| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Appreachable difference in 96khz recording?
I'm a newbie to digital recording, but not a newbie to music or
electronics. So that being said, I'm looking for a simple DAW setup. I'll be using a laptop to record solo guitar for the most part. I'll either be going firewire or usb, but I digress.... In deciding on gear, since I'll mainly be doing solo direct in guitar work I want good quality audio. That seems fairly easy to do since at best it will be two inputs of stereo. But since CD quality has to be 44.1khz at 16 bits, what do you experienced people hear in terms of quality when recording at 24 bit 96khz? Since you'll have to dither that down to CD quality do you still prefer the higher sampling? Does the dithering process alter the sound quality? Enquiring mind wants to know.....and thanks for the replies...... Ron B |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron B wrote:
I'm a newbie to digital recording, but not a newbie to music or electronics. So that being said, I'm looking for a simple DAW setup. I'll be using a laptop to record solo guitar for the most part. I'll either be going firewire or usb, but I digress.... In deciding on gear, since I'll mainly be doing solo direct in guitar work I want good quality audio. That seems fairly easy to do since at best it will be two inputs of stereo. But since CD quality has to be 44.1khz at 16 bits, what do you experienced people hear in terms of quality when recording at 24 bit 96khz? Since you'll have to dither that down to CD quality do you still prefer the higher sampling? Does the dithering process alter the sound quality? Enquiring mind wants to know.....and thanks for the replies...... For sampling rate, it depends entirely on the converters. Some converters sound worse at 96 ksamp/sec than they do at 44.1 ksamp/sec. Some might sound better. Many folks record at 88.2 ksamp/sec because it's easier to SRC down to 44.1. That becomes a question very specific to the conversion hardware you're running. But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ron B wrote:
I'm a newbie to digital recording, but not a newbie to music or electronics. So that being said, I'm looking for a simple DAW setup. I'll be using a laptop to record solo guitar for the most part. I'll either be going firewire or usb, but I digress.... In deciding on gear, since I'll mainly be doing solo direct in guitar work I want good quality audio. That seems fairly easy to do since at best it will be two inputs of stereo. But since CD quality has to be 44.1khz at 16 bits, what do you experienced people hear in terms of quality when recording at 24 bit 96khz? Since you'll have to dither that down to CD quality do you still prefer the higher sampling? Does the dithering process alter the sound quality? Enquiring mind wants to know.....and thanks for the replies...... For sampling rate, it depends entirely on the converters. Some converters sound worse at 96 ksamp/sec than they do at 44.1 ksamp/sec. Some might sound better. Many folks record at 88.2 ksamp/sec because it's easier to SRC down to 44.1. That becomes a question very specific to the conversion hardware you're running. But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tony Briggs" wrote in message
news:GqV6d.181588$3l3.47932@attbi_s03 But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp Just to pick a nit, he makes a factual mistake when he specifically says that *all* "24 bit" converters have at least 16 bit resolution. They don't, a leading example being the popular M-Audio AP2496. If you check http://audio.rightmark.org/rus/test/...hile-2496.html you'll see that the unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode is less than 95 dB. This is just one example of many 24/96 converters with less than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tony Briggs" wrote in message
news:GqV6d.181588$3l3.47932@attbi_s03 But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp Just to pick a nit, he makes a factual mistake when he specifically says that *all* "24 bit" converters have at least 16 bit resolution. They don't, a leading example being the popular M-Audio AP2496. If you check http://audio.rightmark.org/rus/test/...hile-2496.html you'll see that the unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode is less than 95 dB. This is just one example of many 24/96 converters with less than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Tony Briggs" wrote in message news:GqV6d.181588$3l3.47932@attbi_s03 But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp Just to pick a nit, he makes a factual mistake when he specifically says that *all* "24 bit" converters have at least 16 bit resolution. They don't, a leading example being the popular M-Audio AP2496. If you check http://audio.rightmark.org/rus/test/...hile-2496.html you'll see that the unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode is less than 95 dB. This is just one example of many 24/96 converters with less than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range. Just get and Echo MIA  It's 24/96 converters ROCK.http://audio.rightmark.org/test/echo-mia.html CD |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Tony Briggs" wrote in message news:GqV6d.181588$3l3.47932@attbi_s03 But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp Just to pick a nit, he makes a factual mistake when he specifically says that *all* "24 bit" converters have at least 16 bit resolution. They don't, a leading example being the popular M-Audio AP2496. If you check http://audio.rightmark.org/rus/test/...hile-2496.html you'll see that the unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode is less than 95 dB. This is just one example of many 24/96 converters with less than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range. Just get and Echo MIA It's 24/96 converters ROCK.http://audio.rightmark.org/test/echo-mia.html CD |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
So I guess the next logical question is one of recommendation. is an
MBox at 48khz tops better than a M-Audio Quattro at 96 khz (both at 24 bits). At doing what? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
So I guess the next logical question is one of recommendation. is an
MBox at 48khz tops better than a M-Audio Quattro at 96 khz (both at 24 bits). At doing what? --------------------------------------- "I know enough to know I don't know enough" |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
What audio codec do they use?
