Personally, I don't believe that sample rate matters as much as bit rate. I think we'd all prefer 448bit/44.1 over 24/88.2.
Unfortunately there's no way to evaluate this in listening tests.
You'll really have to point to some technical white papers so I can better understand the argument you're trying to make. On paper I understand that not having to round or truncate math is a good thing when processing digital audio. But having unadultered undithered 44.1kHz audio with a limited bandwidth still doesn't seem like it would sound very good. Every test I've done with higher sampling rates has shown a marked improvement in clarity, detail, and depth over 44.1kHz. But like you said...it's currently infeasible to do the right comparison.
Personally, I don't believe that sample rate matters as much as bit rate. I think we'd all prefer 448bit/44.1 over 24/88.2.
Unfortunately there's no way to evaluate this in listening tests.
I believe Tony Faulkner, one of the leading recordists in England, has stated that he values sample rate by far over word length. I remember him saying a number of years ago that if he had to compromise, he would go 16/192 or 16/176 over 24/96, even, let alone 24/44.
Tim DeParavicini said similar, considers 44k sampling "good" to 3.5kHz, 88k good to 7kHz and 176k good to 14kHz. He reasoning eludes me - I am not that good a mathematician - but I guess it relates to the amount of interpolation necessary to re-construct a waveform from two or four data points.
[QUOTE=Russell Dawkins;4432472]I believe Tony Faulkner, one of the leading recordists in England, has stated that he values sample rate by far over word length. /QUOTE]
Mr. Faulkner is a hero of mine. He has really been sort of a "distance learning" or internet mentor.. really, he has taught me most of what I know.
a Windows 32-bit Console application that applies Tony Faulkner's adjacent sample averaging technique to downsample a 24-bit packed integer Wave file by a factor of 2 or 4
I use nothing but!!
__________________
"I would shoot a man if he put me through autotune" - Charlie Louvin
a Windows 32-bit Console application that applies Tony Faulkner's adjacent sample averaging technique to downsample a 24-bit packed integer Wave file by a factor of 2 or 4
I use nothing but!!
i'm a mac guy so i couldn't open the .exe file but it seems very interesting.
Personally, I don't believe that sample rate matters as much as bit rate. I think we'd all prefer 448bit/44.1 over 24/88.2.
In PCM audio, the bit rate is directly related to dynamic range, with 24 bits offering a dynamic range of 144dB, which is greater than the human ear has a capacity to handle. I realize some of this gets eaten up with dynamics processing, and exponentially more disappears once a track has been aggressively mastered, but nonetheless, 24 bits should be enough. Technically speaking, analog circuit technology (last I heard) was more limited in dynamic range than 24 bit PCM, meaning that higher bitrates are only beneficial for in-the-box processing.
The sample rate, however, is directly related to what frequencies are capable of being represented, where the Nyquist filter has to be located to prevent aliasing, and how steep the filter has to be. If you increase the sample rate, you increase the bandwidth of the audio, move the filter higher (past the audible range), and make it gentler. All of these factors add up to more natural sounding audio (more "analog" if you will) in the frequency domain, where there is still room for the technology to grow.
Of interesting note is DSD (or 1-bit) technology that removes bit-depth from the equation entirely in favor of ultra-high sampling rates. In fact, most modern PCM converters are based on 1-bit technology that is then decimated (and downgraded) into the PCM world, thereby squeezing it into this digital audio "box" that we've defined for it. So perhaps the highest quality audio currently achievable is precisely the opposite of what you suggest--ultra-high sample rate, ultra-low bit rate.
The room was originally designed as a mix room I believe. But turns out what made the room sound so great made it an ideal tracking space as well. The whole room is diffuse, and it sounds unlike any other room I've been in. So a few producers started tracking in there as well as mixing, I recall Niko Bolas did a project in there some time ago and it sounded great.
__________________
"No stone throwing regardless of housing situation."
The room was originally designed as a mix room I believe. But turns out what made the room sound so great made it an ideal tracking space as well. The whole room is diffuse, and it sounds unlike any other room I've been in. So a few producers started tracking in there as well as mixing, I recall Niko Bolas did a project in there some time ago and it sounded great.
Makes sense!
Still seems kind of hard to track with headphones but I guess George is up to the task.
I believe Tony Faulkner, one of the leading recordists in England, has stated that he values sample rate by far over word length. I remember him saying a number of years ago that if he had to compromise, he would go 16/192 or 16/176 over 24/96, even, let alone 24/44.
Tim DeParavicini said similar, considers 44k sampling "good" to 3.5kHz, 88k good to 7kHz and 176k good to 14kHz. He reasoning eludes me - I am not that good a mathematician - but I guess it relates to the amount of interpolation necessary to re-construct a waveform from two or four data points.
In listening tests I conducted years ago, I preferred 16-bit/96K to 24-bit/48K. I'm with Tony, even though I never knew he thought that until now.
__________________
Lynn Fuston
3D Audio Inc.
Producer of the 3D Mic CD, Preamp, ADC, Ribbon Mic Comparison CDs and the Preamps in Paradise DVD available at 3D Webstore.
I had the pleasure of attending a 2 and a bit hour address by George at KMR here in London earlier this year and he was awesome in the address.I have been a true fan ever taking shaky steps into the world of video and sound production.
He played Dawn's track Stranded on the Monitoring system there in surround.We were all blown away.Graham Boswell of Prism sound was there and of course we heard the mix through an Orpheus.He mentioned that he wanted to make the studio master available in 24 Bit 96 khz in his address.
Imagine my delight at seeing the link to the album.
I am listening to this mix as well as Joshua, Judges, Ruth through Orpheus convertors,through some Chord company cables to a Grado R1 headphone amp to some AKG 701s and it's as if I am in the room.
I can hear the atmosphere around the instruments.This is something he talked about - getting air between the mic and instrument.
I get why the fuss George - it was absolutely worth it IMHO - coming from someone who apprciates this type of music that is.
Makes me realise how rubbish other mixes are when compared to this standard.Very inspiring.
Great job George.You are an isnpiration.
Just wanted to bump this thread from the depths of history for its awesomeness' sake.
I have always wanted to and been into recording music like this, and I have never been so friendly, comfortable and good with one-guy-does-it-all-with-loop-libraries-and-endless-overdubs-to-choose-from type of off-line arrangement productions. And it is amazingly inspiring to see similar methods being practiced by a legendary senior, except he is a few lightyears ahead of my current operation.
So much room for improvement there that it drives me more in this business.
God bless you Mr Massenburg. Toast to your health, sir.
And while I am at it, let me post this video from the same work as well:
Just wanted to bump this thread from the depths of history for its awesomeness' sake.
I have always wanted to and been into recording music like this, and I have never been so friendly, comfortable and good with one-guy-does-it-all-with-loop-libraries-and-endless-overdubs-to-choose-from type of off-line arrangement productions. And it is amazingly inspiring to see similar methods being practiced by a legendary senior, except he is a few lightyears ahead of my current operation.
So much room for improvement there that it drives me more in this business.
God bless you Mr Massenburg. Toast to your health, sir.
And while I am at it, let me post this video from the same work as well:
B.
Fantastic Track!
It's scary how much Dawn sounds like her mother! Yet, she retains her own sonic signature!
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
