Record in 24 bit with 44.1 OR 88.2 OR 192 ?

[42low]

Now a bit later i realise .... I think the prisme ada-8xr presented to me by garww cleared a lot to me. I think i have the answer i was looking for.
Thanks garww! (and the rest for their answers at my question)

And drtechno's earlier answer like i already thought appears to be a perfect answer too.

My pro friends record at 96K. The only one that didn't was Brian Carlstrom (rip) and he recorded in 88.2 because the sampling rate conversion from 96K to 44.1 was not that good in the 90's.

More gear names similar to the prisme ada-8xr are welcome. I will study those and i guess those will confirm what this prisme made clear to me.

 

[garww]

The rate and depth can be better, but it's a formula 1, not a Mini. There is the analog i/o which costs money, but really stable digital has to have the expense. It took Jack Renner a long time to find 192 k that sounded good

 

[42low]

I think that 192k would be a too high goal for us home recorders.
But higher than 48 really seems to be better, and the best of it all ... it (88k? 96k?) is within reach for us.
That Prisme also talked about those reachable middle rates.

No formula 1 (192k) and also no mini (48k), but a nice corvette or mustang (88k? 96k?) is driving a bit better.
Why accept mini if corvette and mustang drive much more comfortable?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Omfg

 

[Farview]

In 1 A you see an amount off black dots (=bits).
In 1 B these dots are connected by the reasonable lines.

In 2 A there are exact the same black dots. But i've added the blue ones to double the amount of dots (= double the bits).
In 2 B you can see that this creates a totally other line that in 1 B. But remind again, it has the exact same black dots. :wink:

Yes, but those blue dots represent a signal that is above nyquist and, therefore, can't exist after the filtering. Even if you removed the filter, that would be happening at a frequency above anyone's hearing. (assuming your example is black dots=44.1k and blue dots=88.2k)

2 is the actual signal (=line) in double counts. 1 doesn't reach that actual signal at all because it has losses.
If you would draw a new line for a new effect-signal over the #1 signal then the result will even have a more deviate result, which i call distorted.
To be clear: You hear the line, not the dots/bits.

But once you take into account that the dots are vectors, not points in a dot-to-dot drawing, and that anything that would happen between the dots would be above the nyquist frequency, you begin to realize that the theoretical waveform that you are drawing can't really exist.

And if i would draw the analoque signal it would even have NO dots and corners, but it would be a fluent line. Analogue has no bits but a line, and a line can be seen as endless/uncountable amount of consecutively dots (= endless uncountable bits).[/I]

One could argue that analog has an infinite sample rate (however, there is a finite number of pieces of oxide on a piece of tape. But you certainly can't argue that it has infinite bits. Bit depth correlates to dynamic range. No analog anything has limitless dynamic range. Hell, the earths atmosphere doesn't have limitless dynamic range. The earth makes noise (that would be the noise floor) and air will only compress to a certain point, this limiting how loud something can get. Certainly analog tape can't capture anywhere near the 144db of dynamic range. I'd be surprised if you could get much more than 96db without distortion.

 

[Farview]

Omfg

I know, it's like 2006 all over again.

The bottom line is: The effect of the sample rate should be zero, unless you are recording dog whistles or music for bats.

Any individual interface may sound better at a certain sample rate, but that is the design of that converter, NOT an attribute of the sample rate.

 

[Farview]

About that the options are divided.
Sample Rate and Bitrate: The Guts of Digital Audio | | The Stereo Bus Blog

That is an oversimplified and outdated way to explain sampling to laypeople. That isn't actually how it works. The video that I linked is actually how it works.

 

[garww]

I think that 192k would be a too high goal for us home recorders.
But higher than 48 really seems to be better, and the best of it all ... it (88k? 96k?) is within reach for us.
That Prisme also talked about those reachable middle rates.

No formula 1 (192k) and also no mini (48k), but a nice corvette or mustang (88k? 96k?) is driving a bit better.
Why accept mini if corvette and mustang drive much more comfortable?

We pay for stuff that really works on reducing smearing. You record some tracks and the jitter is working good. the next track has a jitter issue

 

[miroslav]

Omfg

I know, it's like 2006 all over again.

I'm amazed you bother to repeat the same info that's been given a thousand times already in the last 10+ years.
I guess there are still a few people who missed all the analog VS digital wars.

I started out with 88.2...but it's been a long time now since I switched to 48, and I picked that mostly to cover the possible video side of things. I was doing some video stuff when I made the switch, and 48 kHz seemed to make sense.

I have done my own A/B/C/D using my converters, and didn't really notice a difference between 44.1 and 48...or between 88.2 and 96. When I compared 44.1 and 96...there seemed to be just a "hint" of "something"...but more likely than not, it was either the converter showing its colors, or just some psycho-acoustic impression.

I would have to raise the audio gear bar a very substantial amount to want to also raise the sampling rate.
We're talking thousands and thousands of $$$ before the entire recording chain was equally at the level.
Pro studios can afford to do it, and they also have to always stay at or close to the top of the game...it's more about client expectations than anything else, IMO.

 

[mactreouser]

Oh my.... I felt heavy and burdened now... Haha. Awesome discussion!

in fact, we shall face the reality, wasn't it? Gears all are nice and sweet, but we gonna pour the whole saving $$$ to get those beautiful gears then playback on Car Stereo, mp3 player or better quality CD? Just curious... We really get a ton and a ton of projects with great deal? Haha. At least, NOPE in my area. Still, one of the Biggest Recording Studio in town (supported by a very rich entrepreneur) was just closed down! Sad huh... Here is the balance of Quality Vs Survive.

I just did a test of recorded vocal at 88.2, surprisingly I get smoother high end frequencies, Ssss & Shhhh obviously harsh no more. I would like to have another test with different mics, interface and environments to ensure "it's really sweet S" at 88.2!

Sad thing, computer seems couldn't handle if more plugins apply during Mixing stage at 88.2

 

[42low]

Yes, but those blue dots represent a signal that is above nyquist and, therefore, can't exist after the filtering.

Noop. Their within the other dots at exact the same levels, copying the straight smooooooth analogue signal better.
That one don't hear the better quality isn't saying that the better quality isn't there. And non-hearable quality loss can (and will) eventually turn up after editting withing the hearing quality loss.

At the end you can't put let's say reverb over parts that are not there, so reverb over higher rates will get you cleaner reverb.

And original real life sound isn't digital either. It is smoooooth too. The (imitating!) digital result nearest to this original analogue sound will always be the best result. How simple can it be.

This message is hidden because miroslav is on your ignore list.

Clear enough i guess. Didn't read it at all but probably kicking again making everything look foolish without any real substantive arguments. Most likely a lot of empty words like always.

Sad thing, computer seems couldn't handle if more plugins apply during Mixing stage at 88.2

No problem for me, as i've many times worked with 24/96 with tens of tracks with multiple plugins, and my system did well.

Oh my.... I felt heavy and burdened now... Haha. Awesome discussion!

But like i said, i have the answer i looked for.
This discussion isn't mine anymore.

That prisme ada-8xr is a nice piece of gear.
But gives me the question why this professional gear would work on 24-bit and 192kHz if that should have no sence at all?
The prisme site also nowhere talks about 44.1khz.

Looks to me like a professional statement that higher sample rates indeed are better.
Why should they otherwise have those high rates as professional goal?

Clear enough to me. Strange that some still try to refute that professional choise made by a group of highly trained professional designers which most probably also had consultation by many producers.

If one wants to doubt 'better quality when higher rates' can score points by attending Prisme on their failures with the high rates ADA-8XR and by the professional studio's who stupidly choose it. Glad some here know much more than those specialist designers with their stupid higher rates choices.
The points are to be scored at this professionals, not at my adres as unimportant amateur. If you convince them you will convince me.
At the end i have more trust in those highly trained professional designers than in some empty yellers overhere.

Got my anwer. Not my discussion anymore. Good luck with the continuation of it. (@miroslav, i won't trip in your quest for fight again either)

 

[garww]

192 on a $150 interface gives you something. Like a pocket of Russian Rubles. Doesn't mean you could buy a loaf of bread with it : )

 

[Farview]

Noop. Their within the other dots at exact the same levels, copying the straight smooooooth analogue signal better.
That one don't hear the better quality isn't saying that the better quality isn't there. And non-hearable quality loss can (and will) eventually turn up after editting withing the hearing quality loss.

I'll break this down because you seem to be missing some very key points about how digital sampling works.

Sampling can only work with a band limited signal. Everything above the nyquist frequency (half of the sample rate) is filtered out. It takes at least two samples to represent a waveform. If there are only two samples in that waveform, it has to be right at the nyquist frequency. (otherwise there would be more than two samples)

If something happens between those two samples, it is happening at a frequency above nyquist (more than half the sample rate) and would have been filtered out before getting to the converter. Which means that it isn't there in the first place.

So, at 44.1k sample rate, everything above 22.1khz is filtered out. Which means that no signal exists that would fall between the samples.

At 48k sample rate, everything above 24khz is filtered out.

At 96k sample rate, everything above 48khz is filtered out. Now, if you think that you have recorded significant sound half an octave above what 99% of humans can hear, it might be worth it. (as long as it doesn't get turned into an mp3, which won't have any signal above 12khz)

At the end you can't put let's say reverb over parts that are not there, so reverb over higher rates will get you cleaner reverb.

And original real life sound isn't digital either. It is smoooooth too. The (imitating!) digital result nearest to this original analogue sound will always be the best result. How simple can it be.

Again, you might want to watch that video until you understand that there are no chunks or steps to the output of a digital to analog converter.

Clear enough to me. Strange that some still try to refute that professional choise made by a group of highly trained professional designers which most probably also had consultation by many producers.

As the owner of a commercial studio for 20 years, I know exactly why they do it. It's the same reason you have to have a couple Neumanns in the mic locker, even if they aren't the best choice for most of what you do. You have to meet the expectations of your clientele, many of whom are just as ill-informed as you.

A lot of the older guys were burned by the early digital equipment and bought into the stair-step idea, when the actual explanation for the harsh sound was a combination of pre-emphasis relatively poor conversion (compared to now) and them being used to having to record everything bright to make up for analog tape's high end loss.

If one wants to doubt 'better quality when higher rates' can score points by attending Prisme on their failures with the high rates ADA-8XR and by the professional studio's who stupidly choose it. Glad some here know much more than those specialist designers with their stupid higher rates choices.

Of course! Because a sales pitch is the best place to get accurate scientific information.

 

[garww]

I usually listen to the Dave Hill types.

 

[miroslav]

192 on a $150 interface gives you something. Like a pocket of Russian Rubles. Doesn't mean you could buy a loaf of bread with it : )

I'm sure in the zombie post-apocalypse world...a 192 kHz box would get you at least a couple slices of white bread.
A 384 kHz box also gets you some jam on that bread.

Their real value of higher sampling rates when coupled with a signal source and some amps and speakers, is that the higher rates capture the ultra high frequencies, which will melt the zombies' brains and kill them on audio playback...
...so hold on to those high-rate converters.

Lower rates will only wound the zombies.

 

[garww]

Oddly enough, with pretty much just hearing on the left, I can still catch stereo effects going on. I'm still buying some Hi-Res

 

[42low]

You record some tracks and the jitter is working good. the next track has a jitter issue

That's why i only use jitter for the endresult. Not while editting and mastering.
Jitter is loss. Loss on loss on loss is not what you want within a project.

I just did a test of recorded vocal at 88.2, surprisingly I get smoother high end frequencies, Ssss & Shhhh obviously harsh no more. I would like to have another test with different mics, interface and environments to ensure "it's really sweet S" at 88.2!

Fun to hear. It's my experience too.

Sad thing, computer seems couldn't handle if more plugins apply during Mixing stage at 88.2

Sad to hear.
But i asked my question for my situation. And i've made several 24/96 projects up to 20+ tracks with 2-3-4 plugins on most of these tracks. And my system could easily handle it.
I guess that's by the gear i use. (like some said too)

So my question for my situation is answered and i know my choice.

I only still don't understand the many "48 is the best" reactions.
And that still has my interest, trying to understand why that seems to be some kind of holy truth (although also many others choose for high rates).

As the owner of a commercial studio for 20 years, I know exactly why they do it.

Don't get me wrong, i respect you at full.
Just for the quest for practical facts....

This makes me ask you questions from curiousity. And i hope for an honest answer.

- What do you yourself choose in your commercial situations?
- What rates do the known music production compagnies demand?
- What rates do serious radio and television demand?

And i ask that because the times i confront this mostly high rates are demanded. And in part of those it even must be totally lossless and non-compressed.
Only some small semi-professonal locals accept 44.1 or 48.
So to me those demanded high rates seem to confirm that those are the common rates within the professional levels, exactly like that professional prisme ada specs deliver.

Are all those top level professionals really THAT stupid then??

Sony Music for instance.
https://www.sony.com/electronics/hi-res-audio-mp3-cd-sound-quality-comparison

And Grammy
http://www.grammy.com/sites/com/files/pages/deliveryrecommendations.pdf

The Secondary Masters (Backups/”Safeties”) should
have sampling rates and precisions equal to or better than the “Original Master” (88.2,
96, 176.4, 192, 352.8, and 384 kHz are recommended, as are 24 or greater bit depths).

 

[Farview]

That's why i only use jitter for the endresult. Not while editting and mastering.
Jitter is loss. Loss on loss on loss is not what you want within a project.

I think you are confusing jitter with dither. There is no way to 'use jitter'.

This makes me ask you questions from curiousity. And i hope for an honest answer.

- What do you yourself choose in your commercial situations?

I choose the sample rate of the final product. 44.1k for CD, 48k for video.

- What rates do the known music production compagnies demand?