"Tony Briggs" wrote in message news:GqV6d.181588$3l3.47932@attbi_s03... But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
What audio codec do they use?
"Tony Briggs" wrote in message news:GqV6d.181588$3l3.47932@attbi_s03... But the wider word length is always a good idea because it gives you more room to be sloppy about levels. Craig Anderton would agree.... Watch these videos on this page: http://www.emplive.com/create/home_recording/index.asp |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron B" wrote in message
m... be two inputs of stereo. But since CD quality has to be 44.1khz at 16 bits, what do you experienced people hear in terms of quality when recording at 24 bit 96khz? Since you'll have to dither that down to CD quality do you still prefer the higher sampling? Does the dithering process alter the sound quality? While I applaud *any* step towards better sound, my practical experience has been that there is very little benefit to higher sampling rates. So little, in fact, that I decided it wasn't worth the extra processing overhead and storage requirements. I've gone back to recording at 44.1 for CD-destined material and 48K for video stuff. On the other hand, I found a genuine, appreciable improvement going to 24 bit from 16. I can keep levels more sensible while tracking without a graininess penalty. Mostly, though, I noticed a significant improvement on sessions with a lot of processing going on. Maybe the longer digital word keeps the calculations more accurate so the result sounds better? I dither down to 16 bits as the very last step, and have found the result sounds better than if I used a 16 bit session throughout. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Ron B" wrote in message
m... be two inputs of stereo. But since CD quality has to be 44.1khz at 16 bits, what do you experienced people hear in terms of quality when recording at 24 bit 96khz? Since you'll have to dither that down to CD quality do you still prefer the higher sampling? Does the dithering process alter the sound quality? While I applaud *any* step towards better sound, my practical experience has been that there is very little benefit to higher sampling rates. So little, in fact, that I decided it wasn't worth the extra processing overhead and storage requirements. I've gone back to recording at 44.1 for CD-destined material and 48K for video stuff. On the other hand, I found a genuine, appreciable improvement going to 24 bit from 16. I can keep levels more sensible while tracking without a graininess penalty. Mostly, though, I noticed a significant improvement on sessions with a lot of processing going on. Maybe the longer digital word keeps the calculations more accurate so the result sounds better? I dither down to 16 bits as the very last step, and have found the result sounds better than if I used a 16 bit session throughout. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Definitely. Lots and lots of preaching.
