KHz ?

[pipelineaudio]

mattr excellent explanation! Are you really 17?

Sucks to see someone so promising entering the industry at this point in the game, when its just a stinking festering corpse

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Sampling frequency, unless I'm ridiculously misinformed (which is more than possible), doesn't have anything to do with dynamic range. That's bit depth.
Still, same message applies. 24-bit gives you plenty of dynamic range above the noise floor.

You are right that the bit depth gives your dynamic range...

But sampling rate can add or remove small amounts of noise.

Less noise effectively means greater dynamic range.

 

[dgatwood]

Except that IIRC, it's the raw (oversampling) clock rate that determines this, not the sample rate that the computer sees. Thus, 192 kHz converters are likely to have better SNR than 96 kHz converters, but 192 kHz converters are likely to have comparable SNR whether they are running at 192 kHz or 96 kHz. Don't quote me on that, though; I could be wrong about this.

 

[bunt]

Oh, never mind. I see that they use a proprietary volume format, and I doubt anybody has bothered to reverse engineer it.

Thanks dgatwood. yep, you're correct about Tascam creating a unique format such that nothing that's available on the open market will work, plus even if I solo each track and try to line them up later, it only outputs at 16 bits, unless I'm missing some trick, which is entirely possible. Nice, eh?!

 

[bunt]

The hum of the hot water heater is probably adding more noise than the sampling frequency anyway.

There's a bunch of good information here... all stuff I should know, but I went home last night and employed the repeating advice of southside glen and that massive harley guy... well, except I used the ozone plug that comes with Soundforge, which I know drives em crazy. Worse yet, I used a preset for this little experiment

So! I found this all to be pretty perplexing, as my ears said yes, and the math says no... so I A/B'd one of my mixes last night.

As noted earlier, I have to export at 16 bit, 44.1 KhZ.. or basically burn a CD from my 788, which has no on-board burner, so it goes from digital 'out' into a stand alone CD recorder with a digital 'in'. Next I load this CD into Soundforge on my computer. I used the preset (Ozone) because I wanted something fairly drastic for comparison's sake. The preset is called "moderate compression" heh... Anyway, I ran it at 16 bit, 44.1KhZ and the result sounded (to me) like when I used to be over-zealoused with (hardware)compression or when I used the freebie vst plugs like "classic". Mud. Lots of mud, very bassy, dull, no air and almost anti-crisp. Next I resampled at 192,000 Hz and re-did the bit depth to 32. Ran the same preset, and this time it was crisp & clear without all the (perceived) bassyness. The instruments appeared to have better separation or distinction.. however that should be said and just a better overall balance of frequencies. This wasn't just a small little difference either. Since I am lacking in proper terminology, I'll try this bad analogy... it was like if I hooked a single 12" guitar speaker to my stereo vs a high efficiency speaker set with tweeters & crossovers.

So keeping in mind what mattr said, I was thinking that although the core mix is not affected in a good way by upping the sample & bit rates, perhaps the effect.. or in this case the compression IS affected by the higher bit & sample rates? I also tried really hard to detect additional noise, but couldn't. Can anyone explain this to me? I'm pretty confused by it all. Thanks! (sorry for the long post)

 

[TheChikenMaster]

I would agree with mattr in theory. but in practice noway. after all the convertions ad da downsampling all the overtones (a piano without overtones is not a piano) will be lost in a digital mess. so starting at a higher samplerate leaves room in the end. kinda like headroom, sorta.