88.2kHz?

[rcase]

Now wait a durn minute, Casey..You don't get to be artistically gifted AND be an engineering/math whiz too I confess, I'm one of those types who- when stumbling across an article in EM or EQ etc containing this level of depth- skips to the final section where the author will take pity on the simple (lazy? ) among us and just tell us what we should use!Rob

[matto]

Poor Elser...you ask one harmless little question...and

[Casey H]

Quote:Poor Elser...you ask one harmless little question...and Ask an engineer what time it is and he will tell you how his watch works...

[sgs4u]

It is nice to see this other fabulous facet of the Casemeister. Who woulda ever thought he was that smart! Why is the sky blue?Quote:Quote:Poor Elser...you ask one harmless little question...and Ask an engineer what time it is and he will tell you how his watch works...

[ddusty]

Quote: Why is the sky blue?Well Steve, everyone knows it's because blue has the shorter wavelength, and it is refracted by the...Oh wait....Nevermind

[ernstinen]

Quote: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.Awesome, Casey! O.K., I'm an audio engineer but not techhead by any means. Maybe Batzdorf will chime in!First off, I agree that higher bitrates increase audio clarity better than higher sample rates. I've done blind tests, and that's what my ears tell me. Use the "key ring" test with a good microphone and you'll hear the difference.That said, here I go again with frequency response info! As far as I know, a sample rate is divided by 2 to obtain the highest frequency response. So 44.1k divided by 2 = 22.05 kHz. 48k = 24 kHz etc. (Since analog tape goes well over 30 kHz, these lower sample rates don't capture the high highs in comparison --- but that's another subject! ).NOW, when you get up to 88.2, that's another story. You're talking a frequency response up to 44 kHz! BUT, in my listening tests, even though going from 16 bit to 24 bit is obvious, going from 48 to 88.2 (or 96) isn't as discernable. It's a LITTLE clearer to my ears, but maybe not worth it to most engineers. I mix and master at 24/96 and go down to 16/44.1 as a last step when I make CDs.Casey, please explain why recording at 88.2 is preferable to 96 mathematically when you end up at 44.1 anyway! I know it's divisible by 2, but why is that better for the sound? Inquiring minds want to know!Ern

[Casey H]

Quote:Quote: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.Awesome, Casey! O.K., I'm an audio engineer but not techhead by any means. Maybe Batzdorf will chime in!First off, I agree that higher bitrates increase audio clarity better than higher sample rates. I've done blind tests, and that's what my ears tell me. Use the "key ring" test with a good microphone and you'll hear the difference.That said, here I go again with frequency response info! As far as I know, a sample rate is divided by 2 to obtain the highest frequency response. So 44.1k divided by 2 = 22.05 kHz. 48k = 24 kHz etc. (Since analog tape goes well over 30 kHz, these lower sample rates don't capture the high highs in comparison --- but that's another subject! ).NOW, when you get up to 88.2, that's another story. You're talking a frequency response up to 44 kHz! BUT, in my listening tests, even though going from 16 bit to 24 bit is obvious, going from 48 to 88.2 (or 96) isn't as discernable. It's a LITTLE clearer to my ears, but maybe not worth it to most engineers. I mix and master at 24/96 and go down to 16/44.1 as a last step when I make CDs.Casey, please explain why recording at 88.2 is preferable to 96 mathematically when you end up at 44.1 anyway! I know it's divisible by 2, but why is that better for the sound? Inquiring minds want to know!Ern Hi ErnI think I understand what you are asking. Remember, I am speaking from a pure analog-to-digital engineering point of view. I think you have that 2x factor explained backwards. By rule of thumb, it is recommended that a waveform be sampled at at least 2x its highest frequency component. Since the highest frequencies in music are mainly under 20 KHz, a rate of 44.1 KHz meets that (minimum) requirement. So it's not that you divide the sample rate by 2, it's that you decide on a good sample rate by multiplying the highest frequency by 2.I am not saying that 88.2 KHz won't produce better sound than 44.1... Just explaining what the words all mean. My gut (not experience!) tells me that outside of classical/orchestral music and hard-core audiophile's preferences, 99% of us can't really hear the difference.Did that answer your question? Casey

[ernstinen]

Quote:Did that answer your question? CaseyUh, no. Some people say that a 88.2 sampling rate is preferable to 96 because it is easily divided by 2 (converted) when you're going down to a 44.1 sampling rate for CD. Going from 96 down to 44.1 is a harder conversion which can cause problems.Yes? No?Ern

[ernstinen]

Quote:I wonder if anyone can comment on the 1bit/5.2Mghz technology in terms that we all can understand. Korg is touting that as the next big thing in mastering technology. I put a link to their explanation of it if anyone's interested. Casey?http://www.korg.com/mr/Future_Proof_Rec ... .pdfThat's VERY interesting. I'm not sure I understand it, but they say it trumps 24 bit/192 kHz recording.They also said something that reinforces what I've been trying to explain:"Current 24 bit/192 kHz produces a very good result --- but it has not caught up to the 5 Hz - 50 kHz performance of tape."So if Korg's 1 bit system DOES, I think that's a very important improvement!What sayeth others!? Ern

[matto]

Quote:Tape still rules in my book but I can't afford to buy or maintain the tape machine that surpasses 24/96 digital in sound quality. Wish I could! I would do it!I wouldn't...my life's too short to be spent waiting for fast forwards and rewinds...And razorblade editing? You gotta be kidding me.And does anybody remember how much those 2" Reels of tape cost? For 15 minutes of music at 30IPS? I'm trying to make a living here... The resolution and frequency response of 24/96 is just about equivalent to the best magnetic tape. 192 has the potential to exceed it by a rather comfortable margin. The remaining audible difference is due to the way tape soft compresses transients, among other things, and 1 bit technology is not going to (re)produce those characteristics. Characteristics which our ears have been tought are "right", fat, warm etc, but they are not more "accurate".That being said, I think 1bit storage/playback capability is definitely a step forward. The Korg people point out that 1bit A/D converters are actually not new at all, but in wide use...it's the conversion to and from multi-bit storage that this system would eliminate, and (sorry Casey ) anytime you can eliminate a bunch of math that's a good thing. If it works as advertised, it will probably be the most accurate recording system yet devised, but that doesn't mean it will have the sound analog tape aficionados are missing.Or that it will catch on... matto