Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued
that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? It's an open question. Reputable people can hear differences. There are no ... *essential* information-theoretic reasons for it. 24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits headroom. -- Les Cargill |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"James T" wrote in message ... I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? I think there is. This is my vote, not a statement of fact. Bob Morein (310) 237-6511 |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? Try it for yourself and see. I don't think it has any merit, and in fact it may have some degradation if you wind up carrying along out-of-band material that winds up causing audble distortion products. But try it yourself and see. Record at 24/96 then downsample to 44.1, then upsample to 96. Can you tell the difference between the 44.1 and the 96 ksamp/sec audio? Some converters sound a lot better at 44.1 than 96, other converters sound better at 96 than 44.1, but the beauty of the modern era is that you can run the converter at whatever sample rate it sounds good at and then resample to whatever rate you want to store it at. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD
sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"James T" wrote in message
... I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? The problem is that the difference is so slight that it becomes subjective. Some people will hear a difference, some of the time, but most will not. Higher bit rates have a real benefit, but for me higher sample rates do not. I have so many other factors that audibly compromise my recordings, sample rate is the least of my concerns. Sean |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:54:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. I can understand that ('records everything that's audible") purely with regard to capturing waveform -bandwidth- within predefined span of human hearing (20-20k, which is very optimistic). Nyquist/Shannon covers sample rates. But has bit depth been thoroughly explored? Also wondering how transient and positional info relate to the sample rate question. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
I can understand that ('records everything that's audible") purely with regard to capturing waveform -bandwidth- within predefined span of human hearing (20-20k, which is very optimistic). Nyquist/Shannon covers sample rates. But has bit depth been thoroughly explored? Yes, in the early 1950s. Bit depth covers dynamic range. Also wondering how transient and positional info relate to the sample rate question. In the same way that they relate to frequency response. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:10:38 -0400, James T
wrote: Thanks to all who have commened! And also to those who have err.... "Commented" |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T writes:
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? James, I would not say "there is no merit whatsoever in the extra range," but I do think the extra cost to convert to such a medium would far, far outweigh any advantages. Consider this thought experiment: A keyboardist uses his 24-bit Korg SuperHighHD-1024 synth and a two-track digital recorder to record two tracks at 24 bits perfectly. During the first minute of his composition, the average power output is -60 dBFS, then the finale crescendos to an average of -20 dBFS with peaks near full-scale. Now convert that to 16-bit using your favorite noise-shaping algorithm, and play it back using ear buds in a quiet room such that an ambient level 30 dBA is achieved with the ear buds in. Set levels so that the recording's -60 dBFS section comes in at 60 dBA over the ear bugs. The full-scale finale would then translate to around 100 dBA SPL average with peaks around 120 dBA - loud but within reason. With ambient noise 10 dB quieter than the quantization noise, I think many folks would be able to hear the quantization noise in the initial quiet passage. So, yeah, in those near-laboratory conditions and this very strange composition, 24 bits would give an advantage, I believe. Otherwise, in the vast, vast majority of practical scenarios, I believe there are very very very few people who could tell the difference. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On 6/16/2012 2:42 PM, James T wrote:
I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. Just what is it that you understand about this? Why do you think that internal math can lose bits in a multitrack recording? Can you explain? But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? Of course there's some merit, but most people don't care or don't have the reproduction facilities to gain what might be a small advantage. However, it allows people who don't understand good engineering principles or software design to be sloppier and still get acceptable results. And it sells more storage space media. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On 6/16/2012 3:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Try it for yourself and see. Just because he can't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. To some, the issue is that if it's theoretically better, if there's the slightest possibility that someone might be able to detect an improvement, now or in the future, than it's worth doing. But I'm with you - good 44.1 kHz 16-bit recordings sound just fine, and bad recordings won't be improved by jacking up the sample rate or storing more bits. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On 6/16/2012 5:10 PM, James T wrote:
