192 vs 96 quality dithering to 44.1?

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:40 pm

What is the point of recording at 192 htz or 96 htz when you have to dither everything down to 44.1htz to burn it to a cd? Does it sound better? I don’t understand why to buy a 24 bit 192 htz vs 24 bit 92 htz if you dither down to burn a CD? I am thinking of gettting the Aleis 24xz but it only records up to 96khz. I am leaning toward the motu computer based system with The MOTU HD192 high-definition 192-kHz. Does it really matter if you track at 192 hkz when you have to dither down to 44.1 to burn? I know it sounds like I am asking the same question over and over but I don not want to buy the wrong thing. I have done that before. Thanks Craig

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:58 pm

The theory: The longer you can keep your tracks as accurate as possible to the analog source, the better. Tracking & mixing at a higher sample-rate will result in a warmer, more natural sounding effort.

The practice: Tracking & mixing at higher sample-rates require you to spend a lot more $$ on I/O and they eat up much more CPU-power handling them. Only the most critical ears will be able to tell the difference between 96 and 192 in the studio itself, let alone after it's been dithered to 44.1, 16-bit, burned to CD and is being played on some sh*tty car stereo system.

... if you've got the $$ and your DAW has the horsepower to handle it, obviously get the best you can but don't expect a radical difference in your final product. CDs have been tracked and mixed at 48kHz, 20-bit for years and only the audiophiles bitch and whine about it Wink

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:07 pm

I basically second what Miles Away echoes.

I personally don't believe in recording at the higher sample rates since most of the world still listens to 16-bit 44.1kHz CDs. Well DUH. I feel that anything that has to be translated or trans-coded is like linguistic interpreters and there will be something lost in the conversion process, so why bother if you don't have to? Again keeping quality at the highest quality possible is monumental for most people that really thinks it means something to them and something I find akin to the difference between Rolls-Royces and Volkswagens, it just depends on how good a driver you are and how much money you got.

Most of our digital recording systems that are affordable are known as PCM or pulse code modulation and I believe regardless of sample rate and the bit depth that PCM sounds like PCM sounds like PCM and so I don't personally believe there is much advantage unless you're doing something of a high budget nature and/or for archival purposes? There is a newer system that Sony/Philips developed known as DSD or direct stream digital that I believe is a monumental improvement in sound over PCM-based systems. Alas, that system is only for the financially privileged few.

Again most average folk cannot hear the difference between the truly higher-quality recording systems and the average systems so it's all in the amount of money you want to spend and how much prestige you feel it gives you. Because I feel I'm a good engineer I can work within the constraints of 16-bit 44.1kHz and still end up with a quality product. The higher bit rates and sample rates can benefit folks whose mixing talents and techniques may not quite be up to par as it affords greater dynamic range, etc., etc..

The most practical
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:02 am

I totally disagree with the previous two posts. They seem to totally contradict everything that has to do with high-quality audio recording.

Here's the real skinny - recording at 16/44 sounds ok but who in the world is going for ok? It's all about the best quality AD conversion you can get.

I, in fact, recorded on a MOTU 2408 MKIII yesterday at a friend's studio (and by friend, I mean the Associate Engineer for Inpulse Mastering). We recorded a bass track into it at 16/44, and then another at 24/96. The distinction is very much there. The 24/96 track was nearly indistinguishable from the live playing and would have been indistinguishable if we had have had a little bit better of an AD converter.

And this is only on the bass guitar, if we recorded a songs worth of tracks at 16/44 and a songs worth at 24/96 the overall picture would be much different.

So you'd say "Well you're going to have to convert it to 16/44 anyway". Well, sometimes people straight convert these files, which causes bit truncation, which sounds horrible. I personally use an Apogee Rosetta 200 for AD/DA conversion and dithering (Waves' IDR never does the trick for me). The Apogee's UV22 dithering is the best in the world and has an incredible algorithm for dithering. It makes the dithered 16/44 files sound indistinguishble from the 24/96 versions.

