Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Jan Jacob Hofmann
Dear list,

I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections)
and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the
amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this
make sense?

Best regards,

Jan Jacob


sound         |         movement          |          object         |  
        space
sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Andres Cabrera-3
Hi,
If you're doing all the processing in one pass (all in one csd with no
further processing), there is no difference between using the original
16 and a 24 bit file, since the data loaded would be exactly the same in
both cases. If you plan to do cumulative processes, like doing something
in csound, exporting, and doing something somewhere else, there might be
a benefit in using 24 bit files. Remember to dither when going back to
16 bits.
I would think that going to 48k and back again to 44.1k would be more
damaging than staying in 44.1.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 11:45, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections)
> and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the
> amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this
> make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound         |         movement          |          object         |  
>         space
> sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Michael Gogins
In reply to this post by Jan Jacob Hofmann
At www.ruccas.org, I have posted results of double-blind listening tests comparing Csound compiled for 32 bit samples and compiled for 64 bit samples. In one case there was a clearly audible different.

In both cases, soundfiles were 96 KHz float stereo.

This is not directly relevant to your case, but I think it indicates that in some types of sounds, there will be differences that careful listeners can hear.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Jacob Hofmann <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sep 1, 2005 12:45 PM
To: Csound List <[hidden email]>
Subject: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Dear list,

I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections)
and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the
amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this
make sense?

Best regards,

Jan Jacob


sound         |         movement          |          object         |  
        space
sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]



--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: single vs. double (was: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?)

David Akbari
You know, since you've mentioned it both here and on the music-dsp
lists, I've started to listen more carefully to sounds rendered with
single and double precision and I really think you're on to something
with that idea.

Double precision definitely sounds better... at present are there any
studies and/or papers that deal with the subject more in depth ?? I'm
quite interested to learn more about these phenomena.


-David

On Sep 1, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:

> At www.ruccas.org, I have posted results of double-blind listening
> tests comparing Csound compiled for 32 bit samples and compiled for 64
> bit samples. In one case there was a clearly audible different.
>
> In both cases, soundfiles were 96 KHz float stereo.
>
> This is not directly relevant to your case, but I think it indicates
> that in some types of sounds, there will be differences that careful
> listeners can hear.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Jacob Hofmann <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sep 1, 2005 12:45 PM
> To: Csound List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?
>
> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections)
> and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the
> amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this
> make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: single vs. double (was: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?)

Michael Gogins
You my wish to read my article at www.ruccas.org.

The difference that I heard was obvious only in one section of one piece. In all other places, I could for the life of me and despite heavy listening, not hear anything different -- even though I thought I could hear differences.  In other words, in a number of places I thought I heard differences, but the test software said I was only really hearing a difference in one place.

So you may think you hear a difference, but maybe you are not really hearing a difference.

The tests I did were double blind. I had two sources for the exact same piece, different only in that one was rendered with 64 bit Csound and the other was rendered with 32 bit Csound.  I would pick a section of the piece. The software would pick which source (32 or 64 bit) at random. Then it would ask me to guess which source it was. This would be repeated a dozen or so times and the binomial distribution gives the odds my guesses were random or better than random. For that one section of one piece, the odds were extremely good that my guesses were not random. In all the other sections of the other pieces, my guesses were no better than random.

It's enough for me that one section was clearly different, as that is sufficient to show that 64 bit Csound is more accurate than 32 bit. I presume that with more testing, I would find more sections of more pieces with audible differences.

It would be interesting to do more tests, with more listeners and more pieces and more sound sources, but I don't have time for that now.

I also am confident that some types of software instruments would be more sensitive to precision than other types.


Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: David Akbari <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sep 1, 2005 8:30 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] single vs. double (was: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?)

You know, since you've mentioned it both here and on the music-dsp
lists, I've started to listen more carefully to sounds rendered with
single and double precision and I really think you're on to something
with that idea.

Double precision definitely sounds better... at present are there any
studies and/or papers that deal with the subject more in depth ?? I'm
quite interested to learn more about these phenomena.


