is it all hype?

[Bobbsy]

Earlier on, somebody asked why DAWs work at 32 bit. There's a good reason for this--virtually every DAW operates internally at 32 bit floating point because that gives a dynamic range so big (up into 4 figures) that you can pretty well forget it. However, you are NOT storing audio at a simple 32 bit integer depth. The floating point means that you have 23 bits of audio, 1 bit to indicate +/- and an 8 bit exponent. The effect this has as editing is that you can mix to levels far higher than 0dB(FS) without hearing clipping, then just pull the levels down with the master to get them back below 0dB(FS). I'm not advocating this as a way of working but it's fun to play with sometimes.

Therefore the question is "why 24 bit" and on this one there is a real answer. As I said much earlier, most of the gear that will be used in a home studio will have a noise floor above the -96dB that 16 bit give--but that's most. If you have really top end mics and preamps you might just achieve a noise floor below -96dB hence moving to 24 bit "just in case" A typical good noise floor in a home studio (speaking electronics only, not room noise) would be in the mid -80s so you're not THAT far off.

(As an aside when I first started in TV, video was recorded on 2 inch VTRs, mainly the Ampex 1200 or 2000 though RCA had some too. These had a noise floor of around -48dB which is why things sound hissy when you watch archive recordings of Ed Sullivan or Laugh in--well, unless modern noise reduction techniques are applied.)

Anyhow, to end, somebody asked how individual samples can be made into continuous sound waves. The answer to that is in the algorithm:


...though I'm not sure that will help this discussion much.

 

[42low]

No steps. Just samples at whatever rate you've chosen.

But they will stay dots. Points. Vectors. Or whatever you want to call them.
The will never become a consequent line which an analogue signal is. You would see it if you zoom in highly on that signal with an oscilloscope (as i've done at school like i told).

They will act like an analoque signal (invented for, great invention). And if this signal is used as a stearing signal for an transistor/tube the amplifying signal will reaction on it in a constant. The digital stearing signal is that good that it tricks the transistor/tube. Why we hear no difference.
But don't forget that when amplified the signal ain't digital anymore.

Moving to a sample rate of 96kHz gives more samples but they are still reassembled by an algorithm. All moving to 96 does is let you theoretically record sounds up to 48kHz, useful for dogs I guess. In passing I'll mention some contact I had with people using special mics and extremely high sample rates to record bat "sonar". An interesting exercise but nothing that helped in music recording.

As for bit depth, 16 bits has a dynamic range that lets you go below the noise floor of all but the best analogue gear. 24 bit is a standard but all you're usually recording is a bit more analogue noise.

With this you comfirm what i said. That higher gives more dynamics.
Still i doubt if that would give only more noise.

When we produce we try to reach the quality that it sounds like were listening to the band live. That the band is in the same room.
If a band play's it produces unhearable sounds too. Those sounds echo in that room too, with effect off producing hearable bysounds out of that unhearable soundranges.

So i think that if we want to replicate that live sound we should not cut away those outside ranges but should keep those while producing.
And only in the end save the hearable part (with those produces extra sounds which in real are there hear too).

You're last reaction almost say's the same but explained more. Thanks for that, and you too thanks for your patience and interesting conversation.
With all discussion about this i've learned some to. Although i stay at my point of view that higher is better, now i think that i've overestimated that slighly.

The problem with your scenario is that 22k sample rate will cut off the top octave of what we can hear. Going from 96k to 44.1k, you won't lose any useful frequency range.

So we disagree on this one. I say you will lose useful frequency range.

8 bit, 22 kHz would make a smaller file size (or bit rate if the signal was to be transmitted). You'd also find that most microphones would be able to easily exceed the range of the format in both dynamics and frequency.

Yes. And 24 bit, 96khz makes bigger file size. What's the point?
Of course 8 bit, 22khz is smaller. It contain's less sound informatie, because it is (and gives) less quality. My statement.
Reverse this towards 24bit, 96khz. = more sound informatie.

edit- Now that I'm reading everything, I think you are using the term 'bit' when you actually mean sample. Or you are using 'bit' in it's non computer meaning, like "I'll have a bit of ice cream with my cake".

It was clear to me already that i sometimes choose and use wrong words. And then at start i even miss the right words before translating because i'm no professional (which i said all the time).
I appriciate that you and some others keep talking with some patience instead of calling me an ignorant fool immidiatly.

Yes, those wrong words seem to gave missunderstandigs. For those at my responsability, excusses from my side.

 

[42low]

This analog VS digital recording discussion then quickly becomes an academic debate in most cases.

That's not what i'm discussing about. I'm only talking about the difference in signal to get the specs of digital signals clear.
I even record digital. I love that. Digital recording evolved that huge that it gives more oppertunities that tape ever could reach.

