Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
I do 24/44.1 for the above reasons. Now if I were to do more classical type recording (which I don't), 96k would be more appealing.
B
brzilian
New member
>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.
Yes and no. I agree about higher sampling rates giving better frequency response, but I think my analogy is still valid. In a sense frame rate and sampling frequency are the same because it is telling you how often a digital device is "sampling" or taking a snapshot of something which isn't inherently digital. After all Hertz is defined as cycles per second, FPS is frames per second - hence the analogy.
>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....
I don't agree - you have to look at it from the computer's standpoint and how the binary system works. 16 bits means you have 2 to the 16th power or 65,000 possible values. 24 bits is 2 to the 24th power or 16.7 million values.
This is exacly what happenes when you go from a 16bit color palette to a 24bit color palette - you have more possible values which is what is happening with sound as well. More bits = less dithering which results in smoother value transitions.
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.
Yes and no. I agree about higher sampling rates giving better frequency response, but I think my analogy is still valid. In a sense frame rate and sampling frequency are the same because it is telling you how often a digital device is "sampling" or taking a snapshot of something which isn't inherently digital. After all Hertz is defined as cycles per second, FPS is frames per second - hence the analogy.
>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....
I don't agree - you have to look at it from the computer's standpoint and how the binary system works. 16 bits means you have 2 to the 16th power or 65,000 possible values. 24 bits is 2 to the 24th power or 16.7 million values.
This is exacly what happenes when you go from a 16bit color palette to a 24bit color palette - you have more possible values which is what is happening with sound as well. More bits = less dithering which results in smoother value transitions.
C
c9-2001
New member
i usually record 24/44.. you can hear that 24/44 is slightly brighter than 16/44... but this new song i'm working 24/96 just to try it...
i tell you this, 24/96 in a car stereo sound 2x better than your avg cd...
i tell you this, 24/96 in a car stereo sound 2x better than your avg cd...
A
ambi
New member
hmmm,
well if 24/96 is really that unusable performance wise, how are people using it?
If i had a totaly top of the line computer
with like, 2 gigs of ddr ram, dual 120 gig harddrives, all the gooides, etc...
would it be feasable?
would i need dual processors to handle it? Ive heard that dual processors aren't really taken advantage of in the computer audio world very much, woudl it make a difference?
well if 24/96 is really that unusable performance wise, how are people using it?
If i had a totaly top of the line computer
with like, 2 gigs of ddr ram, dual 120 gig harddrives, all the gooides, etc...
would it be feasable?
would i need dual processors to handle it? Ive heard that dual processors aren't really taken advantage of in the computer audio world very much, woudl it make a difference?
drstawl
Banned
>but I think my analogy is still valid. In a sense frame rate and sampling frequency are the same because it is telling you how often a digital device is "sampling" or taking a snapshot of something which isn't inherently digital.
Your analogy is valid on the front end, but I was referring to the actual perception of the effect. Increase the frame rate all you want and the picture won't get any smoother because the human eye is a very slow device. However human hearing is bit faster on the uptake and can (in some cases) benefit from the increased frequency spectrum present in more rapidly sampled material.
>would it be feasable?
ambi- refer to my post re: DO THE MATH.
we're talking aboiut a resource factor of about 3.2653 here. So if you were getting 36 tracks of audio before, now you're getting 11. OUCH!
Your analogy is valid on the front end, but I was referring to the actual perception of the effect. Increase the frame rate all you want and the picture won't get any smoother because the human eye is a very slow device. However human hearing is bit faster on the uptake and can (in some cases) benefit from the increased frequency spectrum present in more rapidly sampled material.
>would it be feasable?
ambi- refer to my post re: DO THE MATH.
we're talking aboiut a resource factor of about 3.2653 here. So if you were getting 36 tracks of audio before, now you're getting 11. OUCH!
Barometer
New member
I don't think this is going to come into play for CDs, we know that. But 24/96 will matter when we can actually create our own DVD audio (and it's not far form affordable). From what I understand DVD-audio is able to retain the 24/96 audio recorded (even up to 192khz) and I've heard the sound is amazing. Our hardware technology is capable of doing it if you have a monster system, but that will also continue to advance. I don't know the scientific standard of what our human ears can hear, but I've heard that the difference compared to CD is quite noticeable. I would have to agree that the 24 bit capabilities probably far outweigh the sample rate, but it should still be recognizably better. 
erichenryus
New member
vox 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.
thanks for that post.
Stealthtech
LOGIC ABUSER
I use an audiophile 24/96 with Logic 5.3 which is capable of 24 bit but I cant really hear that much of a difference in quality between 16 and 24. Although it appears that you have a little more headroom with effects and proccessing at 24 bit. I also read an article a while back that stated if you DONT HAVE GEAR that outputs at 24 bit than there no point in recording at 24 bit because you will not really be recording a true 24 bit format.