-David

On Sep 1, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:

> At www.ruccas.org, I have posted results of double-blind listening
> tests comparing Csound compiled for 32 bit samples and compiled for 64
> bit samples. In one case there was a clearly audible different.
>
> In both cases, soundfiles were 96 KHz float stereo.
>
> This is not directly relevant to your case, but I think it indicates
> that in some types of sounds, there will be differences that careful
> listeners can hear.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Jacob Hofmann <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sep 1, 2005 12:45 PM
> To: Csound List <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?
>
> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections)
> and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the
> amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this
> make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]



--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Max McDougall
In reply to this post by Jan Jacob Hofmann
First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the  
sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so  
unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really  
worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)  
are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to  
dither it down anyway.

peace,

Math Static


On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of  
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.  
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted  
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files  
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as  
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,  
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in  
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would  
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early  
> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher  
> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my  
> thoughts on this make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound         |         movement          |          object         |  
>         space
> sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Michael Rempel
Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the better 48
frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is recorded will
have a much more profound impact.

To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get from
adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects are
very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the decay
runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
physical or electronic.

Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean it
needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means that
everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Max McDougall [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
sense?


First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
dither it down anyway.

peace,

Math Static


On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
> thoughts on this make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>         space
> sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Max McDougall
Actually the sampling rate of DVD is 96k. 44.1k - 48k rates are  
unnoticeable. The only reason I would use 48k is if I were to dump to a  
DAT.

Math Static

On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Michael Rempel wrote:

> Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the  
> better 48
> frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
> metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is  
> recorded will
> have a much more profound impact.
>
> To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get  
> from
> adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects  
> are
> very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the  
> decay
> runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
> ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
> physical or electronic.
>
> Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
> quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean  
> it
> needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means  
> that
> everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
> anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max McDougall [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
> sense?
>
>
> First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
> sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
> unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
> worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
> are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
> dither it down anyway.
>
> peace,
>
> Math Static
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
>> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
>> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
>> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
>> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
>> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
>> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
>> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
>> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
>> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
>> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
>> thoughts on this make sense?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jan Jacob
>>
>>
>> sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>>         space
>> sonic architecture       |        site:  
>> http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>>
>> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>>
>>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
> .---.-.----.--.--------.----------
> MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
> Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
> Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
> (218) 205-1600
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........
>
> - 9 West Seventh Place
> - Saint Paul, Minnesota
> - 55102     APT 243
>
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
> --  
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Jan Jacob Hofmann
In reply to this post by Jan Jacob Hofmann
Dear Csounders,

thanks a lot for your useful responses. I guess i will do 2 different
renderings: One remix I'll leave unchanged in format for supporting the
standard 44,1 khz 16 bit format. In that way I do avoid downsampling
and dithering. That one is for the CD then. The second mix will be in
the enhanced format of 24 bit and, as a lot of reverberation is added,
in 48 khz. As I use the temporal pattern of the first reflections of
the reverb for transporting distance clues, the increased temporal
resolution might add some more definition. As far as I found out from
your replies, the conversion upwards to a higher bit- or sample rate
seems not to cause artefacts by conversion, so I'll give it a try.  I
intend use this 24bit/ 48khz version for performances only, so I will
not have to reconvert the material again to 44,1/16 bit.

Lots of thanks and best regards,

Jan Jacob



sound         |         movement          |          object         |  
        space
sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
 

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Partev Barr Sarkissian
In reply to this post by Jan Jacob Hofmann

  I was taught that RT-60 is the Time it takes for early sound reflections off of walls, to drop 60-dB. R-as in reflection, T-as in time, and 60-as in dB. Was I mis-informed or am I not reading this right?

example:  If I have an 102-dB signal's initial transient, and it takes 25ms (typical in surround stereo system's "large hall" settings) to drop 60-dB (to 42-dB) for the early reflection,                           then isn't my RT-60 = 25ms?

I'll look at John Backus' book again, I think it's in my car.

Anyway, I'll check back on that. Later dudes and dudettes.

Partev   :-)   [from Encino]

 



--- Michael Rempel <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Michael Rempel <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:52:45 -0700
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the better 48
frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is recorded will
have a much more profound impact.

To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get from
adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects are
very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the decay
runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
physical or electronic.

Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean it
needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means that
everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Max McDougall [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
sense?


First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
dither it down anyway.

peace,

Math Static


On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:


> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
> thoughts on this make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound | movement | object |
> space
> sonic architecture | site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition | 2nd order ambisonic music
>
> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102 APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]


 

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
-- Send bugs reports to this list. To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Michael Rempel
Technically completely correct. My take on it was more a reflection of what matters to a musician without concern for definitions. It seemed to me to be a question from a newbie, so I kept it on that level.
 
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Partev Barr Sarkissian [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:23 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

  I was taught that RT-60 is the Time it takes for early sound reflections off of walls, to drop 60-dB. R-as in reflection, T-as in time, and 60-as in dB. Was I mis-informed or am I not reading this right?

example:  If I have an 102-dB signal's initial transient, and it takes 25ms (typical in surround stereo system's "large hall" settings) to drop 60-dB (to 42-dB) for the early reflection,                           then isn't my RT-60 = 25ms?

I'll look at John Backus' book again, I think it's in my car.

Anyway, I'll check back on that. Later dudes and dudettes.

Partev   :-)   [from Encino]

 



--- Michael Rempel <[hidden email]> wrote:

From: Michael Rempel <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 15:52:45 -0700
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the better 48
frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is recorded will
have a much more profound impact.

To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get from
adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects are
very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the decay
runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
physical or electronic.

Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean it
needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means that
everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Max McDougall [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
sense?


First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
dither it down anyway.

peace,

Math Static


On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:


> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
> thoughts on this make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound | movement | object |
> space
> sonic architecture | site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition | 2nd order ambisonic music
>
> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102 APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]


 

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
-- Send bugs reports to this list. To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Michael Rempel
In reply to this post by Max McDougall
Converting to 48 is unnoticeable, but recording in 48 vs recording in 44.1
is quite noticable.

Once recorded in 44.1 no up conversion is noticable in the source, but may
be in the resulting effects.

In fact converting to 48 from 44.1 has artifacts. By definition it must, but
these are percieved in the 15k and up range which is seldom recorded in the
first place. If you want to hear it, try recording high notes on English
handbells with a good small condenser mic. Neither format records all the
harmonics, since for a small bell, they range well into the 50mhz range, but
48 sounds far supperior to 44.1 in sympathy to the sound of the original, at
least to my ear. I can not comment on 96 or 128 because a) my equipment is
not good enough, and b) I am not convinced that microphones exist that are
able to distinguish it and still have good bass. I suspect if they exist,
then they are likely to be in the Earthworks line. All that said, the item
with the least quality in the recording chain defines the limits of quality
reproduction, and I dont have the money to bring the entire chain up to that
standard. Further more I wonder if good music needs it. Higher quality can
be plesant, and higher bit count can be more accurate, but no virtuoso is
made from these ingredients. Also adding even slight traditional EQ to a
sound adds far more distortion than these small things, as does the phase
and frequency response of most microphones. Given the highly agresive
editing most stuff endures (mine included) it is not a terrible thing to
have 44.1 equipment. I still abide by the old music business maxim I
suggested in my first response. If it sounds good it is good.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Max McDougall [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
sense?


Actually the sampling rate of DVD is 96k. 44.1k - 48k rates are
unnoticeable. The only reason I would use 48k is if I were to dump to a
DAT.

Math Static

On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Michael Rempel wrote:

> Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the
> better 48
> frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
> metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is
> recorded will
> have a much more profound impact.
>
> To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get
> from
> adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects
> are
> very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the
> decay
> runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
> ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
> physical or electronic.
>
> Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
> quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean
> it
> needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means
> that
> everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
> anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max McDougall [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
> sense?
>
>
> First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
> sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
> unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
> worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
> are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
> dither it down anyway.
>
> peace,
>
> Math Static
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
>> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
>> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
>> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
>> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
>> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
>> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
>> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
>> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
>> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
>> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
>> thoughts on this make sense?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jan Jacob
>>
>>
>> sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>>         space
>> sonic architecture       |        site:
>> http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>>
>> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>>
>>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
> .---.-.----.--.--------.----------
> MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
> Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
> Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
> (218) 205-1600
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........
>
> - 9 West Seventh Place
> - Saint Paul, Minnesota
> - 55102     APT 243
>
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]

--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make sense?

Rick Taylor
In reply to this post by Max McDougall
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:26:01 -0500
Max McDougall <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Actually the sampling rate of DVD is 96k. 44.1k - 48k rates are  
> unnoticeable. The only reason I would use 48k is if I were to dump to a  
> DAT.


http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/info/info.html

"Everything you wanted to know about DVD-Audio"

I'd argue the 44.1 vs 48k thing but it seems to be rather pointless.

--
WWW.RTaylor-Design.Com
--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to [hidden email]