They even say on the front of the newest Eric Clapton re-released CD, "Re-mastered using the Apogee UV22 process". The reason they did this is because the UV22 is so incredible and makes 16/44 sound like 24/96. But you would never get this quality recording straight to 16/44.

24/192 is overkill in my opinion though unless you're doing work for a DVD release.

I personally, would never even consider recording at 16/44 again.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 11:59 am

covenant66 wrote:

I totally disagree with the previous two posts. They seem to totally contradict everything that has to do with high-quality audio recording.

Here's the real skinny - recording at 16/44 sounds ok but who in the world is going for ok? It's all about the best quality AD conversion you can get.

I, in fact, recorded on a MOTU 2408 MKIII yesterday at a friend's studio (and by friend, I mean the Associate Engineer for Inpulse Mastering). We recorded a bass track into it at 16/44, and then another at 24/96. The distinction is very much there. The 24/96 track was nearly indistinguishable from the live playing and would have been indistinguishable if we had have had a little bit better of an AD converter.

And this is only on the bass guitar, if we recorded a songs worth of tracks at 16/44 and a songs worth at 24/96 the overall picture would be much different.

So you'd say "Well you're going to have to convert it to 16/44 anyway". Well, sometimes people straight convert these files, which causes bit truncation, which sounds horrible. I personally use an Apogee Rosetta 200 for AD/DA conversion and dithering (Waves' IDR never does the trick for me). The Apogee's UV22 dithering is the best in the world and has an incredible algorithm for dithering. It makes the dithered 16/44 files sound indistinguishble from the 24/96 versions.

They even say on the front of the newest Eric Clapton re-released CD, "Re-mastered using the Apogee UV22 process". The reason they did this is because the UV22 is so incredible and makes 16/44 sound like 24/96. But you would never get this quality recording straight to 16/44.

24/192 is overkill in my opinion though unless you're doing work for a DVD release.

I personally, would never even consider recording at 16/44 again.

Um, no offense, but you're totally off base.

16 bit / 44.1 kHz can sound amazing. Period. Don't believe me, check out any of Telarc's releases. Or Decca. Or DG's. Or tons others.

Granted, I like higher rates too, and occassionally will go with a 96 kHz or higher (up to DSD) recording stream, but not always.

Simply put, there should be little difference between 16 and 24 bit and for the record, the UV22 is not the best dithering algorithm in the world. First - there is no "best in the world" in a subjective category. Second, many would argue that POW-R 2 or POW-R3 are far superiour to UV22.

The only discernable difference between 16 and 24 bit is the lower digital noise floor, which most consumer grade equipment and listening environments are incapable of portraying (most "project studio" or "home studio" environments are also incapable of portraying the difference.)

As for the MOTU, you speak of it with reverance. And, while it's a decent box, it's no more than decent. Some folks here use them with good results, and in general, they're far better than most soundcards (LYNX and RME being the only exceptions that I'm aware of - short of maybe Pyramix and Genex, but those are proprietary) But, in comparison to a Mytek, Lavry, Genex, Prism or even a newer Apogee, they just don't compare.

I'm also curious how it is that you were able to discern this difference on an instrument which should have no resonances above the 44.1kHz limitation other than those that should be well below the audible limit and furthermore below the digital noise of even 24 bit. If it was full symphony orchestra, I might be more inclined to believe you.

And if you think I'm here just to bust on you, look again. Search for arguments between Nika and myself. I'm all about higher frequency sampling rates and disagree with much of what he and even Dan Lavry himself state on a subjective level.

I think Remy is RIGHT on target. Higher sample rates are the crutch of the inexperienced and the boon of higher-end studios around the world. Yes, when I want a project to have just a little better sound, I will record at higher rates (though I always record at a minimum of 24 bit and usually at 32 FP)

The biggest advantage of higher sample rates and bit depths comes when you apply digital processing to a signal. At 32FP, you have the capability to perform massive processing and still avoid bit rounding. At higher sampling rates, you can shift phase problems from EQing well outside the audible band.

Again, I'm not trying to jump on you here, but you seem to come at this digital thing with more of a marketing perspective than a factual perspective. Please, go buy Nika's book. While I don't agree with some of his deductions and conclusions, the fundamentals are genuinely correct and quite accurate.

Just my $.02

J.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:01 pm

I'm on the side of Cucco and RemyRad in this one.

192 is nice if you can afford it, and have the bandwidth to manage it. I don't pretend for ONE SECOND to hear a noticable, usable difference over 24/96; nothing worth talking about anyway. I never invested in the kind of hardware needed to manage it, (PT HD, for ex) and have no plans to.

I can say this with all certainty: there are very few listening environments that are tweaked (let alone QUIET) enough to hear this kind of usuable, listener-discernable difference to make it worth pursuing in a day to day production environment.

And (here's a shock), aside from fellow geeks; NOBODY CARES. Not paying clients, anyway. In 10-15 years of doing digital, not one client has expressed any interest in going beyond 24/96. And, for the most part, we work at 24/44 for 90% of our live recordings. (The bit depth is more critical than anything else anyway!)

When properly done, with good mics, pre's and converters, the differences in recordings done between 24/44 and 24/96 are negligable. The reason these higher rates are desirable is the level of information available in post production for DSP; fades, reverb tails, extended headroom, declipping, and so on, esp at the multitrack mixdown level.

More importantly, it's what's going on in FRONT of the mics that really counts, then it's the mic itself and the rest of the chain getting it onto HD/DAWs for higher-res manipulation. (Remember GIGO, though: Garbage in, garbage out)

Assuming all things are equal, the real sound quality is then dependent on the skill of the mixing & mastering people. Last but not least, the most important step when all's said and done is dithering. For me, this is the last, final bit of magic in this whole argument: with good dithering, all the hard work and higher bandwidth that went into my making a recording is, in a sense preserved to be heard on a "lowly" CD.

Take note: I would NOT attempt to remaster or take apart a 16/44 CD for edits or remastering unless there was absolutely no other option - which is never the case around here. ALL of our masters are 24/44 or 24/96, and they'll live on in storage, backed up for anything our clients want to do in the future with them. To me, 16/44 CDs are audio "Frozen" in limbo; they sound great when done properly, but don't try anything serious with them after the fact.

The point of CDs being "not good enough" is moot, esp with good dithering. You WILL hear the benefits of a good 24/44 or 24/96 recording IF it's properly mastered and dithered.

Sadly, this is ALMOST moot in the face of all these (debatable) Mp3' players flooding the market now. Obviously, they're good enough for SOME people, right? (Hint: that would be the people buying the music that our CLIENTS are paying us to do.) ANd to be fair, no one is listening on these things for the real "hi fi" experience. That's what home players are for.

Life is funny; we go crazy making the very best recordings we can possibly do, and they end up on $250 apple players. Gotta love it!

Dont' get me wrong, I"m all about getting the highest quality possible. But there are reasons why it works this way, and killling yourself (and your buget) at the very front end for a ridiculous sampling rate of 192 is just (IMHO) nuts and a waste of resources.

Trust me, you have MUCH better things to spend your money on.

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:09 pm

JoeH wrote:

Life is funny; we go crazy making the very best recordings we can possibly do, and they end up on $250 apple players. Gotta love it!

Judas!! Traitor!! You're now one of them you PROUD IPod owner!!! Laughing

You're now part of the problem, not the solution... Laughing

I don't know if I can speak to you anymore...(hanging head in shame...)

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 7:14 pm

One side fact that comes from higher sample rates is that for a given process that takes a fixed number of samples ... in mS ... (real time, yes?)

at the higher rate the same number of samples takes less real time.
less latency
Cool

it should also be noted that the brain-aches of digital have been arguing for some time about the consequences of processing at the higher sample rates and some of the unexpected results that have come up.
All will be sorted in time when they are well understood.

Tthe benefits of 22k to 44.1k and then the small improvement to 48k are easy to hear.
but at 96k means you are using very current converters and clocks and so this alone could be the improvement you are hearing ... then comes 192 and more.

At some point it will be decided that enough is enough and that a new method is warranted ... DSD and not PCM perhaps.

Note,
Gammys were won with ancient Fairlight type converters from over a decade ago
44.1 and 16 bit

be happy with what you have
upgrade when you need to and can warrant it

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:14 am

Ok Jeremy; you give me no other choice but to hijack this thread for a few minutes to clarify my situation with them there eye-pods and such. Wink

For years and years, I was hell bound and determined to avoid MP3's at all costs. This was partly due to this line of work of course, but primarily because of the god-awful stuff I heard coming out of Napster and the like, with ho-made mp3's at lousy sample quality (welll below 96k etc.) and these basically all sounded like kazoos in a blender. Sure, you could find rare and exotic stuff all over the web; most of it was horrible stuff and sounded like it was uploaded from mics in front of TV speakers and such. Just not worth the hassle for the bad sound.

Of course, this was the first round of fear going through the record companies gut, just before the bottom fell out of it all, and people (Mostly college kids) began thinking they could steal music because, like, "it's FREEEEE, maaaaaan.!!!"

I hated it - file sharing - right from the start.

Then eventually Apple (and others) wised up and decided to go legit with their itunes store and even went as far as to build their OWN MP3 player, and even make an (arguably) better mp3 (MP4) to play on their systems. (Sheeeesh...a proprietary format. Who'd a thunk it?)

This only made me angrier, and I vowed never to even THINK about getting an eye-pod. (I spell this out, because the RO software flags certain words as SPAM, believe it or not!) I hated those damn commercials with Bono spinning around singing "Vertigo", etc. (Did I mention that I HATED it !?!?!?)

But you know what? Change is good sometimes. Consider this: Every time I travelled anywhere in the last 10-15 years, it was always a struggle to decide which CD to bring along. Should I store more on DVD's or on my laptop's hard drive? Depending on how long I'm gone for, this could get serious. (No lie: I have been known to get onto planes and boats with mini-spools of 25 or more raw CDs (no jewel cases, etc) to keep what I wanted to hear nearby and handy. People next to me on planes thought I was insane. I thought so, too.

Add to that a cell phone, a laptop and/or an iPaq, and the CD player itself.....plus big heaphones......things were getting nuts alright! Just a weekend trip on a plane or to my girlfriends was becoming the kind of musical nightmare/decision fast that only a Richard Lewis clone could appreciate. My desire to listen to music was being eclipsed by my desire to streamline and travel light. Usually, I gave up and slept or read a book.

Then one day back in the fall, my GF and I passed an Appple store in one of the big suburban malls, and darn if I wasn't drawn to that cute little thing (not unlike puppies in pet store windows!) with headphones and all kinds of cool attachements to try out. Not only that...... it sounded.....GREAT. Yeah, I said it....it rocked.

After all this time of stupid, stubborn resistance to change, I suddenly saw the solution to my portable (non-serious) music listening dilemma: 4 gigs on a solid state chip like the nano player is just NUTS. That's nearly FOUR DAYS of music; chances are you wont get through it all even if you're away somewhere on a long vacation. (Plus, you can of course run it with your PC (and its' HD) for even more songs, if you're that hungry.

I"ve upgraded the earbuds (the standard ones are just OK, but they don't fit in MY ears, and it drives me crazy trying to do so. I've got Sony semi-sealed buds, but that's for another forum, another time, for sure.)
Also have the usual goodies for portablity and "instant gratification" in the car (adapter for the radio/CD/Tape player), and a hip little leather wallet that lets me put Credit cards and cash in one side, and the eye-pod on the other, with room for the phones. Sweet.

