1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Why even 24 / 96 Digital Sucks!

Discussion in 'Pro Audio Equipment' started by Kurt Foster, Oct 12, 2002.

  1. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Check this out. I first heard about this several years ago when I read an article in the now defunct BAM Magazine where Neil Young said almost the same thing.
    The following is an excerpt from an article by Rupert Neve, published in the October 2002 issue of Audio Media in AM Forum.
    "I first met SCAD in 1995 in Tokyo when I visited Professor Oohashi at the Japanese Institute for Mass Communication. The equipment I listened to was made for Professor Oohashi by JVC. He had presented papers, claiming that extension of the frequency range beyond audibility was beneficial to sound quality and produced brain electrical activity from the area associated with pleasure. The absence of frequencies above 20 kHz resulted in subliminal frustration and restlessness."
    Now of course this is being remedied by higher sample rates but Mr. Neve goes on to say that it is still a problem until you reach rates of 192 or higher. SCAD / DSD of course is beyond all this. Food for thought....Fats
     
  2. soup_bk

    soup_bk Guest

    "Mr. Neve goes on to say that it is still a problem until you reach rates of 192 or higher"... This statement confuses me. Shouldnt a samling rate of 96k extend the frequency responce well above 20khz (to 48khz to be exact) mabey im missing something.
     
  3. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Well a 96 K sampling rate will give you about 48k playback. In the same article Mr. Neve sites an incident where famed Beatles engineer Geoff Emerick was bothered by the presence of a 3dB peak @ 54kHz on a console that Neve had delivered to him! Although we don't really hear that high we can feel it and our brains detect it. With 2" analog the high freqs roll off starting at about 24 k or so (depending on the machine) but there is still stuff going on way up there albeit down 20 dB or so, but it's still there. That's why analog is better! Fats
     
  4. tubedude

    tubedude Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2001
    What brand was it that Rupert likes a lot, was it JVC or Pioneer. I remember reading something in tapeop about how he said thier engineers really know about distortion and bandwidth and their products show this, sonically. I think it was JVC.
    Anyone remember which one it was?
     
  5. e-cue

    e-cue Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2000
    Will all due respect to Mr Neve, I think the dude is losing some marbles. That or trying to fool the world. I read an article where he actually blamed CD's for violence among the youth. I highly doubt "the youth" miss tape hiss so much that they feel a need to riot. Yet more digital voodoo... Shesh, were does it end?
     
  6. volodia

    volodia Guest

    I've heard this story,and I love the Beatles and Geoff Emerick work but I'd be curious to know what speaker system he was using to notice that anomaly .
     
  7. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    The time frame in which it took place would sugest it was at one of AIR's studios. Fats
     
  8. volodia

    volodia Guest

    What I wanted to say was that I'd like to know if there are systems that reproduce the sound up to 54Khz .
     
  9. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Most decent speakers will have some ability to reproduce ultra high freqs, maybe down 30 dB but it's still there. I think it probably generates harmonics in the lower freqs that we can sense.
    16 /44.1 nothing at all over 20k! It's an unnatural roll off very drastic and it freaks me out. Really, talk about speakers that are fatiguing. Digital just wears me out after 6 hours. Fats
     
  10. volodia

    volodia Guest

    That's what makes sense (no pun) . I have the same feeling . No matter what others say , I have always felt a loss when I transfered analog tape to digital .There's more to tape than distortion and compression . Specs are not sound . We might found out we've been measuring the wrong thing ; Sony People were at Studio Mega in Paris because there was a mix in SACD format and they said that so far the best results they had were with analog (even against high freq rates/High resolution)
     
  11. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    volodia asked
    Pelonis Signature Series Mains. 21 to 45 kHz....Fats
     
  12. audiowkstation

    audiowkstation Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    According to my B&K mics, calibrated (10 to 60K), and My Dog to help, I can reproduce within +/-10 dB
    9hZ to 76K easy.

    Miss Maddie (My Terrier) turns her head when I put 76K on, but at 85K she does not. This is at an average of 60dBA not high level. The 9hZ does take 70 dB to be flat.

    I do not test ultra high frequncy above usually 75K for fear of roasted tweeters and amplifiers. My Amp is rated 1 dB down at 350KHZ and the speaker wires are certifyed to 1 meghZ. Flat at any load or voltage below 675 Volts, hardly my amps limit of 104 v/pk AC output /1 ohm.

    Speakers:
    They are flat to 18hZ though..without rolloff at all, less than 1dB. Design standard to be flat to 23K/40 degrees off center -0.5dB but my Dog knows they get way up there. At almost 44 years old, I only hear tones to 16.5K I hope that is good. I remember hearing 25K as a 16 year old clearly..with an osscilator. Not cranked either..it simply died at 25 with a tweeter that measured flat to 32KhZ

    Go high end, not junk and it can happen.
     
  13. sign

    sign Guest

    My Otari 2" 24tr. has no problem recording 35 kHz.
    I recorded on a Telefunken M15 (2" 16 tr) last monday and this sound is so incredably good that I am sure there will never be any digital format that will sound as good as 2" 16, period!

    Peace, Han
     
  14. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    at 30 IPS miles of surface! Lots of maintainance? ;) ......Fats
     
  15. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Rupert Sezz;
     
  16. HiString

    HiString Guest

    Does anyone know if this article or information is online anywhere?

    :cool:
     
  17. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Audiomedia.com....It should post next month. They don't post their most recent issues until the next one comes out....Fats

    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    "The extension of the frequency range beyond audibility is beneficial to sound quality and produces brain electrical activity from the area associated with pleasure. The absence of frequencies above 20 kHz result in subliminal frustration and restlessness."
     
  18. hollywood_steve

    hollywood_steve Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2001
    Getting back to the original question, "Why 24 / 96 Digital Still Sucks!", the answer is that it doesn't have to. Hell, a pair of great mics, into good preamps into some top converters and even 16/44 can sound great. But 99.95% of digital recording doesn't resemble that in anyway. Instead of recording a complete performance and handing it off to a qualified mastering house, engineers spend months tweaking (and ruining) their recordings with countless processing steps, each having detrimental effects of varying degrees. By the time their done moving snare beats around, even a 24/192 recording sounds like crap. Funny, but my "live to dat" recordings sound fine........ and I'm a hardcore analog guy.

    steve
    lex125@pacbell.net
     
  19. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    I took a 2" 24 track master and mixed it through an MCI 600 console, monitoring the 2 mix bus. I Took the 2 track #1 out of the console to the A to D inputs of an Apogee PSX 100 @24 /96, monitoring the PSX 100's D to A outs on the 2 trk # 2 return on the console tape returns. Switching between the digital and analog the differences was obvious even to an untrained listener. Even at 96k there is a collapse of the stereo difference resulting in loss of perceived depth and a noticeable lack of "air"and openness. It feels as if the ceiling has been lowered. The average listener or musician /engineer doesn't ever get an opportunity to make this kind of comparison. Since the final delivery is on 16 / 44, one could argue "What's the point?" I'm not saying that you can't make a good recording on digital. I'm saying it's not the best thing ever. Analog is still better. Less fatiguing too!

    Fats
     
  20. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Location:
    77 Sunset Lane.
    Hollywood Steve said;
    A valid point, but the whole selling point of digital is supposed to be the ability to manipulate the audio without degradation. Are the OEM's selling us a crock? Fats
     

Share This Page