They generally demand the finished product now, but if they want to handle the mastering, 44.1k for stuff destined for CD is perfectly fine.

- What rates do serious radio and television demand?

Radio stations play high bitrate mp3's. Even if you send them a CD, an intern at the station will rip it to mp3 to stick in their computer.

And i ask that because the times i confront this mostly high rates are demanded. And in part of those it even must be totally lossless and non-compressed.

Any PCM format is lossless and uncompressed. Those two terms have nothing to do with the sample rate or the bit depth, they have to do with the format. (wav, mp3, etc...)

Only some small semi-professonal locals accept 44.1 or 48.
So to me those demanded high rates seem to confirm that those are the common rates within the professional levels, exactly like that professional prisme ada specs deliver.
Are all those professionals THAT stupid then??

I will try to find Dave Hill's white paper on high sample rates. Dave Hill is the designer of Crane Song, which has made some of the best converters in the world. I'm pretty sure Massive Mastering has a link to it somewhere. I know it's on the AES website, but you have to be a member (or cough up $33) to read it.

Sony Music for instance.
Sound Quality Comparison of Hi-Res Audio vs. CD vs. MP3 | Sony US

...and again, a company trying to find a market for a new bunch of hardware.

These are the same people that tried to sell everyone quadraphonic sound in the 70's and surround sound for music. Surround has been around for over 20 years and every music-only format they come up with fails. (video formats for surround work, but not music only) They are trying to sell a future that isn't coming.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

So to me those demanded high rates seem to confirm that those are the common rates within the professional levels, exactly like that professional prisme ada specs deliver.

Are all those top level professionals really THAT stupid then??

They are satisfying customer demands. If customers think they need to record at 192kHz to make their boring music popular then that's what you give them. Provide the service and take the money, if that's how you want to work.

And there are other reasons a high quality converter might sound better besides sample rate.

In my world, if the music sucks I just won't bother putting my time into it and I won't waste resources by recording it at some stupid high sample rate. I'd rather spend my time recording good music at 48kHz than bad music at 192kHz. It's not suddenly going to get popular just because I use four times the memory to record frequencies that can't be heard.

Besides which, one of the advantages of high sample rate is that it allows more gentle analog filters, which you get with modern oversampling converters anyway. They're already converting at 192 or whatever, applying a gentle analog LPF and then filtering the audio digitally at 20kHz before downconverting to your target sample rate.

Read this: The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better — And When It Isn’t)

 

[42low]

So to me those demanded high rates seem to confirm that those are the common rates within the professional levels, exactly like that professional prisme ada specs deliver.

Are all those top level professionals really THAT stupid then??

They are satisfying customer demands. If customers think they need to record at 192kHz to make their boring music popular then that's what you give them. Provide the service and take the money, if that's how you want to work.

You simply wipe that away as a simple sales argument??
Those customers are top level professionals (Sony, Grammy!!), working with the biggest artists in the world, which work with the best producers in the world in the best studio's in the world. And you really think they would be stupid enough to buy shit like that if it wasn't true?
So actually your agreeing that all those top level professionals don't know what they use or do and are stupid?

Naah. Much too simple argument. Non-argument actually.

I think you are confusing jitter with dither. There is no way to 'use jitter'.

Your right. My mistake.

Radio stations play high bitrate mp3's. Even if you send them a CD, an intern at the station will rip it to mp3 to stick in their computer.

I have other experiences.
Experiences which fit within the rates i gave examples for (sony, grammy).

I choose the sample rate of the final product. 44.1k for CD, 48k for video.
They generally demand the finished product now, but if they want to handle the mastering, 44.1k for stuff destined for CD is perfectly fine.

Then your customers never can send in for a Grammy as they demand higher rates masters as you could read. Bummer for them.

I will try to find Dave Hill's white paper on high sample rates. Dave Hill is the designer of Crane Song, which has made some of the best converters in the world. I'm pretty sure Massive Mastering has a link to it somewhere. I know it's on the AES website, but you have to be a member (or cough up $33) to read it.

I'm very curious to this, as Dave Hill's gear can handle sample rates up to 24/192 too. Confusing.
To me at this moment that again looks like a confirmation of the benefits of higher sample rates. Why otherwise would Dave Hill design something "stupid and useless" as high sample rates in it's gear and not simply cut off at 48?

I read many contradictions within this subject and topic. Especially at the "high rates are useless" side, were the professionals repeatedly appoint high rates. It will never be clear this way.
Then I will assume that it's the top level professionals with their high rates really are THAT stupid then.... nah, not.
This discussion is really going nowhere with such contradicting arguments. I'm out.

Whatever. I got the answer i was looking for.