While Apple certainly doesn't need ME to shill for them, but I CAN tll you that it's sheer brilliance what they've created here. Your titled (commerical CDs) info pops up from several online sources/sellers, so in short order, you've got a customizable, related data base for Artist name, composer name, band name, genre, etc. - find and listen to music any way you prefer. It's wonderful to have this kind of power literally at your fingertips.

You can also download pictures and videos (esp on the larger size eye-pods) as well as date books, etc.

I never EVER would have thought I'd be posting on here telling about what a great product it is, but really, it IS a great way to hear music on the fly, in your car, out for a walk, etc. And for us tweaker types, you can use this for checking mixes, etc. same as any other consumer device from the past (car stereos, tapes, etc.)

The newer mp3's and 4's (esp when done at 128kps) are just fine for life on the run, with music as your soundtrack. No one is kdding anyone here; if you want the full experience, put in a CD, DVD-A or SACD and you'll still get the BEST experience. This (mp3 players) is not on the same plane as that, this is merely convenience, what the cassettes and others tried for, but never quite made it.

That said: I Will NEVER stop buying CDs = for both serious listening and artistic enjoyment. I have NO plans to buy mp3's online (I roll my own, from my own CDs, thanks!) but when I need something I can't find elsewhere, I'll buy & download one if it's an emergency.

As for being a traitor Twisted Evil

you needn't worry. Nothing has changed for me except the abilty to hear much more music while doing things that are time-killers. (My Lipinski's ain't goin' NOWHERE! )

And last but not least, it's a good time for all mastering and production companies to re-evaluate how they tag their CD text info, and getting it up to the web so their "non-professional" People can find it when they load up a CD of their own to rip, burn & play. I've been going through a lot of testing with various mp3 players - asking lots of questions, etc., to see which ones play these trackIDs with and without a web connection. Some do, some do.)

IMVHO, it's all of our best interests to at least be aware of these new devices, and what it takes to tame them for our useage and our CLIENT's usage.

When the 58 yr old CEO of my busiest client (a classical organization at that!) gets one for Christmas, and calls me in the late evening to find out how "I" use mine, ya know it's serious.

Don't fear the "POD". Knowledge is power. Get one, or at least try one out, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Cool

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:44 am

Joe...You're scaring me... Laughing

Did you see a very bad, low-budget 80's sci-fi horror flick called "The Stuff" ?

I'm starting to think the iPod is made from "The Stuff"

J.

(I will be very surprised if anyone actually saw this movie - I love sh*tty low-budget horror movies!!! Hell Night ROCKS!!!!!)

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:50 am

Cucco wrote:

Um, no offense, but you're totally off base.

16 bit / 44.1 kHz can sound amazing. Period. Don't believe me, check out any of Telarc's releases. Or Decca. Or DG's. Or tons others.

Granted, I like higher rates too, and occassionally will go with a 96 kHz or higher (up to DSD) recording stream, but not always.

Simply put, there should be little difference between 16 and 24 bit and for the record, the UV22 is not the best dithering algorithm in the world. First - there is no "best in the world" in a subjective category. Second, many would argue that POW-R 2 or POW-R3 are far superiour to UV22.

The only discernable difference between 16 and 24 bit is the lower digital noise floor, which most consumer grade equipment and listening environments are incapable of portraying (most "project studio" or "home studio" environments are also incapable of portraying the difference.)

As for the MOTU, you speak of it with reverance. And, while it's a decent box, it's no more than decent. Some folks here use them with good results, and in general, they're far better than most soundcards (LYNX and RME being the only exceptions that I'm aware of - short of maybe Pyramix and Genex, but those are proprietary) But, in comparison to a Mytek, Lavry, Genex, Prism or even a newer Apogee, they just don't compare.

