Nagra IV help

Jim Andrada · November 21st, 2007, 09:26 AM

Petri,

Thanks much. I think you may have hit it on the head in your comment that perhaps what is messing things up is the filtering and that this "messing up" would be less at 96kHz oversample.

In a a way (although technically probably inaccurate) what I think this tells me is that the benefit of oversampling and (perhaps) unnecessary bit depth is that it adds "headroom" that can get consumed by other components in the total system without eating into the final result to the point where it's noticed.

The other thing I think occurs to me on reading your post is that maybe the reason we like our new tube CD player so much is less about the tubes and more about the fact that it's high-end enough that it has better components.

I also like the image of holding a speaker like a violin. Makes my jaw ache to think of it. But it is true that people who play instruments "hear" them differently than people who don't.

Having said all that, why do you think the DAT sample rate went to 48kHz and the DVD to 96kHz. Must be a reason beyond simply that they could do it.

And what do you think of the latest wave of 192kHz recorders? Why are they doing it if there's no benefit? Just to win a marketing numbers game? If so I guess we'd better get ready for the 32 bit 1024kHz "Boom" H 64 pocket recorder with integrated $2.00 microphones

Wayne Brissette · November 21st, 2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Andrada

And what do you think of the latest wave of 192kHz recorders? Why are they doing it if there's no benefit? Just to win a marketing numbers game? If so I guess we'd better get ready for the 32 bit 1024kHz "Boom" H 64 pocket recorder with integrated $2.00 microphones

I think 192K is way overkill for 99.9% of the recordings. There are Foley artist who want to record at 192 kHz because they want to playback at 48K or some different rate and produce some odd sounds, but that's not the norm. I was involved in a blind test where we took identical 16-bit and 24-bit recordings done at various sampling rates and in the 44.1 to 96 kHz range, nobody could consistently identify the difference. However, most were able to distinguish the 16-bit from 24-bit recordings. However, the trend seems to be going the other way, with the iPod and other similar devices. The sound quality only has to be OK for the general public. Outside the classical music genre, I don't think any label is doing SACD or DVD-A discs on a major scale.

As far as the devices go, equipment is only as good as the chain. Put a generic $10.00 mic on the end of a $15,000 Cantar and you still end up with a cheap low quality sounding recording. But I do think manufacturers are trying to one-up each other in the spec game.

Wayne

Seth Bloombaum · November 21st, 2007, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Andrada

Having said all that, why do you think the DAT sample rate went to 48kHz and the DVD to 96kHz. Must be a reason beyond simply that they could do it.

Very interesting discussion.

DAT is a dual standard, 44.1 and 48. I think the DAT sample rate went to 48KHz to accomodate working in the video world as well as the audio world. Then, there is the center-stripe longitudinal timecode channel as an option, also for working with film/video.

Regarding 96KHz DVD, I suspect that Sony had some influence in that standard, as they developed the SACD format (Super-Audio CD). Don't forget that every standards-compliant DVD player out there also plays audio-CD and MPEG1 "VCD". I think Sony saw that there might be an opportunity to make money with the SACD format in the audiophile market, and that's why we have up to 24/96 PCM in the DVD playback device standard.

Jim Andrada · November 21st, 2007, 02:02 PM

Yeah, I can convince myself (probably erroneously) that 96k/24 is better than 44.1k/16, but there's no way I can figure out why I'd go to 192kHz

And if I were honest with myself I might even think that 48k/24 was every bit as good as 96k/24 for any practical use.

And I do classical music.

November 21st, 2007, 09:26 AM	#16
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Petri, Thanks much. I think you may have hit it on the head in your comment that perhaps what is messing things up is the filtering and that this "messing up" would be less at 96kHz oversample. In a a way (although technically probably inaccurate) what I think this tells me is that the benefit of oversampling and (perhaps) unnecessary bit depth is that it adds "headroom" that can get consumed by other components in the total system without eating into the final result to the point where it's noticed. The other thing I think occurs to me on reading your post is that maybe the reason we like our new tube CD player so much is less about the tubes and more about the fact that it's high-end enough that it has better components. I also like the image of holding a speaker like a violin. Makes my jaw ache to think of it. But it is true that people who play instruments "hear" them differently than people who don't. Having said all that, why do you think the DAT sample rate went to 48kHz and the DVD to 96kHz. Must be a reason beyond simply that they could do it. And what do you think of the latest wave of 192kHz recorders? Why are they doing it if there's no benefit? Just to win a marketing numbers game? If so I guess we'd better get ready for the 32 bit 1024kHz "Boom" H 64 pocket recorder with integrated $2.00 microphones

November 21st, 2007, 02:02 PM	#19
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	Yeah, I can convince myself (probably erroneously) that 96k/24 is better than 44.1k/16, but there's no way I can figure out why I'd go to 192kHz And if I were honest with myself I might even think that 48k/24 was every bit as good as 96k/24 for any practical use. And I do classical music.