Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: So what did you discover from the ADCD?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Lynn,

    During the making of the ADCD did you compare the sound of the source with the sound of the conversion?

    Of course it is obvious where I am going with that question, which AD's, if any, sounded most like the original source material?

    ~ mike

  2. #42
    Corey is offline Gold Club Member (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,383

    Default

    Would connecting my 400F's wordclock to a Bigben increase the audio quality for tracking?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA
    Posts
    27,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Derrick
    During the making of the ADCD did you compare the sound of the source with the sound of the conversion?

    Of course it is obvious where I am going with that question, which AD's, if any, sounded most like the original source material?
    On the analog source, yes.

    There were two that were very good. One was so close I couldn't tell them apart and the other was nearly identical. Both of those ADCs sell for about $6000. That's as specific as I'll get.
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Lynn,

    That is a huge revelation IMHO and implicates something quite significant for the future of AD conversion development.

    Basically, AD at it's best can replicate what you put into it. Therefore, that leads me to ask,...why bother with higher sample rates and higher bit rates?
    As others have already said,...that higher stuff becomes a waste of speed and accuracy and storage.

    So if a converter is already 100% accurate or near %100 is there any reason to continue research and development in the area of AD conversion?

    Your comments are also interesting because you only mentioned one source as being converted with complete (or near complete) accuracy.
    Do you have any idea why the other two sources were not converted in the same manner?

    ~ mike
    3D VIP

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN, USA
    Posts
    27,246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Derrick
    Your comments are also interesting because you only mentioned one source as being converted with complete (or near complete) accuracy.
    Do you have any idea why the other two sources were not converted in the same manner?
    CLARIFICATION

    I did NOT mean that only on the analog source material were they nearly the same. I meant that I only compared them on the analog source material.

    This seemed to be the most important since the other two sources had already been digitized (SACD and 24-bit PCM) before we got them.
    Lynn Fuston
    3D Audio

    Making beautiful music SEEM easy since 1979.

  6. #46
    Corey is offline Gold Club Member (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,383

    Default

    why bother with higher sample rates and higher bit rates?
    My understanding is that editing at higher sample rates causes less artifcats and that using higher bit rates gives us more dynamic range to work with. A lot of pros seem to record at 24/48 and then upsample for editing, then dither back down for distribution.

    I've read that there's no ostenible difference between recording at 96kHz or recording at 48 and upsampling to 96. Either way supposedly imparts the benefits or "air" of 96kHz.

    Your mic probably only records up to 20kHz, so that's all you're getting anyhow, regardless of whether you work at 48, 96, or even 192. So in terms of recording, the maximum benefit is probably at just around double that number, i.e. 48kHz.

    That's my understanding of it anyhow.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    4,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corey
    My understanding is that editing at higher sample rates causes less artifcats and that using higher bit rates gives us more dynamic range to work with. A lot of pros seem to record at 24/48 and then upsample for editing, then dither back down for distribution.
    This is completely untrue. Bit Depth is the measure of available dynamic range, not sampling rate.

    I've read that there's no ostenible difference between recording at 96kHz or recording at 48 and upsampling to 96. Either way supposedly imparts the benefits or "air" of 96kHz.
    This is also complete falsehood. Though there are some advantages to higher sampling rates for non-linear processing (compressors), the "air" comment is total crap.

    Your mic probably only records up to 20kHz, so that's all you're getting anyhow, regardless of whether you work at 48, 96, or even 192. So in terms of recording, the maximum benefit is probably at just around double that number, i.e. 48kHz.
    Correct. Your sampling rate needs to be ever so slightly higher than double the highest frequency you wish to capture.

    And, your filtering needs to be good to avoid aliasing, but that's usually helped out by oversampling converters and good FIR filter design.
    Jim Dugger
    Poorhouse Productions

    At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

  8. #48
    Corey is offline Gold Club Member (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,383

    Default

    This is completely untrue. Bit Depth is the measure of available dynamic range, not sampling rate.
    Yes, that's exactly what I said, i.e. "using higher bit rates gives us more dynamic range to work with."

