-bit setting). From what I've read -here and in other places- it really makes not much sense recording in 96kHz when there's a million steps (poor PAs, poor cables, poor connections, poor recorder, poor transfer, poor final-listening device or conditions...too many possible failures) that can ruin the extra bit of quality. And reocrding in a lower sample rate allows for more storage and less battery consumption. So... Bye bye 96kHz

[adrianf74]

Thanks to all who answered to my battery-related question
I think I will stop recording at 96kHz (keeping the 24-bit setting). From what I've read -here and in other places- it really makes not much sense recording in 96kHz when there's a million steps (poor PAs, poor cables, poor connections, poor recorder, poor transfer, poor final-listening device or conditions...too many possible failures) that can ruin the extra bit of quality. And reocrding in a lower sample rate allows for more storage and less battery consumption. So... Bye bye 96kHz

I think somebody mentioned that _if_ you were in a good studio setting where you could control things, 96/24 might make sense.  I know when I recently transferred my vinyl collection, I couldn't really hear _THAT MUCH_ of a difference between 96/24 and 48/24.  I just wasted the bandwidth and space because I could.  Last night I ran a show where I had board access and just kept everything at 48/24 - there seems to be little benefit going above that (especially with the equipment many of us run).

[TimeBandit]

Since it's been a few years since I last checked with different gear, I did a 24/28 - 24/94 recording comparison last night on a couple pieces of avantgarde classical material in a pristine acoustic.  Checking this afternoon on the big system and on my best phones (Mytek DAC>Senn HD650) I might hear a subtle difference, but can't really be sure.  Need to do some more listening and file analysis. They both sound really good.  Unfortunately it isn't something I can post.

This is something of "cheating yourself" i think. Such comparison makes sense when you sit under your phones and another person chooses the samples and you don'T know if a 96 kHZ file is running to your ears or not. I bet you will hear no difference under that scheme...