That's what i'm debating about. The (wide) posibilities of digital, and how to get the best out of it. How to best implement that when recording a mic (what this topic is about).
And with that i love to use analogue gear because it hardly gives latency problems. And for the 'old style sounds' you can easily get out of it.
I never ever talked about analog vs digital in some kind of battle way. Why should i, using and loving both?

Fun detail: i ever record digital, and would never go back to recording on tape like i've done in early day's.
You're wrong in your view about me (again). Again trowing up an offtopic subject trying to make a good conversation a horrible discussion?? You do that that often that it looks like your doing that on purpose.

Sorry. I'm not trying to trip you. I only hope you open your eyes, take responsability for some minor mistakes you made towards me, so you can stop bullying me and leave me alone in the future taken me slightly more serious.
Why should i be you're enemy? I don't see the purpose of that. But if you really want that. Ok then, if that's what you want.

 

[miroslav]

In the most simple terms...this has NOTHING to do with "bullying" you...it has to o with your concepts about digital audio, which are simply off. You perceive attempts to disprove you...as attacks and bullying.
Others have repeatedly tried to explain to you what is wrong with your perception of digital audio...you just don't like hearing it from me, because I didn't waste time trying to really e-x-p-l-a-i-n things to you...I just said. you're wrong in more basic terms.

Sorry if that's not how you like it said, but it gets tiresome every time someone new comes here that we have to repeat all the old debates and explain things all over again for the thousandth time, just because someone refuses to accept current audio views.
You can take your views to a dozen audio forums, and you will get the same responses (well, maybe if you go over to tapeheads.com, where they live in total denial, you might get some agreement).

Moving on...

The point about tape...is simple.
When you argue that digital has audio issues, you have to accept that tape (analog recording) has issues, and with regard to frequency and dynamics (which is the heart of your argument)...digital surpasses...SURPASSES...tape (analog recording).
Lower quality digital surpasses most tape recording systems...so therefore what's your argument against digital audio quality...?
I mean, what is the point... especially when (by what many here have said to you) you're wrong about the "steps" and about the "holes"...etc, which you apparently believe make digital audio inferior in some way.

You have to look at things real-world, hands-on...and not just some theoretical minutia that is buried in numbers and diagrams.
You have to consider what actually delivers better frequency and dynamic ranges...regardless of how it does it or how it looks on a scope or on paper....but when that real-world perspective is ignored, and instead we're stuck on translation and personal perceptions...it just goes round-n-round-n-round...like it's happening here.
This thread can go for 10 more pages, and I know you will be saying the same thins you said on page one. You keep saying you are done...and then you repeat everything all over again and again...so it's starting to feel more like trolling than a desire to learn the truth.


Now back to the mics.
So the question is...why would is it better to use the right mic, the better mic, and possibly the higher quality (usually more expensive) mic in some cases (like for vocals)...?
Regardless what happens after the mic...regardless if you are recording analog to tape or to digital...regardless if you are using 48k Hz or 192 kHz at the converter...the first piece of audio equipment that captures the audio sources is...the microphone (in many cases).
What happens afterward can be important too...but, it's the mic that starts that ball rolling.
If you compromise your signal there....does it really matter what happens later on?

I know in today's ITB world, the focus for many has shifted to...what happens later...after the tracks are in the computer.
There is the idea that processing will fix it if it needs fixing...and in some cases it may.
IMO...if people focused more on what's happening at the source, at the mic, during the initial tracking stage...they would have less need for fixing, and IMO, they would realize how much that initial source capture really matters and can make all the difference in what happens later.
So yeah...cheap quality mics may capture a signal same as better quality mics...but they can also handicap your audio right from the first step.
If that works for you...then you have no problems.

And that's all the explaining I'm going to do for you...that's my best effort.
You guys can now kick this around for another 10 pages...have fun.

 

[42low]

Now back to basic. Without all that stupid arguments why my view should be wrong.
Back to "mics; hype?"

If you all were right....
If higher then 16/44.1 is useless....
If 24/96 has no purpose at all....
If i'm a ignorant fool who knows nothing....

WHY DO YOU ALL ADORE, WANT, OR BOUGHT EXPENCIVE CARDOID CONDENSOR MICS WITH SPECIFICATIONS of 24 BITS AND 96KHZ????
And then use those downgrading on 16bits 44.1khz??

BUYING SUCH EXPENCIVE MICS THEN WOULD BE USELESS. STOOPID. A HYPE!!
That confirms i'm right and you all are wrong with all those unreal arguments.

Can't explain it more clear. Who doesn't onderstand this is more a fool then said about me.
Touché!

(I think excuses form some who insulted me would be in it's place.)

 

[CrowsofFritz]

One short try.