    This is also complete falsehood. Though there are some advantages to higher sampling rates for non-linear processing (compressors), the "air" comment is total crap.
    Whoa, first of all note the word "supposedly" and the quotation marks around "air" Jim. Anyhow I think you are missing the point of this statement. Anyhow please provide the facts on how material recorded at 96kHz is different than music recorded at 48kHz and upsampled to 96kHz. Because that was the point and I'm interested in knowing.

    I make no claims as to the existence of "air" however I have read some extremely knowledgeable engineers speak about it so I'm definitely sure of one thing, they are not fabricating that data. There has to be some pith to their words, these people are every bit as experienced and knowledgable as you folks.

    If you can explain the benefit of recording at 96 in stead of recording at 48 and upsampling to 96 for editing (because that what the purpose of this statement) I'd appreciate the knowledge. Thanks Jim.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    4,751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Corey
    Yes, that's exactly what I said, i.e. "using higher bit rates gives us more dynamic range to work with."
    Bad quote. I was referring to the sample rate bit causing less artifacts. That's untrue.

    There has to be some pith to their words, these people are every bit as experienced and knowledgable as you folks.
    A remarkable number of engineer's work I deeply respect still don't understand digital audio 101. They attribute all sorts of phenomenon to whacky pet ideas they harbor that are just absolutely false.

    Just because you can wield a tool and make fine art does NOT mean you understand toolmaking or how tools work. It just means you are a good artist.

    If you can explain the benefit of recording at 96 in stead of recording at 48 and upsampling to 96 for editing (because that what the purpose of this statement) I'd appreciate the knowledge.
    Why you would record at 48 and upsample to 96k is completely beyond me. It would waste disk space and provide absolutely no advantages.

    Recording at 96k makes sense if you need the extra octaves for some reason, but if you ever downsample, you loose it.

    Like I said above, there are some non-linear processes that do benefit from having extra information in the time domain, not to mention the aliasing considerations, but these are usually implemented as upsamplers within the process itself. There's no reason to store the source or finished audio product at high samping rates.

    There's a small advantage, I guess, of using high sample rates to avoid dither noise because you can put the dither in the octaves above the audio band, but gee, dither noise is so small nowdays with the dithers we have...
    Jim Dugger
    Poorhouse Productions

    At 20 bits, you are on the verge of dynamic range covering fly-farts-at-20-feet to untolerable pain. Really, what more could we need?

  10. #50
    Corey is offline Gold Club Member (1000+ posts)
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,383

    Default

    Bad quote. I was referring to the sample rate bit causing less artifacts. That's untrue.
    OK. Some audio experts seem to say that editing at 96kHz causes less artifacts than editing at 48kHz. I just assumed they were correct.

    A remarkable number of engineer's work I deeply respect still don't understand digital audio 101. They attribute all sorts of phenomenon to whacky pet ideas they harbor that are just absolutely false.
    This is why i wish you would post reasons for your statements when you have time, so I can get past that. But I realize you're a busy guy and I appreciate all the advice you give.

    Why you would record at 48 and upsample to 96k is completely beyond me. It would waste disk space and provide absolutely no advantages.
    Some experts seem to think it's better to edit at 96. I just assumed that was true.

    Like I said above, there are some non-linear processes that do benefit from having extra information in the time domain, not to mention the aliasing considerations, but these are usually implemented as upsamplers within the process itself. There's no reason to store the source or finished audio product at high samping rates.
    Interesting. Thanks.

    There's a small advantage, I guess, of using high sample rates to avoid dither noise because you can put the dither in the octaves above the audio band, but gee, dither noise is so small nowdays with the dithers we have...
    This is another advantage I've read of yes. I agree with you though that it may be negligible when taken in context.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Cables used on ADCD?
    By EJ in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-02-2004, 03:10 AM
  2. OK. How about ADCD Mk ll?
    By Haigbabe in forum 3D ADC CD
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2004, 11:44 PM
  3. Apogee not good enough ? Listen to ADCD ...
    By Ivo in forum The Old Yellow Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-19-2003, 10:12 PM
  4. ADCD Cover Design and Artwork
    By 3daudioinc in forum 3D ADC CD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-22-2003, 02:12 PM
  5. The ADCD has landed!!!!!
    By 3daudioinc in forum 3D ADC CD
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-04-2003, 12:47 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •