J
JuSumPilgrim
New member
96k guys
If you understand digital audio then you know about the Nyquist limit and what happens if you record something over the Nyquist limit without a suitable filter. If you record 28kHz, you will hear a tone at 16kHz during playback.
The same sort of thing happens when capacitors can't handle the high frequencies. They discharge at the wrong time and add peaks where there weren't any in the audio.
As I said in my 96k column, I had this happen on the new Steely Dan mixes, and Tom Jung ran into the same problem with a Sony bitstream demonstration when using an amplifier that was not band limited to 20kHz.
This does not happen every time, bu since you can not directly hear the contents way up there, then oscillations above the 20k limit in the analog console can adversely effect the audio below it.
When digital audio first started being used widely in the early 80s, there was all of this low frequency farting that happened with digital machines connected to Neve consoles. The digital recording process was blamed. It turned out that Neve consoles have low frequency noise around 10 to 16 Hz that would screw with the DC removal circuits in the digital machines causing the problem. You can tell if a Neve has this problem by looking at the phase meter. If the phase meter is flopping back and forth when no audio is passing through the console, then there is low frequency capacitor noise, period. The phase meter should come to rest dead center if the console is quiet. Still in the year 2000 a good 30% of the studios I work in have not fixed the problem. Their answer is "Nobody complains when recording analog" or "We don't hear anything, so it is not a problem."
1) For multitrack recording I think 96k is a waste of time and storage. At best, 96k is double the resolution in the time domain with the penalty being twice the storage requirements.
Maybe there is a slight difference for mixing that some people think they hear, so fine... use it for mixes, but nobody has been able to show me that playing back 24-48 tracks of 96k sounds any different than 24-48 tracks of 48k.
2) 24 bits, on the other hand, is easily heard, is 256 times the resolution in the level domain, and only requires 50% more storage.
I rest my case
Roger
Just something I came across at Roger's forum I thought Id share.
JuSumPilgrim
If you understand digital audio then you know about the Nyquist limit and what happens if you record something over the Nyquist limit without a suitable filter. If you record 28kHz, you will hear a tone at 16kHz during playback.
The same sort of thing happens when capacitors can't handle the high frequencies. They discharge at the wrong time and add peaks where there weren't any in the audio.
As I said in my 96k column, I had this happen on the new Steely Dan mixes, and Tom Jung ran into the same problem with a Sony bitstream demonstration when using an amplifier that was not band limited to 20kHz.
This does not happen every time, bu since you can not directly hear the contents way up there, then oscillations above the 20k limit in the analog console can adversely effect the audio below it.
When digital audio first started being used widely in the early 80s, there was all of this low frequency farting that happened with digital machines connected to Neve consoles. The digital recording process was blamed. It turned out that Neve consoles have low frequency noise around 10 to 16 Hz that would screw with the DC removal circuits in the digital machines causing the problem. You can tell if a Neve has this problem by looking at the phase meter. If the phase meter is flopping back and forth when no audio is passing through the console, then there is low frequency capacitor noise, period. The phase meter should come to rest dead center if the console is quiet. Still in the year 2000 a good 30% of the studios I work in have not fixed the problem. Their answer is "Nobody complains when recording analog" or "We don't hear anything, so it is not a problem."
1) For multitrack recording I think 96k is a waste of time and storage. At best, 96k is double the resolution in the time domain with the penalty being twice the storage requirements.
Maybe there is a slight difference for mixing that some people think they hear, so fine... use it for mixes, but nobody has been able to show me that playing back 24-48 tracks of 96k sounds any different than 24-48 tracks of 48k.
2) 24 bits, on the other hand, is easily heard, is 256 times the resolution in the level domain, and only requires 50% more storage.
I rest my case
Roger
Just something I came across at Roger's forum I thought Id share.
JuSumPilgrim