Take a 16bit 44.1khz sound.
Bring that back to 8 bit and 22 khz (both about half).
And listen to the difference. It's worse, isn't it?

Bringing down 32 bit 96khz back to 16 bit and 44.1khz (both about half too, actually even more).
That's as much breaking down the quality as in the first example.

And editting a worse sound effects the result even more then worse.

Please react on this.

That's a false equivalence.


I haven't read this whole thread, but maybe take a listen to this guy:

 

[Farview]

None of my mics have digital converters built in, they are analog. Your question makes no sense.

The idea you seem to have, that expensive mics capture sound that can't be reproduced at 44.1k, is wrong.

The idea that 96k sample rates are automatically higher quality is wrong. If there is no sound to capture above 20khz, the 96k and 44.1k recording will be exactly the same. For example, a 1k sine wave will be exactly the same at 22k, 44.1k, 48k, 88.2k, 96k, etc... as there is nothing more to capture and the signal is easily below nyquil.

No one said that 24 bit is useless, but it is more useful in a multitrack session. 16 bit playback is fine.

I record at 44.1k/ 24 bit. I've owned commercial studios for 20 years and engineered and produced hundreds of ep's, demos and albums. In the late 90s, I was using Tascam da-series recorders, which were 16 bit, and it was fine.
Metallica's black album has sold over 20 million world wide and it was mastered from an early Dat tape using the internal converters (which are not anywhere near as nice sounding as most cheap interfaces now). It got the job done.

I'm sorry that you were taught superstitious nonsense along with your other sorry tulips the school. Unfortunately, it is far too common for teachers to inject personal beliefs in with actual fact. A few years ago (probably 15-20, damn I'm old), the things you are saying were mistakenly treated as truths. That time has past.

 

[Steenamaroo]

WHY DO YOU ALL ADORE, WANT, OR BOUGHT EXPENCIVE CARDOID CONDENSOR MICS WITH SPECIFICATIONS of 24 BITS AND 96KHZ????
And then use those downgrading on 16bits 44.1khz??

Hey 42,
These guys are giving you good info.
Microphones don't have a bit depth and sample rate specification unless, as pointed out, they have built in analog to digital conversion, and that's really the exception.

Regardless, when recording to digital there is always a converter at some point so a valid question can be extrapolated from what you have said.


'Do we accept claims there is no audible benefit to recording at greater than 16bit and 44.1khz and, if so, why do we buy converters and processors which operate at 24/96 and greater?'

Hopefully one of the guys can answer that in a relatively simple way.

 

[42low]

Hey 42,
These guys are giving you good info.

I know some do.

Microphones don't have a bit depth and sample rate specification unless, as pointed out, they have built in analog to digital conversion, and that's really the exception.

Doesn't matter how. There specs are 24/96. Even if converted to 16/44.1 there given specifications and effect wouldn't be more than that, which would take away their advantage while cheaper ones would also do that 16/44.1 job. Hype then.

But as they are better by the 24/96 specs, and the DAW also works on 24/96 (as we all know) and can handle that high mic signal this would confirm what i state.
If the mics output was converted to 16/44.1 that higher DAW specifications aren't usefull and not logical.
If higher than 16/44.1 is impossible and useless then why do and should the higher rates excist?

.. so a valid question can be extrapolated from what you have said.

'Do we accept claims there is no audible benefit to recording at greater than 16bit and 44.1khz and, if so, why do we buy converters and processors which operate at 24/96 and greater?'

Hopefully one of the guys can answer that in a relatively simple way.

My arguments in other words.
I'm curious what answer will come.

Am i right? (what i think)
Or if i'm wrong, are all those 24/96 specifications bullsh*t? (which i don't think. That would be a huge scam and scandal)

 

[garww]

Well, the MIC is just the first part of the circuit that creates the sound. Much of it depends on what it's loaded into. Transducers have to react to the circuit, and then, there are the audio qualities of the circuit

As far as media conversion process go for distribution, the quality gear and processes still make it through to some degree - whether we monitor on crappy $5000 monitors, or, crappy $100 monitors.

Going the other way with DSD re-Masters, some of that even makes it through the 5v audio section of my DAC.

I will probably try one more DSD before heading back to 88k FLAC;

"Mastered by George Marino at Sterling Sound from the original analog master tapes to vinyl and PCM. The DSD was sourced from the PCM. George listened to all of the different A/D converters he had before he chose which to use, and he felt the George Massenburg GML 20 bit A/D produced the best and most synergistic sound for the project".

An audiophile dream set; the best that Elvis has ever sounded!

 

[Steenamaroo]

A debate around the validity of claims that 24 bit, or 96k yields some real-world measurable quality improvement is probably worth having.
There's science, there are opinions, there are misconceptions....There's plenty to talk about, and to learn.

