96 kHZ

[mshilarious]

i threw together some samples on my soundclick site for 96/24 vs 44.1/24 and 16 vs 24 bit. you can take a listen. http://www.soundclick.com/roughcanvas - in the music section - top 4 items. ignore the rest. i deliberately left a lot of room noise in because i think you can more easily hear the overall difference in the noise in addition to the guitar bits... the 16 vs 24 (IMHO) is obvious. the 96 vs 44.1 is subtle but even in MP3, the source difference is there...

16 v 24 is not at issue, and I don't think too many would argue for 16 at this point--the specs in noise floor are dramatically different.

So I just listened to the 44.1 vs. 96 samples. These performances are too different, both samples are very quiet, and the .mp3 files are low rate. I don't think this is a very valid test--try using something repeatable, like a CD.

Incidentially this is the FFT of the two files, blue is 96 and yellow is 44. The 44 sample is 3.4 dB louder than the 96, both peak and RMS, which I didn't normalize on this graph, because it makes them easier to read.

In theory, we should expect to see a slight attenuation in the 44 file above 18 kHz. It's not there, but again the level up there is -90dB or so, so there may have been practically no signal to be attenuated.

 

[BigRay]

I record at 24/96 normally (though my recorder handles 192) ..As for me...I was hard pressed to hear really big differences between say 48 and 96 khz...BUT heard HUGE differences between the various Bit Depths...the jump from 16 to 24 was ASTOUNDING!...I still record at 96 khz because in theory it is supposed to sound better, more "true" but the real difference for me lied in the bit-depth, not sample rate.

trb

I think the link you where given was completely inaccurate. If 96k was a recording gimmick, then no one would go through the trouble of manufacturing units that can achieve 96k and beyond.

The simple fact is, although you may not hear the frequency, it becomes a resolution issue. Simply put, the higher the sample rate, the higher the resolution. Also, you can achieve greater dynamic range with higher samples.

That's why digidesign even bothers to put out a box that does 192k. Problem is, you have to have serious processing power and massive storage, and that becomes expensive.

That's the reason it takes longer to save, cause it's a higher resolution. Usually it's common to record 24/48 and you can get by just fine in the recording world.

But for those whom work with digital and are die hard about capturing the sound at the highest resolution, then anything up to 192k becomes a nessessity.

I myself am guilty of this. I heard the difference once and I never went back

 

[gullfo]

So I just listened to the 44.1 vs. 96 samples. These performances are too different, both samples are very quiet, and the .mp3 files are low rate. I don't think this is a very valid test--try using something repeatable, like a CD.

I don't think you'll see any attenuation before 19.5K when the low pass filter on the MP3 processing kicks in. both MP3 files are 128K because the original question a few weeks ago was related to "does higher quality in the recording process matter in MP3 files". I realize the performances vary a bit but the real key is to listen to the audio quality difference - you can also hear it in the room noise which is constant between the 2 samples. a CD would not likely be a better test though because it is already 44.1/16 and the recording sources can vary greatly - in this test, it's just raw audio sourced at either 96 or 44.1, no additional level raising, etc...

the 16 vs 24 bit files are examples of how the noise levels are raised and the associated distortion in the 16 bit when increasing the level and having lost the lower bits (in addition to more noise).

 

[mshilarious]

a CD would not likely be a better test though because it is already 44.1/16 and the recording sources can vary greatly - in this test, it's just raw audio sourced at either 96 or 44.1, no additional level raising, etc...

A CD isn't going to vary 3.4 dB between samples. That's an enormous difference which invalidates any audible change in the noise profile, because it means something significant happened upstream of the converter.

A comparison test is an experiment, which should be done to test a hypothesis, which should be based on some theoretical principle. The principle in question with sample rate is high-frequency response. Most ADCs do not vary between sample rates with respect to noise. Therefore, we are objectively looking for high-frequency attenuation at lower sample rates. It would thus help to have a sample with a fair amount of high-frequency content.


If using a CD troubles you, use a SACD or DVD-A. Or get two of the converters in question and split the preamp output, or use L-R channels. Then post a 10 second 24-bit .wav file.

Or rig up a golf ball to slide down a chute onto a cymbal. That should be easily repeatable, as gravity is a constant

 

[Robert D]

If a golf ball slides down a chute and hits a cymbal, and there's no one there to hear it, does it really make a sound?

 

[gullfo]

Or rig up a golf ball to slide down a chute onto a cymbal. That should be easily repeatable, as gravity is a constant

i'll put together a more consistent set of files... what is gravity?

 

[mshilarious]

If a golf ball slides down a chute and hits a cymbal, and there's no one there to hear it, does it really make a sound?

Well I don't know, but I can tell you one thing--it's still not a sport!

 

[Todzilla]

I had understood that the main benefit from sampling smaller slices at a greater bit depth was to create significant detail so that mathematical rounding (which inevitably takes place in any signal processing, specifically "summing") would throw out less useful data.

In other words, you might not hear a difference in a single track recorded at 44/16 vs. 96/24. But as you mix a project at 44/16, the summing of numbers will be less precise, as the "fatter" bits of 44/16 will be rounded, instead of the "skinnier" bits of 96/24.

Does this make sense?

 

[thebrontosaurus]

mhm. thats where i read about sample rates.

 

[mjau]

If you can make it sound good with 44.1 it doesnt matter that much. You will make it sound good with higher sample rates as well.

Remember that 2" tape (even my studer A827) rolls off LONG before 32k, more like 16k...

It does it a litte more gracefully than some cheap converter box, but whatever. I use PTHD and at 88.2 things are not drastically better or worse than tape OR 44.1.... Really. You have to be capable of recoding a source that REVEALS these limitations in the first place.

Basically: Record a lot. That is worth more than any mic pre or microphone or DAW or tape machine. The best way to get better results is to record. A LOT.

Nobody expects a new baseball glove to make them Derek Jeter... So why does this always happen in the audio world?

It wouold be like saying " I really cant play guitar, shold I get a Les Paul? then will i be amazing?"

Save your money, and dont let advertizers convince you of ANYTHING...

Do you really need to bring Derek Jeter into this?

 

[dgatwood]

i'll put together a more consistent set of files... what is gravity?

I'm not sure, but I know it sucks.