88.2kHz?

[elser]

Just wondering who's recording at 88.2kHz or better and how much better do you think it sounds. I've got these ancient converters that don't go above 48kHz and wondering if I need to upgrade. Thanks, Elser

[davewalton]

Quote:Just wondering who's recording at 88.2kHz or better and how much better do you think it sounds. I've got these ancient converters that don't go above 48kHz and wondering if I need to upgrade. Thanks, ElserI normally record at 24-bit/44.1kHz and then dither down to 16-bit/44.1kHz at the last thing I do in my "process". If I'm doing music directly for a film or one of that them thar TV shows , then the 44.1kHz gets changed to 48kHz because that's native for DVD and that's usually how they want it. The end result is then 16-bit/48kHz.

[jh]

Quote:Someone pointed out in the mixing board thread that digital is like a staircase and analogue is like a hill. But isn't the smoothness of the hill just a perception? After all, all matter is composed of particles so while the hill appears to be a smooth gradual ascent, if one looked at it through a microscope you would see it's actually composed of tons of tiny pieces.Same thing with digital photography, as the resolution goes up, the picture appears to be more 'analogous' to what the eye actually sees. It was me You´re right that "all matter is composed of particles", but my point was that analog has more of these "particles" and that´s why it appears to be smoother. You can see the "steps" in analog too if you "look at it through a microscope", yes...but there´s a whole a lot more of those "steps". In digital audio we can have only 24 of these "steps" (at the moment). The sample rate will only get you a bigger image of those "steps", but the actual depth is not changing. (like in digital photohraphy, as the resolution goes up the image is just bigger and seems to have more depth, although that´s not the case.)After all, everything is "just a perception". The music itself is the most important, not the medium (wow! Someone actually reads my posts and better yet you actually thought about it. But I´m really sorry if I disturbed your peace of mind )

[Casey H]

Quote:Quote: In digital audio we can have only 24 of these "steps" (at the moment). The sample rate will only get you a bigger image of those "steps", but the actual depth is not changing. (like in digital photohraphy, as the resolution goes up the image is just bigger and seems to have more depth, although that´s not the case.)Actually this not correct, The sample rate are the steps and 24 bit is how accurate each step is described.Just to clarify terminology if I can as an electrical engineer (not a music engineer)...To convert an analog waveform to digital, a sample of the amplitude of the analog waveform is taken very often- at a rate that far exceeds how fast a typical waveform's analog "shape" can change. How often these samples are taken is the sampling rate such as 44.1KHz. Time is the inverse of frequency (which a sampling rate is), so at 44.1KHz, a "snapshot" of the waveform's amplitude is taken every .0227 milliseconds or .0000227 seconds. That snapshot is converted to a binary number of so many bits (binary digits) or resolution. With 24 bit resolution that number is rounded to the nearest MAX/(2^24), making each "step" worth 5.96 x 10^-8 of the MAX. That means any small difference in amplitude less than 5.96 x 10^-8 of MAX will not be noticed. The music then becomes basically a list of binary numbers. You can see why the above numbers are pretty damn good.For 88.2KHz, the samples are taken every .00001134 seconds (e.g. twice as often).At 32 bit resolution each sample step is worth 2.33 x 10^-10 of MAX.There is a point at which faster sample rates and/or increased step resolution provides no additional value to the human ear but make file sizes larger. That's for the audio engineers to tell us.Anyway, I hope I did all the math right and explained it all correctly. Casey

[ddusty]

Wow Casey,I think you have enlightened half of us, and thoroughly confused the other half of us As a former math/physics guy, I loved your definition, it all makes sense to me now. (How it works, not what to use )

[jh]

Quote:Quote: In digital audio we can have only 24 of these "steps" (at the moment). The sample rate will only get you a bigger image of those "steps", but the actual depth is not changing. (like in digital photohraphy, as the resolution goes up the image is just bigger and seems to have more depth, although that´s not the case.)Actually this not correct, The sample rate are the steps and 24 bit is how acurate each step is described....Yes and no (I guess you just misunderstood what I meant )Here´s what I meant by "steps=bits" 8-bits = 8 "steps" 16-bits = 16 "steps" sample rate = cycles/samples per secondIn digital audio the bit depth means the dynamic range. (Casey gave an excellent explanation on that)When the sample rate is 88.2kHz, the converter takes 88200 "snapshots" of the sound per second, but it doesn´t mean it has greater dynamic range than with lower sample rate (if the bit depth is the same).In digital photography the color depth means the possible amount of distinct colors. If the image is bigger, it doesn´t mean it can have more distinct colors than a smaller picture if the color depth is the same. And with "bigger image" I meant the extended frequency response.....If that makes any sense to anybody

[jh]

Quote:I think you have enlightened half of us, and thoroughly confused the other half of us I hope I enlightened the other half ...or then I just confused everybody all over again...

[Casey H]

OK, since I confused half the world, here are some simple exaggerated examples that might clarify sampling rate and bit resolution.First, sampling rate:Let’s say, for argument’s sake you have an analog audio signal that:(1) At time = 10 milliseconds… Amplitude = 100 millivolts (mv)(2) At time = 15 milliseconds… Amplitude = 200 millivolts(3) At time = 20 milliseconds… Amplitude = 100 millivoltsOK, now you sample at only 100 Hz. That means you take a sample every 10 milliseconds starting with (1) above. You would see the 100 mv at (1), completely miss the 200 mv at (2)!!!, and get the 100 mv again at (3). So you see, if the sample rate is too low, information is lost.Now, bit resolution:Pretend you have only 3 bits of resolution. That means the only possible values you can convert your audio signal are: 000, 001, 010, 011, 100, 101, 110, or 111 (8 values). Let’s say your input audio signal ranges from 100 mv to 800 mv. That might mean:100 mv = 000 (binary)200 mv = 001300 mv = 010400 mv = 011500 mv = 100600 mv = 101700 mv = 110800 mv = 111Look at the above table and ask yourself, “What happens if the input is 143 mv? 678 mv? If these get rounded off to the nearest step, 300 mv looks the same as 349 mv (binary 010), 755 mv looks the same as 799 mv (binary 111), etc. Not very effective as you can see… So you need a reasonable number of bits to produce good audio.I hope now only 1/4 of the population is confused... Casey

[hummingbird]

What happens if the input is 143 mv? 678 mv? If these get rounded off to the nearest step, 300 mv looks the same as 349 mv (binary 010), 755 mv looks the same as 799 mv (binary 111).... coffee, I need coffee my head hurts

[Casey H]

Quote:What happens if the input is 143 mv? 678 mv? If these get rounded off to the nearest step, 300 mv looks the same as 349 mv (binary 010), 755 mv looks the same as 799 mv (binary 111).... coffee, I need coffee my head hurts Aw, sorry... BTW, there is a great song by the band Powervibe called "Ones and Zeros"... Perfect for a nerd like me...