I'm also curious how it is that you were able to discern this difference on an instrument which should have no resonances above the 44.1kHz limitation other than those that should be well below the audible limit and furthermore below the digital noise of even 24 bit. If it was full symphony orchestra, I might be more inclined to believe you.

And if you think I'm here just to bust on you, look again. Search for arguments between Nika and myself. I'm all about higher frequency sampling rates and disagree with much of what he and even Dan Lavry himself state on a subjective level.

I think Remy is RIGHT on target. Higher sample rates are the crutch of the inexperienced and the boon of higher-end studios around the world. Yes, when I want a project to have just a little better sound, I will record at higher rates (though I always record at a minimum of 24 bit and usually at 32 FP)

The biggest advantage of higher sample rates and bit depths comes when you apply digital processing to a signal. At 32FP, you have the capability to perform massive processing and still avoid bit rounding. At higher sampling rates, you can shift phase problems from EQing well outside the audible band.

Again, I'm not trying to jump on you here, but you seem to come at this digital thing with more of a marketing perspective than a factual perspective. Please, go buy Nika's book. While I don't agree with some of his deductions and conclusions, the fundamentals are genuinely correct and quite accurate.

Just my $.02

J.

I side with you on the fact that Prism's are better, I said that the UV22's were the best in the world, but I really should have said that its the most commonly used in the professional recording world, which I don't think anyone has ever denied. They used it to do the Harry Potter movies dithering, as well as tons of others and over 80% of all released commercial music. If way over half of all the professionals in an area use something, I think it's at least reasonable to call it the best.

Secondly, I used the example of a MOTU only because in the original post they were discussing a ... MOTU! I like the MOTU interface, to receive the signal from another AD converter, but not for it's own AD (but it's still not horrible).

Also, you said that "The only discernable difference between 16 and 24 bit is the lower digital noise floor". Are you telling me that you cannot hear 250 times the resolution in a sound file?

I think what you're referring to is the Nyquist Theory, but that isn't the only difference between 16/44 and 24/96, or at least I have never ever heard it said.

Also, even at this website (reputable):

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

The author states that "The Bass will be tighter, and the vocals may sound "airier"." Which is totally contrary to your statement.

The author is described on the website as "The Tweak is a sound developer and composer, as well as a teacher in real life. TweakHeadz Lab has been serving the World-wide Community of Professional Electronic Musicians since 1996."

And to top it off, I play harmonics and tap when I play bass which gives a pretty wide frequency range.

I agree about the 32FP, I just didn't mention it since its not really being recorded at 32bits.

I maintain that 24/96khz has a marginal benefit over 16/44, above and beyond just a noise floor difference.

Plus, who in the world wants to master a 16/44 recording?

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:15 am

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm afraid you're believing a lot of the marketing hype that is constantly being spoon fed all over the internet. I don't blame you for that at all - when one is bombarded with the BS, it's hard to filter out the reality any more.

I'm not sure where the 80% figure comes in, but I would venture that this is not true. Many folks in the mastering arena rely on the dithering from their Weiss EQs, which is POW-R. Similarly, most mastering software, Sequoia, Sonic, Pyramix, Sadie, and others don't have UV22 built in. Most mastering facilities do not rely on Apogee converters and their inherint UV22 to provide their dithering. Some allow analog to do their dithering for them and others use their software or their external hardware (such as the TC 6000, or the Weiss EQ-1 Dyn).

As for the bass being tighter and so on regarding higher frequency sampling, I'm afraid Mr. Tweak is spewing forth BS. You seem to have a basic understanding of the physics involved, so I won't insult you with a rudimentary lesson. But, imagine the pluck of a bass, even if it gets REALLY high up there (say around 420 Hz). Now, for there to be significant harmonic content above 20kHz, you would be looking at significant resonances 6 octaves higher than the fundamental (and that's factoring a 420Hz fundamental). This doesn't make logical sense. It makes even less sense when this is a determining factor of the tightness of bass.