That said, I think you need to detach the microphone from the equation because, as said, microphones (broadly) are analog output devices and do not have digital specifications.
Any exceptions are simply an amalgamation of otherwise discrete pieces of technology.
For all intents, a microphone is no different to a pickup here and your debate, or question, is with regard to converters and processors.

Regardless, you're happy that this represents your question well?

'Do we accept claims there is no audible benefit to recording at greater than 16bit and 44.1khz and, if so, why do we buy converters and processors which operate at 24/96 and greater?'

 

[Farview]

Doesn't matter how. There specs are 24/96. Even if converted to 16/44.1 there given specifications and effect wouldn't be more than that, which would take away their advantage while cheaper ones would also do that 16/44.1 job. Hype then.

The quality of a mic has nothing to do with the quality of a converter and even less to do with the sample rate and bit depth.

The converter's job is to be transparent, most are transparent at all sample rates. If they aren't, then they are broken.

Expensive mics don't necessarily capture ultrasonic sound, so recording one at a higher sample rate is pointless.

But as they are better by the 24/96 specs, and the DAW also works on 24/96 (as we all know) and can handle that high mic signal this would confirm what i state.
If the mics output was converted to 16/44.1 that higher DAW specifications aren't usefull and not logical.
If higher than 16/44.1 is impossible and useless then why do and should the higher rates excist?

Higher bit depth is useful for mixing and processing. Higher sample rates are not, unless you are doing pitch shifting and time stretching.

96k was brought forth so that the nyquist filter could have a gentler slope, which fixes some non-linearities between 20k and 22k. Sine 80% of the population over 20 years old can't hear anything past 18k, it's pointless. 192k was always a pointless marketing scheme.

My arguments in other words.
I'm curious what answer will come.

Am i right? (what i think)
Or if i'm wrong, are all those 24/96 specifications bullsh*t? (which i don't think. That would be a huge scam and scandal)

I find no benefit to recording over 44.1k, but there is benefit at recording 24 bit.

I have no idea why so many people think that you can't record at 44.1k/24. 44.1k gets you all the frequency range that anyone can hear and 24 bit puts the noise floor down so low that it is a non-issue mixing 120 tracks together.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Thank you, Farview.

 

[42low]

Regardless, you're happy that this represents your question well?

'Do we accept claims there is no audible benefit to recording at greater than 16bit and 44.1khz and, if so, why do we buy converters and processors ........ which operate at 24/96 and greater?'

.... and mics, and DAW's..... (fit in the question)



Thanks Steenamaroo. You too understand what direction i'm going.

--- deleted some text here. I think we have a lot clear now ----

I have no idea why so many people think that you can't record at 44.1k/24. 44.1k gets you all the frequency range that anyone can hear and 24 bit puts the noise floor down so low that it is a non-issue mixing 120 tracks together.

Like i said, you can also record on 8 bit and 11Khz. But listen to the difference in sound.
At 24bit/96khz you might not hear the difference directly, but the difference does exist in a higher quality.

Why higher? It brings you more sound signal within the hearing range.
If 20K digital bits register (let's say) 1 second of sound it's quality is better then the same second in 5k digital bits.
And if you edit the results will be multiplied. Multiplying better quality is always better for the result. Multiplying a clearer signal wil result in a clearer edit.

I find it difficult to explain. So i try it simple.
If i reverb 5 persons yelling 'hello' i get much more reverb sound then if i reverb over 1 person.
In my explanation exchange persons with digits. Were 'hello' is registered in 2 times more digits.

You understand what i'm trying to say? If not, ask please.

I find no benefit to recording over 44.1k, but there is benefit at recording 24 bit.

May i conclude that this confirms my statement i've made all topic along?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to "be right". I only try to not be "that ignorant fool" anymore. Try to keep my credability.
And simply to get answers. To get clarity for all, including myself.

 

[42low]

I find no benefit to recording over 44.1k, but there is benefit at recording 24 bit.

In context on this statement i still mis the answer on this question.

What is the conclusion on "the purpose of recording a 24/96 mic if reducing recording quality to 16/44.1?".
In other words and ontopic, why buy an expencive 24/96 specs mic then?

 

[Steenamaroo]

Ok, I'm afraid the discussion will end here then, because there has to be give and take in information and understanding.
Without that, helpful and knowledgeable people are patiently following you around in circles.

Conventional microphones don't have digital specifications so any argument built upon that is fatally flawed.
Any microphone with such specs has a built in converter and that converter is the subject of your debate.

I've already said all that in attempt to clarify your question and help you get a clear-cut answer which, in my opinion, Farview provided.

Sorry, 42low. Many have tried, but you have to meet them half way.