Recording at 24/96K vs. 16/44.1??

  • Thread starter Thread starter WERNER 1
  • Start date Start date
Hollowdan said:
Thank you and goodnight! Elvis has left the building!
Click to expand...
That whole page is really over simplified, almost to the point of being inacurate at times. The 'points on a sine wave' graphic kind of goes to show the lack of understanding of how a/d converters really work and how digital audio is decoded. If I get a chance tomorrow, I will find a link to the real story. It's not a very easy read, but it is actually how all this works.
 
Dont most PRO mastering engineers Run the final mix thru analog SSLs, Tape Decks and stuff, so the whole damage when "dithering/downsampling" doesn't really matter?
 
Farview said:
Not to stir anything up, but I just did a comparison test. To take the human element out of it, I reamped a recorded DI guitar signal through the same signal chain twice. At 44.1/24 and 96/24.

The DI recording was played on my DA-88 through on of my old Laneys, miced up with a 421 and an m-149. Both mics were run through my Amek 9098 preamp and into the computer.

I can not tell the difference. There definatly isn't any increased low end, clarity, etc...

I'm trying to figure out how to do this with an instrument that actually has a lot of energy in the top octave, but the repeatability is going to be tough. There is no way to hit a cymbal, for example, and have it sound the same twice. Even if you set up a machine to strike it the same way every time, the two hits will sound different. Acoustic guitar is impossible to keep the position stable, much less the performance.
Click to expand...


Try plug your guitar (I prefer acoustic to test) direct in pre, no guitar amp. Opens conversor software and change the sample rate while "sweep" strings with a pick with right hand (WITHOUT REC, ONLY PLAYING/HEARING).
I can hear a diference from 44.1 to 88 or 96, or 176 or 192 (better).
And before someone came and talk about "cheap gear" ...i´m not saying about "save, like a miracle", a session with "cheap/or bad mics", or "poor acoustic" (it´s obvously that´s an wrong option,no high sample rate will improve it).
Try the test without mics or rooms
Simply a good acoustic or eletric guitar, good cables plug in a decent pré.
But...(next step)recording this sound is a different way?can´t you notice a difference? maybe with only one track...
With more tracks, maybe you´ll note ... or not!!!
 
CIRO said:
Try plug your guitar (I prefer acoustic to test) direct in pre, no guitar amp. Opens conversor software and change the sample rate while "sweep" strings with a pick with right hand (WITHOUT REC, ONLY PLAYING/HEARING).
I can hear a diference from 44.1 to 88 or 96, or 176 or 192 (better).
And before someone came and talk about "cheap gear" ...i´m not saying about "save, like a miracle", a session with "cheap/or bad mics", or "poor acoustic" (it´s obvously that´s an wrong option,no high sample rate will improve it).
Try the test without mics or rooms
Simply a good acoustic or eletric guitar, good cables plug in a decent pré.
But...(next step)recording this sound is a different way?can´t you notice a difference? maybe with only one track...
With more tracks, maybe you´ll note ... or not!!!
Click to expand...
The big problem with using an acoustic guitar and someone strumming is, a string doesn't sound the same each time you pluck it. This is why multi-sampled instruments sound more real than singles sampled instruments. In order to take that factor out of the test, you have to somehow use something that is absolutley repeatable. Or, split the signal from a single performance to two different (yet equal) recording rigs set at the two different sample rates.

Even that test would only prove the difference between sample rates for that brand/model of converter. I would assume that different converters are better at different things and therefore get different results.

All of these home-grown tests will be flawed. In order to draw any real conclusions, a person would have to have a good number of converters at their disposal and a way of feeding them all the exact same performance. Then you would have to quantify "better" because any one persons reaction to a sound is subjective and has a lot to do with what the person expects it to sound like.
 
Hi, farview !

My suggest was to simply play (but all the strings together,not each one), change the sample rate with a click and only hear, not record yet;very simple test.

I´m not talking about A/B with diferent conversors.In that way you´re right, my cheap m audio in 28.999.888 khz will fall in a comparision with an expensive gear in 44.1. :D

But, take an Apogge (I ,m not seeing nothing similar near me :D ) and set
192 option...
 
CIRO said:
But, take an Apogge (I ,m not seeing nothing similar near me :D ) and set
192 option...
Click to expand...
...and all that will tell us is how the Apogee sounds at 192. It won't tell us if any difference in sound is due to the bit rate itself or due to the sound of the Apogee design.

Now, if one tries the exact same test - with the exact same test data; that is the exact same source sound - with a half-dozen different converters and you notice that while the converters do sound somewhat different from each other, there is a pattern that emerges based upon the sample rate settings, *then* one can start to seperate the effect of the electronics from the effect of the sample rate and say that there is a common tendancy for setting X to sound like this and setting Y to sound like that, and that those tendancies exist regardless of compressor design or brand.

And of course, those tests have to be double-blind...meaning neither the test guide nor the test subject actually knows which brand at which sample rate setting is being used at any given time.

G.
 
Farview said:
Then you would have to quantify "better" because any one persons reaction to a sound is subjective and has a lot to do with what the person expects it to sound like.
Click to expand...
I'm with you, and it has alot to do with how they may feel that day.

Some people can hear the differences when auditioned side by side and some may prefer one over the other but audition them a week apart and I'd bet they couldn't tell you which is which. My guess is that 99% of the listening audience are happy with the quality of the sound produced today regardless of the recording medium, so who cares? I'd rather be testing which blueberry pie is better and get on with playing music and recording without the worry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top