I have a 24/96khz ad/da and maintain audio at 32 bits internally for processing and mixing prior to dithering back to 16 bits for burning to CD.
Is there any advantage in recording at 88.2 or 96khz and then sample rate converting back to 44.1 at the end for CD? My guess is that any advantage will be completely lost due to both artifacts caused by the sample rate conversion process and the ultimate 22.5khz upper frequency limit and associated filtering. :confused:
Topic Tags
Comments
Ethan, Here is the documentation to back up the point of view
Ethan,
Here is the documentation to back up the point of view I express earlier. I posted this several months ago. This is the first post in a long thread titled “Why even 24/96 Digital Still Sucks”. The whole thread may be seen at this link. ….. Fats
(Dead Link Removed)
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tannoy, Dynaudio, Blue Sky, JBL, Earthworks, Westlake, NS 10's :D , Genelec, Hafler, KRK, and PMC
Those are good. …………………….. Pick one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
more and more reasons to send all your stuff to trash and buy ev
more and more reasons to send all your stuff to trash and buy everything again, as Michael comments on his reply...
Now is 96k/24, then 192k/24, then they will say that 24 bit word lenght is too short. I am fed up with this!
Why don´t they jump directly to 40 bits and 192k?
Someone at the DUC and at *** said that it was not worth to go with wider bit lenght. but how one can measure if is it worth or not?
What irritates me is this step by step thing the industry dictates. Let us all go back to 2" old big consoles and scissors.
As far as posting a comparison, I would love to do it, but it mi
As far as posting a comparison, I would love to do it, but it might take me a couple of weeks to do because I've been swamped. But I think it would be cool to do and see what others think.
I think one of the problems we face with higher sampling rates rests with the manufactures. In their attempt to keep the price down, they are making 192k converters at or near the same price as 44.1k converters. I recently bought an SACD player with 192k converters for about $300. I put in a Red book CD and listened to it then popped the CD into a $300 44.1k player and listened to it. The 44.1k player just sounded better. Now I know that there are differences other than converters but I talk with lots of high end consumers that experience the same thing. Their basic players sound better than SACD players on redbood CD's. So I've decided to go back to mono 1/4" 7 1/2 ips reel to reel.
"John, What do you use for splicing tape on your" big two foot
"John,
What do you use for splicing tape on your" big two foot machine"? Duct Tape???? Fats "
No, I use packing tape. Too much thump, thump, thump with duct tape and the heads get too much gunk on them. I'm not really doing edits on that machine anymore. Since it ran at 5000 inches per second the room would fill up with spliced tape in no time. Easy to do an accurate edit though. Instead I'm running it into Protools LE using my super duper sound card built into my old 186 computer and doing all of my editing there. Seems to give it that "edge" if you know what I mean. Does anyone besides me own a 186? Opus?
Fats, > Try it again. Okay, got it. But I did not see anyt
Fats,
> Try it again.
Okay, got it. But I did not see anything in there other than anecdotal comments. No studies testing the importance of supersonic content. No link to tests that conclude people get irritated listening to digital recordings. Which, if you think about it, is pretty silly, no? :)
I think Bill Roberts summed it up well when he says he delivers 16/44.1 product all the time and everyone thinks it sounds great.
--Ethan
Michael, I'm very interested in the upsampling idea. I have limi
Michael, I'm very interested in the upsampling idea. I have limited knowledge of the finer workings of some plugins but this seems to make some sense. Would you be so kind as to post two copies of the same file. One upsampled, processed, and then downsampled and one left in 44.1 using the exact same EQs, processors, and settings. Dither them both down to 16 bit 44.1 and post them as a blind test. I've heard the same theory but I am interested to see if we can get a consensus of opinion as to which has the best sound. If you're too busy I certainly understand but I think it would be fun to see the results on at least one file and type of music anyway.