zip
New member
If you have a 24bit (48/44.1) digital capability in you system just how important IS 96??
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
the step from 16 bit to 24 is much more significant than the step from 44.1 or 48 to 96.....of course, if your system is capable of 24/96, it is a no-brainer to use it ...but the problem often run into is that as resource hogging as 24/48 is, 24/96 is twice as much a hog.......96 definitely sounds better than 44.1 and 48, but of course, you have to lissten of a good setup to hear it.....
Gidge
Lapdance Test Dummy
BTW, Im perfectly happy with 24/44.1 or 24/48......
vox
Member
If I had to try to to quantify it I would say that it sound about 3 - 5% better, not a huge difference but certainly audible in an A/B comparison.
zip
New member
We're neck and neck at 33%...
keep em coming!
keep em coming!
B
bizarre
New member
no doubt - you can hear it .... I can also see it on my Pulsar's DSP usage, soooo - I'd really like to keep it 24/96, but I've settled for 24/44.1
bizz
bizz
frank_1
New member
Doesn't recording at 24/96 take up a HUGE percentage of you hard disk. I thought I heard that 24/96 is almost unusable for even a demo if you don't have mega storage capabilities.
Am I wrong??
Am I wrong??
vox
Member
Maybe about 2 gig per song, you could fit a whole album on a 30 gig drive . 
A
Alchemist3k
New member
I would agree with the previous posters who have espoused that reocrding at 24bit makes more of a noticable difference. Some people claim that 96k is very noticable but it is dependent on what type of music you play and what your recording, what mics you use etc.
For example, perhaps 96k would make more of a noticable difference if say you record natural instruments which by their nature will have a wide range of harmonics, many of which are inaudable to all but the most sensitive ears. In a pro studio if you were recording say a violin or accoustic guitar with amazing mics etc then perhaps recording at 96k is worth it when the most pristine sound quality is what matters. As for us home enthusiasts I don't think the drain on system resources is worth it.
Also, for those of you who use VST instruments pull up the VST performance bar in your software and play away at 44.1. Then switch to 96k and watch that cpu indicator rocket! When I use Native Instruments Dynamo on a 1.4 Athlon machine with 512mb of RAM My system performance with several synths going is about 20%. Switch to 96k and that jumps to about 70% (and this is without any audio tracks on the go!). Hence, I see no point.
For example, perhaps 96k would make more of a noticable difference if say you record natural instruments which by their nature will have a wide range of harmonics, many of which are inaudable to all but the most sensitive ears. In a pro studio if you were recording say a violin or accoustic guitar with amazing mics etc then perhaps recording at 96k is worth it when the most pristine sound quality is what matters. As for us home enthusiasts I don't think the drain on system resources is worth it.
Also, for those of you who use VST instruments pull up the VST performance bar in your software and play away at 44.1. Then switch to 96k and watch that cpu indicator rocket! When I use Native Instruments Dynamo on a 1.4 Athlon machine with 512mb of RAM My system performance with several synths going is about 20%. Switch to 96k and that jumps to about 70% (and this is without any audio tracks on the go!). Hence, I see no point.
zip
New member
Still no must haves...
..and i had NO idea 96 would tax the system that hard!! Damn...
..and i had NO idea 96 would tax the system that hard!! Damn...
Tom Hicks
Well-known member
I could really hear the difference in going from 16 bit to 24 bit,but I didn't really notice the better fidelity from 44.1 to 96K.Maybe its because the nyquist frequency (or whatever you call it) for 96K is well above my range of hearing.File size is an issue as well.So I am happy on my system recording 24 bit 44.1K.
The irony for home hobiests like me is that all this gets downsampled to an mp3 that gets listened to by a $10 pair of computer speakers anyway...
Tom
The irony for home hobiests like me is that all this gets downsampled to an mp3 that gets listened to by a $10 pair of computer speakers anyway...
Tom
A
atomictoyz
New member
For a home recordist doing a hobby thing, just do the best you can with what you can afford. If your a Semi-Pro or Pro there is no question about it, its a must have. Thus Ive voted must Have!