C
c9-2001
New member
it doesBarometer said:
but your right it isn't affordable for most ppl.. but i just found out how 24/96 dvd audio sounds in a hi-end stereo system, and its a major difference, as for 24/192??? i'm not sure..all you need is a nice indash dvd in your car with 24/96 converters
sweetnubs
New member
sweetnubs vastly prefers 24/96 over 24/44.1 but here's the catch: your converter's must be good. 16/44.1 done with really good converters sounds much better than 24/96 done with m-audio converters. ladies and gentlemen come and look at the fantastic audio buddy, it slices! it dices! it makes your audio super-crunchy!
got nubs?
got nubs?
E
ecs113
New member
Gidge said:
Not necessarily, I like to use 24bit at 88.2kHz, nice even muliple of 44.1kHz
K
KingstonRock
PC load letter?
id rather load up on rverbs, rcomps and timeworks eqs on 30 channels of 24/44.1 than do 24/96 or 24/88.2
Blue Bear Sound
New member
I agree!ecs113 said:
Son of Mixerman
Mix Junior
I thought that your latency dropped when using higher sampling rates? Im not sure using an even number sampling rate makes sense until you look at the number of decimal places used in the software. If its using a 13 digit number then what? Im not talking bit depth. Personally I like the sound of 24/48 for a majority of my work. Seems to work for me for the moment. Oh well. More bits please
SoMm
SoMm
Teacher
New member
Samplerate= tape speed
Wordlength= tape width
faster the tape speed(higher samplerate) the more defined the highs will be(not hyped just more present)
wider the tape(longer wordlength)- the wider and deeper the song will sound..
at least thats what i deduced i could be wrong
Wordlength= tape width
faster the tape speed(higher samplerate) the more defined the highs will be(not hyped just more present)
wider the tape(longer wordlength)- the wider and deeper the song will sound..
at least thats what i deduced i could be wrong
Teacher
New member
KingstonRock said:
*gack thats not overkill?
well maybe not the eq thing i high/low pass pretty much every channel
K
KingstonRock
PC load letter?
haha, i dont go around putting compressors and reverbs on every channel, lol, i just like to know that I can if i really need to. That was a recording hyperbole
P
Ptron
New member
I can't speak for everything but it does for me. I use Sonar with an ASIO driver. If I double the sample rate, it halves the latency, all other things being equal.Son of Mixerman said:
I don't think that analogy quite works, Teacher, but since I don't have a better one, maybe I should just shut up
Ptron
C
charger
New member
Well, play your CDs in your DVD player, and they'll sound better too. DVD players have better, more stable mechanisms, lower jitter, and better sound. And the funny thing is, on DVD movies the audio is ultra-compressed, down to around 384 kbps for 5.1 audio. We are essentially listening to our movies as advanced MP3s, and it sounds killer.
DVD-Audio is a different story, but no one knows when that will be as common as CD is now for audio.
Doubling your sample rate halves your latency, and it halves your processing power. If you're going that route, and producing music for audio CDs, 88.2>44.1 is a cleaner conversion than 96>44.1.
E
eyeteeth
New member
Vox... I have never seen rates broken down that way.
My understanding, is in brief... The highest record able frequency, is half the sample rate... 44.1, 22khz; 88.1, 44khz... etc. which as mentioned is still far beyond a humans hearing range, especially as we get older. The beginning of the problem, is what the A/D converters do with the frequencies... harmonics we can't here. Think of all the harmonic overtones present in a cymbal crash. Even though we can't "hear" those frequencies, they all enhance, and effect the frequencies we CAN hear. So at 44.1, these harmonics get chopped at 22khz... the result however, is the D/A converters manifest these frequencies out of the range as digital noise at a corresponding frequency in the bottom end of the spectrum.
So the higher the sample rate, the truer sound capture you will have as there is a more accurate representation of harmonic overtones, and the less digital noise created from cutting frequencies.
My understanding, is in brief... The highest record able frequency, is half the sample rate... 44.1, 22khz; 88.1, 44khz... etc. which as mentioned is still far beyond a humans hearing range, especially as we get older. The beginning of the problem, is what the A/D converters do with the frequencies... harmonics we can't here. Think of all the harmonic overtones present in a cymbal crash. Even though we can't "hear" those frequencies, they all enhance, and effect the frequencies we CAN hear. So at 44.1, these harmonics get chopped at 22khz... the result however, is the D/A converters manifest these frequencies out of the range as digital noise at a corresponding frequency in the bottom end of the spectrum.
So the higher the sample rate, the truer sound capture you will have as there is a more accurate representation of harmonic overtones, and the less digital noise created from cutting frequencies.