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Just to pick a nit, he makes a factual mistake when he specifically says that *all* "24 bit" converters have at least 16 bit resolution. They don't, a leading example being the popular M-Audio AP2496. If you check http://audio.rightmark.org/rus/test/...iophile-2496.h tml you'll see that the unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode is less than 95 dB. This is just one example of many 24/96 converters with less than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range. Which is what I've been saying for years when people claim 24 bit gives much more room for sloppy level setting. In the case of the AP2496 there is no real extra headroom only wasted bits. In the case of *MANY* 24 bit cards there is a gain of 1 bit extra resolution, 2 if you're lucky, and 3 only in the case of the very best cards available. However 95dB unweighted is quite adequate for tracking, and better than any analog recorder anyway. TonyP. "Appreachable" is a good word for this group too, with SO many people preaching their twisted versions of the audio gospel :-) |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Just to pick a nit, he makes a factual mistake when he specifically says that *all* "24 bit" converters have at least 16 bit resolution. They don't, a leading example being the popular M-Audio AP2496. If you check http://audio.rightmark.org/rus/test/...iophile-2496.h tml you'll see that the unweighted dynamic range in 24/96 mode is less than 95 dB. This is just one example of many 24/96 converters with less than 96 dB unweighted dynamic range. Which is what I've been saying for years when people claim 24 bit gives much more room for sloppy level setting. In the case of the AP2496 there is no real extra headroom only wasted bits. In the case of *MANY* 24 bit cards there is a gain of 1 bit extra resolution, 2 if you're lucky, and 3 only in the case of the very best cards available. However 95dB unweighted is quite adequate for tracking, and better than any analog recorder anyway. TonyP. "Appreachable" is a good word for this group too, with SO many people preaching their twisted versions of the audio gospel :-) |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message news:1te7d.6621$223.32@edtnps89... On the other hand, I found a genuine, appreciable improvement going to 24 bit from 16. I can keep levels more sensible while tracking without a graininess penalty. Mostly, though, I noticed a significant improvement on sessions with a lot of processing going on. Maybe the longer digital word keeps the calculations more accurate so the result sounds better? Or maybe not in the case of most modern DAW software which processes at 32 bit or even 64 bit! Just be carefull to save any intermediate files at 32 bit, not 16 bit. Problem solved. I dither down to 16 bits as the very last step, and have found the result sounds better than if I used a 16 bit session throughout. Of course, but have you tried recording at 16/44 and processing at 32/44 or 64/44? Or done a double blind listening test of a file recorded at 16/44 and one at 24/44 with the same card? Of course hard drive space is so cheap these days, it's really a non issue for most people now. Saving heaps of wasted bits doesn't cost you too much as long as the hardware can handle the overhead. TonyP. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Lorin David Schultz" wrote in message news:1te7d.6621$223.32@edtnps89... On the other hand, I found a genuine, appreciable improvement going to 24 bit from 16. I can keep levels more sensible while tracking without a graininess penalty. Mostly, though, I noticed a significant improvement on sessions with a lot of processing going on. Maybe the longer digital word keeps the calculations more accurate so the result sounds better? Or maybe not in the case of most modern DAW software which processes at 32 bit or even 64 bit! Just be carefull to save any intermediate files at 32 bit, not 16 bit. Problem solved. I dither down to 16 bits as the very last step, and have found the result sounds better than if I used a 16 bit session throughout. Of course, but have you tried recording at 16/44 and processing at 32/44 or 64/44? Or done a double blind listening test of a file recorded at 16/44 and one at 24/44 with the same card? Of course hard drive space is so cheap these days, it's really a non issue for most people now. Saving heaps of wasted bits doesn't cost you too much as long as the hardware can handle the overhead. TonyP. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
TonyP wrote:
Which is what I've been saying for years when people claim 24 bit gives much more room for sloppy level setting. In the case of the AP2496 there is no real extra headroom only wasted bits. In the case of *MANY* 24 bit cards there is a gain of 1 bit extra resolution, 2 if you're lucky, and 3 only in the case of the very best cards available. However 95dB unweighted is quite adequate for tracking, and better than any analog recorder anyway. This is not an argument against 24-bit converters. This is an argument against calling many of those devices 24-bit unless they actually have 24 bits of real data coming out. Many of the devices advertised out there as 24-bit, though, have twenty or so actual significant bits, and that's not shabby. They should be called twenty-bit converters. I know my Prism 20-bit box has at least 19 real valid bits and only one doubtful one, which I figure is pretty good. The Lavry stuff is at least in the same league. Some of the 20-bit soundcards don't even have 16 valid bits. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
TonyP wrote:
Which is what I've been saying for years when people claim 24 bit gives much more room for sloppy level setting. In the case of the AP2496 there is no real extra headroom only wasted bits. In the case of *MANY* 24 bit cards there is a gain of 1 bit extra resolution, 2 if you're lucky, and 3 only in the case of the very best cards available. However 95dB unweighted is quite adequate for tracking, and better than any analog recorder anyway. This is not an argument against 24-bit converters. This is an argument against calling many of those devices 24-bit unless they actually have 24 bits of real data coming out. Many of the devices advertised out there as 24-bit, though, have twenty or so actual significant bits, and that's not shabby. They should be called twenty-bit converters. I know my Prism 20-bit box has at least 19 real valid bits and only one doubtful one, which I figure is pretty good. The Lavry stuff is at least in the same league. Some of the 20-bit soundcards don't even have 16 valid bits. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:20:35 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): TonyP wrote: Which is what I've been saying for years when people claim 24 bit gives much more room for sloppy level setting. In the case of the AP2496 there is no real extra headroom only wasted bits. In the case of *MANY* 24 bit cards there is a gain of 1 bit extra resolution, 2 if you're lucky, and 3 only in the case of the very best cards available. However 95dB unweighted is quite adequate for tracking, and better than any analog recorder anyway. This is not an argument against 24-bit converters. This is an argument against calling many of those devices 24-bit unless they actually have 24 bits of real data coming out. Many of the devices advertised out there as 24-bit, though, have twenty or so actual significant bits, and that's not shabby. They should be called twenty-bit converters. I know my Prism 20-bit box has at least 19 real valid bits and only one doubtful one, which I figure is pretty good. The Lavry stuff is at least in the same league. Some of the 20-bit soundcards don't even have 16 valid bits. --scott And at least as important, how do they actually sound? Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:20:35 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote
(in article ): TonyP wrote: Which is what I've been saying for years when people claim 24 bit gives much more room for sloppy level setting. In the case of the AP2496 there is no real extra headroom only wasted bits. In the case of *MANY* 24 bit cards there is a gain of 1 bit extra resolution, 2 if you're lucky, and 3 only in the case of the very best cards available. However 95dB unweighted is quite adequate for tracking, and better than any analog recorder anyway. This is not an argument against 24-bit converters. This is an argument against calling many of those devices 24-bit unless they actually have 24 bits of real data coming out. Many of the devices advertised out there as 24-bit, though, have twenty or so actual significant bits, and that's not shabby. They should be called twenty-bit converters. I know my Prism 20-bit box has at least 19 real valid bits and only one doubtful one, which I figure is pretty good. The Lavry stuff is at least in the same league. Some of the 20-bit soundcards don't even have 16 valid bits. --scott And at least as important, how do they actually sound? Regards, Ty Ford -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
And at least as important, how do they actually sound? I will make a bet that there is a direct corellation between monotonicity specs and the actual sound. It would be a fun thing to test, too. It's interesting, though, that some of the chips that have nice monotonicity specs actually measure pretty poorly when you throw a cheap op-amp front end on them. It's not the converter proper that has the linearity problem. It is lots of fun to look at the noise floor on typical converters, though. The Prism is pretty flat and even, but some of them have big spikes here and there. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ty Ford wrote:
And at least as important, how do they actually sound? I will make a bet that there is a direct corellation between monotonicity specs and the actual sound. It would be a fun thing to test, too. It's interesting, though, that some of the chips that have nice monotonicity specs actually measure pretty poorly when you throw a cheap op-amp front end on them. It's not the converter proper that has the linearity problem. It is lots of fun to look at the noise floor on typical converters, though. The Prism is pretty flat and even, but some of them have big spikes here and there. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hear a definite difference in clarity in the high end when I go from
44.1 to 48kHz. It is subtle but there. I do 48kHz at 24 bit and then at the end use the Waves L2 on the bounce before going to CD, but with a flat noise shaping curve, which also seems to lend clarity to the high end when compared to a shaped curve. There is a quantifiable reason for that having to do with convertor design/philosophy which is too deep for this thread. I have never recorded at the higher rates (at present in the interest of disk space conservation - I never had a DAT machine that would do 96k). However, my opinion is that all of the calculations made in processing (plug-ins and such) will end up being more accurate if you are using a higher sample rate and bit depth than your end target, which will resort in less distortion of your final product than errors made in calculation going from 48kHz back down to 44.1. As mentioned before though, I think the quality of the convertor makes a bigger difference than the nominal sample rate and bit depth. An Apogee Rosetta 200 at 44.1/16 bit will no doubt sound "better" than an M-Audio interface at 96/24. All of this is from my unscientific $.02 which is probably more than it's worth anyway :-) |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
I hear a definite difference in clarity in the high end when I go from
