Does 44.1k matter or should I do 96k?

[MCI2424]

The whole reason behind higher sample rates is trying to do something digtial was never intended to to do which is be linear like tape. Digital no matter how high the word length is choppy (squared may be a better word to use). Which is why they invented dithering to blur the image. The reason Nyqusit doubled the frequency at which a human could hear was to accurately capture a sample.

With due respect, this is kind'a wrong on so many levels, but trying to set it right would take too much time.............

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

AT mixdown. I go through a big analog mixer straight to a wavefile. Best way in my opinion as you avoid all of the downsampling problems.

Could you explain this a bit more? I'm not sure how running the signals through two stages of conversion differs and is necessarily better than a single quality downsample.

I'm not saying you're worng - nor am I kicking the process; I love a good analog summing as much as the next guy. But leaving the effects of the summing engine out of it, how is de-sampling and resampling necessarily better than a quality downconversion?

Doesn't it all depend upon the quality of converters versus the quality of the SRC?

For example, the only reason your HDR sounds better at 48 than 44.1 or 96 is because the converter itself works better at that rate. If you used a quality external converter that sounded like crystal at 44.1, you could record there and avoid worrying abut SRC at all. Or, if the converters on either side of your analog board sucked, the re-conversion process might not sound better than a high quality SRC would (again, analog summing effects aside).

G.

 

[NYMorningstar]

44,48,96 is good if your converters were optimized in the design stage for anyone of these. You will notice a far bigger difference between 16 and 24 bit at any of these sampling rates. I have heard all of the above sound better or worse. I run 48K 24 bit at tracking all the time because my HD recorder sounds best there. I tried 96K and did not hear a difference.

How did you a sampling rate of 96kHz with 16bit?

 

[Reggie]

Could you explain this a bit more? I'm not sure how running the signals through two stages of conversion differs and is necessarily better than a single quality downsample.

I'm not saying you're worng - nor am I kicking the process; I love a good analog summing as much as the next guy. But leaving the effects of the summing engine out of it, how is de-sampling and resampling necessarily better than a quality downconversion?

Doesn't it all depend upon the quality of converters versus the quality of the SRC?

For example, the only reason your HDR sounds better at 48 than 44.1 or 96 is because the converter itself works better at that rate. If you used a quality external converter that sounded like crystal at 44.1, you could record there and avoid worrying abut SRC at all. Or, if the converters on either side of your analog board sucked, the re-conversion process might not sound better than a high quality SRC would (again, analog summing effects aside).

G.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying he should do...record at 44.1, mixdown, and then recapture at 44.1? I don't see how that would be better at all...
My convertors are not top of the line, but 48K or 96K does sound just a little better to me than 44.1K. If I had a convenient way to do it, I would probably be doing it just like MCI2424.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying he should do...record at 44.1, mixdown, and then recapture at 44.1? I don't see how that would be better at all...

It wouldn't necessarily be better. Or necessarily worse, FTM.

My question was, in short, why he felt that de-sampling and resampling was intrinsically better than downsampling:

Best way in my opinion as you avoid all of the downsampling problems.

What I'm saying is that I'll take a good mastering-quality SRC over double-passes thorugh project-quality converters any day. But I'd also, OTOH, rather take the long way through two A-list converters than through a cheap in-the-box SRC.

It comes down to, IMO, the quality of the product at each stage, and that to intrinsically say that conversion is better than downsampling (or vice-versa, even) sounds a bit misleading...unless I'm misunderstanding MCI's intent, which is why I asked for clarification.

G.

 

[RAK]

I can't hear the 17khz ringtone, my kids can. Its the one the teachers can't hear..

try it for fun.
http://www.jetcityorange.com/MosquitoRingtone.html

I even checked it thru my EMU 24/192 setup and the mixer was showing it, but I wasn't hearing it.

Yeah, but what are you playing it back on, and at what volume?
I can hear it just listening with some earphones from my computers stock sound card (very noisy), but it is definetly faint, and I can see how if that goes off in a noisy classroom, it's going to be masked by other things.

 

[bigwillz24]

With due respect, this is kind'a wrong on so many levels, but trying to set it right would take too much time.............

Please do explain... I have trouble regurgitating the info that has been crammed in my cranium and I'm still learning.

It's the whole reason I hang out here really. Well that... and the cave.