I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means than my own. There have been demonstrations and presumably well conducted tests that prove both ways. It all boils down to human hearing, and humans all hear differently. And equally important, all perceive the same thing differently. Why do you care? If you have a client that requests a high resolution recording, by all means, don't argue with him. But if you're recording for your own amusement, I'd spend some time auditioning a few different A/D and D/A converters at 44.1 kHz and pick the ones you like best. I've seen the (AES-published?) blindfold tests that introduced an A/D and D/A into a loop with a presumably high quality source. I thought that should be a reasonable baseline, but of course such a test is not necessarily a good basis for judging whether the 16-44.1 conversion -can- be perceived--just whether a statistically significant number of the test subjects were able to perceive it. Several years ago my friendly local dealer set up a demonstration. He set up a singer/guitarist with a high quality stereo mic setup (Senheisser MKH-800s, I recall, one of the first honest mics that demonstrated usable response up to 40 kHz ("the one to use if you're going to record at 2x sample rate). He split the preamp output three ways using a high grade Coleman switch box. One path was direct from the preamp to the powered speakers (these were PMC, pretty high grade stuff, too), one was through a pair of Lavry Blue converters back to back running at 44.1 kHz, the other was through another pair of the same converters running at 96 kHz. I believe both were using 24-bit resolution, or at least both were the same. All three sounded different. I, and most of the listeners, had a preference for the straight-through path, some preferred the 44.1 kHz path, some preferred the 96 kHz path, but nobody would have always picked one sample rate over the other every time. These were pro engineers, which doesn't necessarily make them any more qualified than anyone else, but they were probably more accustomed to listening for small differences. Also wondering how transient and positional info relate, since as far as I know, the relevant refs to Nyquist cover capture of static waveform data. I haven't seen much tech info on auditory positional cues and such. Nor do I know if the tests above used source material that would be likely to expose deficiencies there. I think I read something about positional cues, but mostly it was about why sample rate doesn't improve it. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
On 16 Jun 2012 15:40:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: James T wrote: I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? Try it for yourself and see. I may do that eventually, but I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means than my own. Given the range of convertors, acoustical environments, source material, and variation in sensitivity to different artifacts among individual listeners, Scott's suggesstion goes right to the core of the matter. Some convertors perform better at one or another sample rate, and it goes on from there. So the relevant question is, what works best for you in the context of the available parameters? For me with the specific interface I've been using, a Metric Halo 2882+DSP, recently upgraded with the new 2d card, 24/96 has become the default setting. That doesn't mean you should make the same decision. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/16/2012 3:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Try it for yourself and see. Just because he can't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. To some, the issue is that if it's theoretically better, if there's the slightest possibility that someone might be able to detect an improvement, now or in the future, than it's worth doing. But I'm with you - good 44.1 kHz 16-bit recordings sound just fine, and bad recordings won't be improved by jacking up the sample rate or storing more bits. Both of you are troublemakers! g -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Randy Yates wrote:
James T writes: I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? James, I would not say "there is no merit whatsoever in the extra range," but I do think the extra cost to convert to such a medium would far, far outweigh any advantages. I think that concern made more sense when storage space was much more expensive. Granted if one is working with large numbers of tracks it could still be a constraint. Now with drives costing a little as they do I no longer think twice about using higher rates. At this point with the landscape littered with AVID/Digi HD192's, Metric Halo ULN-8's, and so many similar;y spec'd convertor systems, there's a lot of 24/192 going down, even where track counts are many dozens. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? That's why internal application stuff is done in a 32 or 64-bit float. If everything stayed at 16 bits (or better 24) then bits would be being truncated all over the place. geoff |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
William Sommerwerck wrote:
To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. There is some suggestion that the difference is only in different mastering. geoff |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Sean Conolly wrote:
"James T" wrote in message Higher bit rates have a real benefit, but for me higher sample rates do not. I have so many other factors that audibly compromise my recordings, sample rate is the least of my concerns. Sample rate essentially *is* bit rate, in linear PCM, which is what we end up recording and playing back for the most part. Or did you mean "bit-depths" ? geoff |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
(hank alrich) writes:
Randy Yates wrote: James T writes: I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? James, I would not say "there is no merit whatsoever in the extra range," but I do think the extra cost to convert to such a medium would far, far outweigh any advantages. I think that concern made more sense when storage space was much more expensive. Granted if one is working with large numbers of tracks it could still be a constraint. Now with drives costing a little as they do I no longer think twice about using higher rates. At this point with the landscape littered with AVID/Digi HD192's, Metric Halo ULN-8's, and so many similar;y spec'd convertor systems, there's a lot of 24/192 going down, even where track counts are many dozens. Hi, I have no argument (and no experience either!) in the multitrack realm. I should have been more explicit in my post - my fault. When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? I certainly see the advantage in 24 bits during recording and mixing. 96 kHz - ummm, not really. At least not over 48 kHz. But my initial comment was just about the extra bits and under the assumption we were talking about a delivery medium. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
James T wrote:
