Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andrew Broughton]

Splitting off from the discussion here...

I'd love to hear what people think about the 48k/96k thing after reading this article.

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

[John Roberts {JR}]

Same thing i thought before... (but I didn't really read the article).

JR

[Jason Lucas]

That article just confirms what I thought before.

I don't know enough about this stuff to know what the effect of changing the sample rate of an audio file is, but regardless I've chosen to do everything at 44.1KHz (recording, exporting, playback, etc), so that I never have to re-sample anything to a lower sample rate for CDs and such. I record at 24-bit for the extra headroom but always export to 16-bit, 44.1KHz.

[Corey Scogin]

I can't argue with the sample rate analysis in that article but I do take issue with the bit depth analysis.

In testing my own recordings, I can usually tell a difference between the 16-bit and 24-bit rendered files.  It's not a huge difference but it is audible.  I can hear more detail and more separation.  This improvement in the 24-bit files is lessened though by heavy mastering compression & limiting.

[Andrew Broughton]

I can't argue with the sample rate analysis in that article but I do take issue with the bit depth analysis.

In testing my own recordings, I can usually tell a difference between the 16-bit and 24-bit rendered files.  It's not a huge difference but it is audible.  I can hear more detail and more separation.  This improvement in the 24-bit files is lessened though by heavy mastering compression & limiting.

As the article says, 24bit still is necessary for the track recordings. There's details in the article as to why, but basically because it's unlikely that someone will risk clipping when recording to make sure they're using the full 16 bits on an original track, and when lots of processing needs to be done on tracks, using 24bits give more resolution. Again, just on the original tracks, not the final mixdown. 24bit still has it's place in recording and live, but not 96k/192k.

[Corey Scogin]

As the article says, 24bit still is necessary for the track recordings. There's details in the article as to why, but basically because it's unlikely that someone will risk clipping when recording to make sure they're using the full 16 bits on an original track, and when lots of processing needs to be done on tracks, using 24bits give more resolution. Again, just on the original tracks, not the final mixdown. 24bit still has it's place in recording and live, but not 96k/192k.

I was talking about the final mixdown files.

[Samuel Rees]

There's also this 96k argument that plugins sound better processed at 96 regardless of how it was tracked. Not sure what the hypothetical technical explanation for that is.

[Duane Rodakowski]

I have a Yamaha console that can switch between 48 and 96k. All the down stream electronics clock off of that, even up to 96k. I like to think I've got a great sounding PA, I can't tell a difference though.

[John Roberts {JR}]

I make a point of never arguing with people about what they "hear" and would rather not speculate or make generalizations about the actual dynamic range or analog performance of nominal 16b or 24b systems (hint 24b is not really 144 dB dynamic range). This has been well studied and that reference link seemed pretty comprehensive so they may have actually addressed that. 

Yes, back in the (not always) good old days, the professional recording studio audio path tried to provide some 20 dB more dynamic range than consumer media audio paths, for obvious and not so obvious reasons. With the popularity of consumer digital media the extra margin of studio performance has been whittled away, while digital doesn't suffer generation loss during mastering like analog media does. Consumers have voted with their pocket book to mostly not embrace premium higher resolution systems (audio and video).

JR

[brian maddox]

In a sound reinforcement environment i've never been able to tell the difference between 96 and 48.  Heck, i'm not sure i've EVER been able to tell the difference, but it's not something i bothered to spend a huge amount of time on.  maybe in the right room, with the right speakers, and the right source material i might be able to differentiate.  But for me, utilizing twice the resources for such a tiny, if even perceptible, gain has clearly hit the law of diminishing returns. 

[ProSoundWeb Community]