Don't get me wrong - I do like higher frequency sampling rates - A LOT! But, in most situations, they simply aren't needed.

Also, bear in mind that yes, I am saying that there is little difference in the resolution between 24 bit and 16 bit. Yes, I can hear the difference, but the difference is far less noticable than most would credit. (Bear in mind, I'm listening in the following environment:
NHT 2.5i main monitors
MIT interconnects
REL Storm III subwoofer
Rotel RMB 1075 amplifier bi-amplifying the NHT's
Rotel Preamp
Properly treated room with treatments by RPG, Auralex and OC 705
Ambient noise in room measured at 19dB - room is below ground and is over 4000 cubic feet)

Even in this environment, I can barely hear an audible difference - oh, and I am a classically trained musician too.

I doubt others can hear the so-called amazing difference between 16 and 24 bit on their Aiwa or JVC systems or pioneer receivers through their Bose speakers.

I do understand that, by playing harmonics and tapping, you are getting a wider frequency range, but bear in mind, even those with GREAT ears have difficulty hearing above 20kHz - so the information that MAY be contained there is of arguable significance. (And believe me, I argue this point all the time! I was actually involved in a small research project for a doctoral candidate at TTU where he tested the impact of tones produced above the so-called audible frequencies and there was imperical evidence suggesting that they did make a minor difference).

The fact is, the only time I really ever whip out the "Big Guns" and go 96 or 192, is when I'm recording a good orchestra. Other than that, guitar, human voice, drums, bass and keys rarely benefit from the extra bandwidth.

Oh, and one point of contention with the original topic...

One doesn't dither from 192 or 96 to 44.1 kHz. They convert sample rates.

Dithering is the reduction in bit rate.

Despite many peoples' claims it IS in fact possible to resample (or convert sample rate) without changing word length. However, this is only really ever done in limited applications (such as bandwidth limited environments) as any mathematical computation on the original sample will cause the number to increase, hence a growth in bit depth. However, it is possible to do this with rounding systems in such a way that the sound isn't horribly affected. However, this is rarely useful in a pro-audio situation.

J.

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:52 am

The 80% I referred to is located here:

http://www.apogeedigital.com/products/uv22hr.php

For which Apogee has alot more riding on that statistic than what our mere forum statements have riding on them, due to federal laws mandating truth in advertising. (This is a declaratory, unopinonated, quantitative statement made by the company).

I'm not saying that the newest software doesn't contain dithering tools that may match the UV22 or may be even better, but 80% of hit records do use it, which you could sue Apogee over if it isn't true, or even if overly misleading. Pretty much any dithering tools, good or bad, that are publicly released and marketed im sure are going to get used at some point in time, but I maintain that 80% of hit recordings use the UV22.

With your paragraph on the bass not being at a high enough frequency, you are reiterating your suggestion that the only difference with 96khz is the information between 22khz-48khz (your basis being the Nyquist theory im assuming).

When the 96khz file is dithered, and the 16/44 sound file generated - then what happens to the data between 22khz and 48khz that you are seeming to think is the only difference in 16/44 and 24/96 recordings? You can't have anything above 22khz in a 16/44 file, correct?

(You're either saying that or you're saying that information above 22khz is in fact contained in a 16/44 file, which I don't think you would suggest.)

So tracking your logic, there would be no difference between recording straight to 16/44 and taking a 24/96 file and converting it to 16/44 (because the 22khz-48khz information would be lost). So why do you ever do it (you have already admitted that you sometimes do it)? Well, its probably because (as I have been suggesting) 24/96 recordings have a higher resolution across all frequency bands, and dont just only add frequencies between 22khz and 48khz (which they do, but its also an overall higher resolution, 250 times higher, as I understand it).

Tracking my logic, your example about my bass recording is moot, because there is higher resolution across all frequency bands and recording professor, "Mr. Tweak" and his highly regarded website is correct as well.

If I am somehow in err, please explain exactly how. I honestly would appreciate it.