I've read through some archived r.a.p. threads where it was argued that 16 bit/44.1k had an inaudible affect on music, at least as far as the cited test went. I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. But now I'm curious about the widespread 'understanding' that 24-96 is better. Is there no merit whatsoever in final mix? Through the years of emerging technology I have concluded that usually it is possible to store more information than current reproducers can recover. There's more in the groove of an old 'record' than we could play/hear with a sharpend nail hooked to a megaphone. Audiotape playback heads with ever-decreasing gap sizes have discovered forgotten content in early tapes. Videotape has demonstrated a similar evolution. Loudspeaker accuracy's evolution lags, but the ability for us to perceive the progress continues to improve. I think the concept continues to apply in the digital world. I tend to favor 24/96 tracking with the best upconverters, followed by mixing and mastering at 24/96 with downsampling to the delivery specs as needed. Somewhere down the road the new converters and loudspeakers will reveal things we can not appreciate right now. -- ~ Roy "If you notice the sound, it's wrong!" |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... 24 bit depth is good for tracking because of the additional 8 bits headroom. There's no converter ever made that will give 8 bits extra headroom, and never will be even with cryogenic cooling. Of course 3 or 4 bits can still be worthwhile. Trevor. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Roy W. Rising" wrote in message ... Through the years of emerging technology I have concluded that usually it is possible to store more information than current reproducers can recover. There's more in the groove of an old 'record' than we could play/hear with a sharpend nail hooked to a megaphone. Since it was originally recorded to a disk master with a "sharpened nail" as well, any extra "information" is likely to be just as innacurate. Audiotape playback heads with ever-decreasing gap sizes have discovered forgotten content in early tapes. Videotape has demonstrated a similar evolution. Loudspeaker accuracy's evolution lags, but the ability for us to perceive the progress continues to improve. Actually most peoples hearing continues to get *worse*. I think the concept continues to apply in the digital world. I tend to favor 24/96 tracking with the best upconverters, followed by mixing and mastering at 24/96 with downsampling to the delivery specs as needed. Somewhere down the road the new converters and loudspeakers will reveal things we can not appreciate right now. Perhaps, when bionic "ears" improve beyond current human hearing capabilities I guess. Trevor. |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. Simple to resample those Blu-Ray recordings to 16/44 to compare them properly. I can't hear a difference, and never met anyone who *claims* they can who could prove it. You may be the exception of course, but I wouldn't bet money on it. :-) Tracking at 24/96 is another matter of course. Trevor. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... From a standpoint of "what do I fix first", any 44.1/16 bit system is probably much better than any other element in the system. "Probably"? Well I guess some esoteric cables are better anyway :-) (yes it's a joke, even some power amps these days are as good, and all those are usually *far* better than human hearing.) Trevor. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"geoff" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. There is some suggestion that the difference is only in different mastering. And easily proved, since only a moron would compare two different releases, rather than simply resampling from the better one to eliminate that problem. No shortage of morons of course. :-( Trevor. |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"hank alrich" wrote in message ... At this point with the landscape littered with AVID/Digi HD192's, Metric Halo ULN-8's, and so many similar;y spec'd convertor systems, there's a lot of 24/192 going down, even where track counts are many dozens. I love 24/192 when making measurements, but have absolutely no use for it in recording music. Anyone who thinks they do is kidding themselves. But not much harm in having vast levels of overkill any more. Trevor. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? We already have Blu-Ray audio at higher bit rates than CD. They haven't "replaced" CD yet of course, because most people realise it is an answer to a problem they don't really have. Trevor. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:37:34 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote: Consider this thought experiment: A keyboardist uses his 24-bit Korg SuperHighHD-1024 synth and a two-track digital recorder to record two tracks at 24 bits perfectly. During the first minute of his composition, the average power output is -60 dBFS, then the finale crescendos to an average of -20 dBFS with peaks near full-scale. Now convert that to 16-bit using your favorite noise-shaping algorithm, and play it back using ear buds in a quiet room such that an ambient level 30 dBA is achieved with the ear buds in. Set levels so that the recording's -60 dBFS section comes in at 60 dBA over the ear bugs. The full-scale finale would then translate to around 100 dBA SPL average with peaks around 120 dBA - loud but within reason. With ambient noise 10 dB quieter than the quantization noise, I think many folks would be able to hear the quantization noise in the initial quiet passage. So, yeah, in those near-laboratory conditions and this very strange composition, 24 bits would give an advantage, I believe. Otherwise, in the vast, vast majority of practical scenarios, I believe there are very very very few people who could tell the difference. Thanks, Randy. A very thoughtful thought experiment. :-) |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... On 6/16/2012 2:42 PM, James T wrote: I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. Just what is it that you understand about this? Why do you think that internal math can lose bits in a multitrack recording? Can you explain? Well if you ever save rendered files at lower bit depths, and do further editing, you add more rounding errors. Perhaps that's what he meant? Of course one can actually record at lower bit depths and still save at higher rates before any non EDL editing too. Trevor. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
Trevor wrote:
"Randy Yates" wrote in message ... When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? We already have Blu-Ray audio .... and DVD for years with that capability. geoff |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:30:49 -0400, Randy Yates
wrote: When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? I was posing a theoretical question, so in practical terms, it does amount to "If you picked humans in the top 5% of audio acuity, would the 24/96 format be an improvement for them?" I certainly see the advantage in 24 bits during recording and mixing. 96 kHz - ummm, not really. At least not over 48 kHz. But my initial comment was just about the extra bits and under the assumption we were talking about a delivery medium. Your reply was very relevant re the bit-depth side of the question. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"geoff" wrote in message ... Trevor wrote: "Randy Yates" wrote in message ... When James said "in the final mix," I took him to essentially be asking the question, "Would a new 24 bit 96 kHz storage and delivery medium be a good thing?" I.e., should we replace CDs with some new 24/96 format? We already have Blu-Ray audio ... and DVD for years with that capability. Right and SACD, which at least proves the point that you can fool some of the people all the time, but not all the people all of the time. :-) Trevor. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:26:21 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote: On 6/16/2012 2:42 PM, James T wrote: I understand the merit in having more bits for multitrack ops, where internal math can lose bits. Just what is it that you understand about this? Why do you think that internal math can lose bits in a multitrack recording? Can you explain? I was just referring to scaling ops, etc. but of course those are probably done by converting to floating point in most cases. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:41:54 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote: On 6/16/2012 5:10 PM, James T wrote: I have presumed (perhaps wrongly) that the question has been thoroughly explored by those with greater means than my own. There have been demonstrations and presumably well conducted tests that prove both ways. It all boils down to human hearing, and humans all hear differently. And equally important, all perceive the same thing differently. Mike, Do you happen to have any references to those tests? That's what I'm trying to find. Why do you care? ?? Primarily a theoretical question. I've been curious about the prevalence of 24/96 and associated controversy. I haven't found much info that addresses that conclusively. Several years ago my friendly local dealer set up a demonstration. He set up a singer/guitarist with a high quality stereo mic setup (Senheisser MKH-800s, I recall, one of the first honest mics that demonstrated usable response up to 40 kHz ("the one to use if you're going to record at 2x sample rate). He split the preamp output three ways using a high grade Coleman switch box. One path was direct from the preamp to the powered speakers (these were PMC, pretty high grade stuff, too), one was through a pair of Lavry Blue converters back to back running at 44.1 kHz, the other was through another pair of the same converters running at 96 kHz. I believe both were using 24-bit resolution, or at least both were the same. All three sounded different. I, and most of the listeners, had a preference for the straight-through path, some preferred the 44.1 kHz path, some preferred the 96 kHz path, but nobody would have always picked one sample rate over the other every time. These were pro engineers, which doesn't necessarily make them any more qualified than anyone else, but they were probably more accustomed to listening for small differences. And they'd have an idea what to listen for. Useful info, Mike. Also wondering how transient and positional info relate, since as far as I know, the relevant refs to Nyquist cover capture of static waveform data. I haven't seen much tech info on auditory positional cues and such. Nor do I know if the tests above used source material that would be likely to expose deficiencies there. I think I read something about positional cues, but mostly it was about why sample rate doesn't improve it. If you remember where you saw that, please post! |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:30:36 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote: On 6/16/2012 3:40 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote: Try it for yourself and see. Just because he can't hear a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. Right, which is why I wouldn't be a great test subject for my own question. My midrange hearing is fine--very sensitive in fact. But my high and low range is not what it used to be. To some, the issue is that if it's theoretically better, if there's the slightest possibility that someone might be able to detect an improvement, now or in the future, than it's worth doing. But I'm with you - good 44.1 kHz 16-bit recordings sound just fine, and bad recordings won't be improved by jacking up the sample rate or storing more bits. "Bad recordings" is a separate issue though. To take it another step, you could say that a great recording won't improve badly composed music. :-) But I'm just thinking in theoretical domain, so the music was written by the best composer ever, and of course the recording was done by the cream of r.a.p. |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Merits of 2496
"geoff" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: To my ears, Blu-ray audio sounds noticeably better than the common run of CD sound. However... Blu-ray audio disks are audiophile recordings, and may use better mics, fewsd\\er electronics, less processing, etc, than Compact Disk recordings. At the moment, I cannot say with any objectivity that "high resolution" recordings are definitely superior. In theory, there's no reason for them being better, as 16/44 presumably records everything that's audible. There is some suggestion that the difference is only in different mastering. That's only one possible explanation. There are others. Could you define what you mean by "mastering"? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
DA-2496 | Pro Audio | |||
FA: AUDIOPHILE 2496 | Pro Audio | |||
FS: Aardvark Pro 2496 like new $299 | Pro Audio | |||
Samplitude 6 2496 and the 01X | Pro Audio | |||
types of sub boxes- merits of? | Car Audio |