Calling all masters of digital domain...

Paul881 said:
This is why a bass guitar sound wave low "E" takes about 15 metres (50 feet) to develop properly.:cool:
Click to expand...
The E is at 41 Hz, right? Then it will take 340 / 41 = 8.29 meters... ;)

15 meters will is 22.67 Hz.
 
i still don't understand how the test songs being all different songs doesn't matter...cuz for a certain song you can mix it to sound my gritty or you can add hi end to make it sound hi-fi...etc..
 
absolutely... so for this purpose i would think you would want to have as little variation as possible to know for sure that it is whatever it is your testing for causing the problem...and not some other uncontrollable variable
 
Pedullist said:
Gee, and my studio is only 2x2 metres! :eek:
Click to expand...

Heh heh , Don't worry, you don't need to have the waveform fully developed to record that particular frequency.

The bit depths and sampling rates can either add to, or detract from any piece of music. It never just a question of higher is better or more is better. Even though we have 192 Khz capability, alot Pro's are still using 48Khz. I recently was reading somebodies question to Joe Chicarelli about the "new" PTHD192 Converters. It was interesting that Joe preferred 24/48Khz for drums, but likes the 192Khz for other types of instruments. It all about the translation. Depending on the quality of your converters, the outcome can be surprisingly different. For instance, the ADAT's that Ed used fot this little test. The Black face 16 bit converters might be linear converters where the 20 Bit ADAT might have had 20bit floating, Ive heard that the 20 bit ADAT converters self dither at around 18 bits because of thermal reasons, which means it sorta floating. Anyhow, Ed comments are sort of a reminder that most folks doing PC recording with average to below consumer converters won't make a huge difference. Mainly were not talking about summing 72 tracks, 47 plug-ins and midi automation. For me, hight bit depths and high sample rates result in better reverb tails, cymbal decay and smooth hf translation. More bits for more accurate mathmatical precision, less truncation artifacts and anti-aliasing garbage. There are tons of CD's that were made with 16 bit 44.1 Khz converters, and most people can't tell the difference? How many of us could so a double blind test and tell what was recorded on 2" tape verses Protools after its been mastered and put onto a Red Book CD?
It takes alot of experience using both to be able to identify the particular characteristics of each... How many arguments have you seen between Nuendo and CubaseSX users saying Nuendo sounds better? They both use the same audio engine right? I think we should focus on the song, the source and listening to make better music with whatever tools you have at your disposal. If you can make it sound the way you want at 16/44.1 Then you have your answer, if its needs 24/192 and you have the storage and PC power to do it, and it sounds better to you maxed...then max it... Don't let your buddies or marketing hype push you into comprimising music for fluffy reasons;)

SoMm
 
For me, hight bit depths and high sample rates result in better reverb tails, cymbal decay and smooth hf translation. More bits for more accurate mathmatical precision, less truncation artifacts and anti-aliasing garbage.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was talking about. I mean the whole question is not about to judge the result, it's about

...will it make the DSP work much more precission, and detail if we "transfer" (as the Almighty Dachay wouldn't say it dither :D ) 16 bit to 24 bit first before processing ?

Off course one of the best way to judge if it's better or not is by hearing the result, but in -technic mathematical- terms, will it give me any advantage to do so ? I'm enjoying learning this topic from you guys :)

;)
Jaymz
 
This is deffinitelly great thread. and James Argo started it so well (as usual :D). Ever wonder stop talking to yourself, Jaymz ? Keep talking guys, I dig your worth wisdom here -thought I don't understand in so many part :confused: :)
 
Hey... who had under-rated this thread ????
This baby should be kept *****

BTW, great link, SoMm :) Thank's !!

;)
Jaymz
 
James Argo said:
This baby should be kept *****
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I wonder who gave it 5 stars.... Could it be James?.... James, raise your hand..... There you go...


:p
 
5 stars, yup, Any thread that has real discussion with members such as
J. argo, Moskus, sonusman,peddulist,teacher,crosstudio, recording engineer. son of mm and dachay is bound to be both entertaining and informative. I put my 5 stars vote in:D :D

A big thanks to all those GURUS and entertainment masters

My recording still sucks but Im learning
 
Well, I guess most of us wouldn't be here if it wasn't entertaining and fun. I'm not getting paid per post (even if it looks like it :D)...

But then again I'm addicted to this place! :eek:
 
James...

James Argo said:
16 bit 44KHz Wave --> Export to external wave editor which has better dithering algorithm, dither to 24 bit convert to 48 or 96 KHz --> Plugin 1 --> Plugin 2 --> Plugin 3 --> mix ( 24bit 48 or 96KHz)--> sent back to SONAR 2.2 XL.
Click to expand...

James...

Don't mean to get technical...but dithering is always last. SRC 1st, dither to the lower resolution 2nd.

mark4man

BTW - If that external wave editor happens to be WaveLab, Apogee UV 22 HR is the way to go, rendered to 16-Bit.
 
Don't mean to get technical...but dithering is always last. SRC 1st, dither to the lower resolution 2nd.
Click to expand...

Yes, mark4man :)
I thought any conversion between resolutions is called dithering. I stand corrected first time by Dachay & sonusman :) I just thought there would be sonic differences to use 24bit processing on 16bit wave file, dan so using 96kHz samplerate processing on -already recorded at 44.1kHz- wave file... :) As you see, we didn't get straight answer on this case, but vary :) I respect each comments based on their point of view & experience (...and including you, offcourse :) ). By knowing well their background (technical & musical) I can gain better understanding.

If that external wave editor happens to be WaveLab, Apogee UV 22 HR is the way to go, rendered to 16-Bit
Click to expand...
I'll note that, Thanks :) I don't use Wavelab, I use CoolEdit Pro 2 (mainly) & Soundforge 6 (occasionaly) instead :) But in my friend's studio I work sometime, they use Wavelab 4. I'll note your words :)

;)
Jaymz


...please consider Pre-ordering Homerecording.Comp CD's Vol 2 :)
 
Jaymz,

JAYMZ..........................!!!

You're OK, man.

>I just thought there would be sonic differences to use 24bit processing on 16bit wave file<

Actually, you'd be using 32-Bit (FP) in Cool Edit, regardless of the resolution of the source file, I think? (haven't used CEP in about 2 1/2 years.)

mark4man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top