 

[MCI2424]

Could you explain this a bit more? I'm not sure how running the signals through two stages of conversion differs and is necessarily better than a single quality downsample.

I'm not saying you're worng - nor am I kicking the process; I love a good analog summing as much as the next guy. But leaving the effects of the summing engine out of it, how is de-sampling and resampling necessarily better than a quality downconversion?

Doesn't it all depend upon the quality of converters versus the quality of the SRC?

For example, the only reason your HDR sounds better at 48 than 44.1 or 96 is because the converter itself works better at that rate. If you used a quality external converter that sounded like crystal at 44.1, you could record there and avoid worrying abut SRC at all. Or, if the converters on either side of your analog board sucked, the re-conversion process might not sound better than a high quality SRC would (again, analog summing effects aside).

G.

I record on my HD at 48K 24 bit and mix all 24 channels on an analog console so the whole mix gets converted at once. Sounds great to me. Wav file is now 44.1K and gets burned to CD directly.

And yes, you are right. The converters on my HD recorder DO sound better than both 44.1 and 96K. That is why I use them. I hate ITB mixing for the reasons you list above. Just sounds better to me, easier to concentrate with a big ol' console in front of me. I am just used to it.

In the end, the converters on my HD recorder are really good sounding and I don't sweat the re-conversion for the analog mixing. Some things in theory don't always manifest themselves in reality. Now, if I WAS limited with not so good converters, you would have a point. I would avoid the conversion back to analog and probably be stuck with ITB mixing.

But I would hate every minute of it.

 

[MCI2424]

How did you a sampling rate of 96kHz with 16bit?

Sorry. what I mean is that you will hear a bigger difference going from 44.1K 16 bit to 44.1K 24bit than going from 44.1K 24 bit to 96K 24 bit.

And, yes, my HD recorder does 44.1K. 48K, 96K at 16 or 24 bit.

 

[CoolCat]

Yeah, but what are you playing it back on, and at what volume?
I can hear it just listening with some earphones from my computers stock sound card (very noisy), but it is definetly faint, and I can see how if that goes off in a noisy classroom, it's going to be masked by other things.

I used my monitors once and my sons crap pc speakers once. I couldn't hear it,
many adults can't especially 40 and older.

The kids were laughing and amazed at this science as they could hear it very clearly.

Makes me wonder,off the subject, my mixes tend to be "trebly" per some responses...it makes sense in a way. If I can't hear the higher end, am I turning the treble up more???

and I'm over 40!
(and too many Led Zepplin albums?)

 

[NYMorningstar]

And, yes, my HD recorder does 44.1K. 48K, 96K at 16 or 24 bit.

Thanks, I didn't realize that you could record 96K with just 16 bit. I don't have that option with my soundcard and I've never read about it before.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I record on my HD at 48K 24 bit and mix all 24 channels on an analog console so the whole mix gets converted at once. Sounds great to me. Wav file is now 44.1K and gets burned to CD directly.

This is not picking, it sounds like we are actually in agreement and on the same page. I'm just looking to understand your exact signal path a bit more.

When you say your "whole mix gets converted at once", you're really converting twice during the mixdown pahse, right? You first have to D/A your 24 independent tracks to send them through the analog mixer; which I assume are the D/A converters on your HDR.

Then what happens to the 2mix coming out of the mixer? The mixer has to be sending it to another A/D converter that is converting the analog 2mix to 44.1 before it gets burnt. I'm just curious as to what you're using on that end. Are you sending back to the HDR on two spare tracks or are you going direct to an external CDR, or are going through an A/D interface to your computer for the final burn?

G.

 

[MCI2424]

This is not picking, it sounds like we are actually in agreement and on the same page. I'm just looking to understand your exact signal path a bit more.

When you say your "whole mix gets converted at once", you're really converting twice during the mixdown pahse, right? You first have to D/A your 24 independent tracks to send them through the analog mixer; which I assume are the D/A converters on your HDR.

Then what happens to the 2mix coming out of the mixer? The mixer has to be sending it to another A/D converter that is converting the analog 2mix to 44.1 before it gets burnt. I'm just curious as to what you're using on that end. Are you sending back to the HDR on two spare tracks or are you going direct to an external CDR, or are going through an A/D interface to your computer for the final burn?

G.

The whole mix goes to a computer soundcard (a mastering card, very high quality converters) and gets converted to a wavefile at 44.1Khz, 16bit.