Peace,
Dennis
Peace,
Dennis
vox
Member
Tom Hicks said:
True 48Khz is beyond the range of human hearing, but a lot of people don't realize that that's not the point.
With a sample rate of 44,100 samples per second the highest frequency that you can record is 22,050 hz that is because you need at least 2 samples to reconstruct the waveform (It plots point A then point B and connects them with a line) as most of us know waveforms tend to be rounded and rather complex in shape, this is impossible to achieve with only 2 samples per cycle, so what you end up with is basically a triagular or sawtooth waveform at 22.05 Khz which sound nothing like the original musical waveform. This is why people say that digital has harsh highs. Ok, so 22,050 hz is still beyond the hearing of most people so let's look at 10 khz, it's well within the range of hearing, but waveforms at this frequency are rebuilt using aproximately 4.5 samples - still kinda blocky right? At a sample rate of 96khz you get more than twice as many sample points with which you can reconstuct the sounds, this results in much smoother sounding highs in the frequencies that we can hear.
Of course the above is oversimplified.
zip
New member
Oversimplification...
...is good.
...is good.
Slackmaster2K
Gone
WTF is going on here?
drstawl
Banned
>Maybe about 2 gig per song, you could fit a whole album on a 30 gig drive .
As far as HD resources: DO THE MATH!
x = bytes to store a 16/44.1 file.
y = bytes to store a 24/96 file.
y= (24/16)(96/44.1)x
y= 3.2653x
So instead of ~10MB/minute you'll need ~32MB.
As far as HD resources: DO THE MATH!
x = bytes to store a 16/44.1 file.
y = bytes to store a 24/96 file.
y= (24/16)(96/44.1)x
y= 3.2653x
So instead of ~10MB/minute you'll need ~32MB.
B
brzilian
New member
24 bits over 16 gives you a greater benefit over the sampling frequency.
With 16 bit audio you have a range of 0-65,000 to specify values for volume, etc...
Once you go to 24bits, that range jumps up to 0-16.7million.
A sampling rate increase does not make as dramatic of a difference.
A direct analogy in digital video would be:
Audio bit depth = number of colors
Sampling frequency = frame rate.
With 16 bit audio you have a range of 0-65,000 to specify values for volume, etc...
Once you go to 24bits, that range jumps up to 0-16.7million.
A sampling rate increase does not make as dramatic of a difference.
A direct analogy in digital video would be:
Audio bit depth = number of colors
Sampling frequency = frame rate.
drstawl
Banned
>Sampling frequency = frame rate.
Sorry- but I have to nitpick your analogy.
In video the frame rate imparts an illusion of continuous motion to a series of still frames because of the temporary image burn effect on the human visual apparatus. Above about 30 frames/sec nobody will know the difference. In audio the sampling frequency will smooth out the representation of higher frequencies and the sensitivity of the human ear to these frequencies varies widely among the population. But this, to me is a nitpick because most folks can't hear shit above 16K, especially old farts or those with other significant hearing damage.
>Audio bit depth = number of colors
I'd say it's more like:
Audio bit depth = number of pixels/sq. in.
But some on this board have been known to hear colors...
But the number of colors analogy flies almost as well....
Sorry- but I have to nitpick your analogy.
In video the frame rate imparts an illusion of continuous motion to a series of still frames because of the temporary image burn effect on the human visual apparatus. Above about 30 frames/sec nobody will know the difference. In audio the sampling frequency will smooth out the representation of higher frequencies and the sensitivity of the human ear to these frequencies varies widely among the population. But this, to me is a nitpick because most folks can't hear shit above 16K, especially old farts or those with other significant hearing damage.
>Audio bit depth = number of colors
I'd say it's more like:
Audio bit depth = number of pixels/sq. in.
But some on this board have been known to hear colors...
But the number of colors analogy flies almost as well....
H
Havoc
New member
Anyone ever took a look at the response of a loudspeaker?
smellyfuzz
New member
GREAT POST BUT ...
Why does DVD sound so much better then CD ?
Sean
Why does DVD sound so much better then CD ?
Sean