44.1 to 48kHz. It is subtle but there. I do 48kHz at 24 bit and then at the end use the Waves L2 on the bounce before going to CD, but with a flat noise shaping curve, which also seems to lend clarity to the high end when compared to a shaped curve. There is a quantifiable reason for that having to do with convertor design/philosophy which is too deep for this thread. I have never recorded at the higher rates (at present in the interest of disk space conservation - I never had a DAT machine that would do 96k). However, my opinion is that all of the calculations made in processing (plug-ins and such) will end up being more accurate if you are using a higher sample rate and bit depth than your end target, which will resort in less distortion of your final product than errors made in calculation going from 48kHz back down to 44.1. As mentioned before though, I think the quality of the convertor makes a bigger difference than the nominal sample rate and bit depth. An Apogee Rosetta 200 at 44.1/16 bit will no doubt sound "better" than an M-Audio interface at 96/24. All of this is from my unscientific $.02 which is probably more than it's worth anyway :-) |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
locosoundman wrote:
I hear a definite difference in clarity in the high end when I go from 44.1 to 48kHz. It is subtle but there. I do 48kHz at 24 bit and then at the end use the Waves L2 on the bounce before going to CD, but with a flat noise shaping curve, which also seems to lend clarity to the high end when compared to a shaped curve. There is a quantifiable reason for that having to do with convertor design/philosophy which is too deep for this thread. This is sign that you have some kind of converter issue going on, or else the clarity improvement actually has to do with the noise shaping (which is very common). What sort of converters are you using? I have never recorded at the higher rates (at present in the interest of disk space conservation - I never had a DAT machine that would do 96k). However, my opinion is that all of the calculations made in processing (plug-ins and such) will end up being more accurate if you are using a higher sample rate and bit depth than your end target, which will resort in less distortion of your final product than errors made in calculation going from 48kHz back down to 44.1. There are some things, like noise reduction for 78s, that benefit a lot from ultrasonic response, even if ultrasonics are inaudible. That alone makes high sampling rates a useful thing to have around in the studio. I'm not convinced it's something I'd want to use all the time yet, though. But then, I'm still using the Ampex half the time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
locosoundman wrote:
I hear a definite difference in clarity in the high end when I go from 44.1 to 48kHz. It is subtle but there. I do 48kHz at 24 bit and then at the end use the Waves L2 on the bounce before going to CD, but with a flat noise shaping curve, which also seems to lend clarity to the high end when compared to a shaped curve. There is a quantifiable reason for that having to do with convertor design/philosophy which is too deep for this thread. This is sign that you have some kind of converter issue going on, or else the clarity improvement actually has to do with the noise shaping (which is very common). What sort of converters are you using? I have never recorded at the higher rates (at present in the interest of disk space conservation - I never had a DAT machine that would do 96k). However, my opinion is that all of the calculations made in processing (plug-ins and such) will end up being more accurate if you are using a higher sample rate and bit depth than your end target, which will resort in less distortion of your final product than errors made in calculation going from 48kHz back down to 44.1. There are some things, like noise reduction for 78s, that benefit a lot from ultrasonic response, even if ultrasonics are inaudible. That alone makes high sampling rates a useful thing to have around in the studio. I'm not convinced it's something I'd want to use all the time yet, though. But then, I'm still using the Ampex half the time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carey Carlan wrote:
You've lost me again, Scott. I know mathematically what monotonicity means, but what are you correlating in the converter? Analog to digital? That's a pretty tough test to measure. Right. It's very difficult to measure, which is part of the problem. The data sheet numbers are often derived from models rather than actually measured, too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Carey Carlan wrote:
You've lost me again, Scott. I know mathematically what monotonicity means, but what are you correlating in the converter? Analog to digital? That's a pretty tough test to measure. Right. It's very difficult to measure, which is part of the problem. The data sheet numbers are often derived from models rather than actually measured, too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"TonyP" wrote
Of course, but have you tried recording at 16/44 and processing at 32/44 or 64/44? I don't know if I have or not. What's Pro Tools' internal processing depth? Or done a double blind listening test of a file recorded at 16/44 and one at 24/44 with the same card? Yeah, and there's not enough difference to care about if that's all I was gonna do with it. The benefit of the longer word really only became apparent to me on sessions with a fair amount of processing going on. "Lots of processing" includes things like mixing a lot of tracks, making any fairly healthy level changes, and/or applying plugs. Of course hard drive space is so cheap these days, it's really a non issue for most people now. Saving heaps of wasted bits doesn't cost you too much as long as the hardware can handle the overhead. I suppose, within reason. At some point the benefits become so small that practical realities like backup space/cost, processing time (when the client is paying by the hour) and plug-in limits become a higher priority than absolute limits of audiophility. -- "It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!" - Lorin David Schultz in the control room making even bad news sound good (Remove spamblock to reply) |
Linear Mode
