Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Legacy Products > Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-02-2000, 05:14 PM
ckevperry ckevperry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 226
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

96k won't mean as much to many people as an improved TDM bus. Native systems are reaping the benefits of 32 bit float files while we're stuck at a 24 bit bus with a "some-people-don't-mind-it-some-and-some-do" sound.



------------------
Kevin Perry
Chameleon Music
__________________
Kevin Perry
Chameleon Music
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-02-2000, 09:16 PM
bigtree bigtree is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 415
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

what I ment was, CD is 44.1/ 16 bit, is DVD 96 k. or can you record/ burn a DVD at 44.1? 16 bit. I'm not sure on DVD because I don't own one yet.

Just wondering if the 96 k thing is important when it comes to burning a DVD.
__________________
Cheers!

bigtree
http://recording.org
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-02-2000, 09:59 PM
HeLikesItHeyMikey HeLikesItHeyMikey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Jose CA. 95138
Posts: 71
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

BigTree - Good question about DVD. There are MANY ways to encode DVD's as we're burning FULL DVD/Surrround at the labs here and options range from 56kbps to 640kbps - YES you might be shocked to find out your coolest Terminator II Limited Directors DVD series is ACTUALLY * GULP * compressed AUDIO!! YIKES!! SOME other options include: bit depth - LFE filter - phase adjustments - RF Overmodulation protection - center channel gain etc... Nope no "Full & True Encoding" consumer systems yet.

As for 96k and phase issues: there IS a more accurate use of 96k and that is for DEPTH perception. Think about it: higher frequencies resolve at different rates than lower ones and if thinking along the fast forrier transform you'll begin to see how those missing higher frequencies are needed to replicate space. OVER time, our ears can perceive depth with REAL EXTREME accuracy - aural time calculations in our brains and such! REAL rooms and REAL space contain these frequencies when we are present. If this path ** AND THIS IS KEY ** FROM MICROPHONE TO PLAYBACK is not strictly adhered to; the process, time, money, and last but not least THE SOUND is gone.

I want it like all of you, but to create music and spend a fourtune on all the PT/Avid Cards only to have it lost in my DAT or AES cables (if poor) or my mics WHICH NEVER RECORDED ABOVE 20k to 40k to begin with or the consumers speaker wires in their car.... sigh
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-03-2000, 12:25 AM
Greg Malcangi Greg Malcangi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 491
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

Hi bigtree,

CD is a single format; 44.1kHz, 16bit. DVD is multi-format. The DVD-Audio specification allows for everything from CD format to full 5.1 in DTS, AC3 or raw PCM data up to sample frequencies of 192kHz and 24bit.

Greg
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-03-2000, 12:36 AM
HeLikesItHeyMikey HeLikesItHeyMikey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Jose CA. 95138
Posts: 71
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

Check this out: Almost every playback DAC in 98.7% of all CD players (which is where our tunes are hopefully intended) as well computer DACs and SoundBlaster type cards AND DVD players and almost every other playback device currently out there rolls off steeply frequecies above *sniff* @20k!! Bummer huh?

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-03-2000, 05:41 PM
masmit masmit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

Warning! This is not intended to start a religious war on the subject of what we can or cannot hear, but is just a point of view, based on some probably partial information...

As I understand it, the only real problem with 44.1/48 is not the loss of frequencies above 20k (I don't know what evidence, as opposed to anecdote, there is that supports the idea that we can hear anything up there), but the analog anti-aliasing filtering that has to take place before the audio hits the AD. This has real and measurable effects, both in phase coherence and distortion, well within the audible (sub 20k) spectrum.

Now I recently read about some clever engineers who made a 48k digital anti-aliasing filter that approaches theoretical perfection. Obviously, though, this is not much use if you have to digitise the audio before you get to this filter. So, they digitised some audio at 96k, with the obviously much gentler analog anti-aliasing filter before the AD, applied their near perfect digital 48k filter and then down sampled the result to 48k. They sent copies of the unfiltered 96k file and the filtered and downsampled 48k file to various luminaries and golden ears, including Bob Ludwig who, as far as I remember, unanimously could not hear the difference between the two files.

If all this is actually as I describe it, the implication is that we can have all the benefits of high sample rates with only the cost of upgrading our ADs, as opposed to having to upgrade every piece of digital hardware and software that we have already spent every penny we ever earned on.

I've heard, though perhaps someone who knows could confirm, that the new TC 6000 uses precisely this scheme ie. sample at 96k -> digital filter -> downsample to 48k.

I would like to believe that this is the way forward, as just about every piece of high-end analog kit that I've seen specs for, claims a flat frequency response of 20 to 20k, though admittedly some of the newer stuff is taking the DC to light approach. I don't really trust either my speakers or my ears above 20k, anyway

"96k" is starting to sound a bit like "CD quality" to me.

Mark
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-03-2000, 08:04 PM
sidereal sidereal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: san francisco ca usa
Posts: 380
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

Gawd, this subject again?

96K: The most over-hyped marketing scheme in the business. And it's amazing how people get sucked in. My theory as to why Digi hasn't come out with 96K is that nobody would make the hardware upgrade... no one would care.

When you consider sound quality, file size issues, and R&D costs, 96K is ridiculous. Bit depth is the real indicator of digital sound quality.

Another thought: If "Livin' La Vida Loca" was recorded at 96K rathar than 44.1, would it have sold a single extra copy?


[This message has been edited by sidereal (edited December 03, 2000).]
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-03-2000, 08:56 PM
bigtree bigtree is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 415
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

Thanks Greg!

I love these topics, lets take this one to 100...hehe!.

TC 6000 sounds interesting.

What was that thread a few months back about sony's future format? It was an unbelievable sample rate.

mp3 files and other grainy formats selling like hot cakes. Sure makes a guy wonder about spending more cash on sound quality.



------------------
http://www.recording.org
the online meeting place for musical minds
__________________
Cheers!

bigtree
http://recording.org
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-03-2000, 08:58 PM
batman batman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 259
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sidereal:
Gawd, this subject again?

96K: The most over-hyped marketing scheme in the business. And it's amazing how people get sucked in. My theory as to why Digi hasn't come out with 96K is that nobody would make the hardware upgrade... no one would care.

When you consider sound quality, file size issues, and R&D costs, 96K is ridiculous. Bit depth is the real indicator of digital sound quality.

Another thought: If "Livin' La Vida Loca" was recorded at 96K rathar than 44.1, would it have sold a single extra copy?


[This message has been edited by sidereal (edited December 03, 2000).]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah
I'd have to agree with Sid on this one...
Bit depth more than sample rate.......
I'd, personally, prefer a sample rate of about
400MHz for dealing with the highest quality analog input..but..it ain't gonna happen...
Also, with people becoming used to the dismal sound quality of MP3 (snort..grimace!!), and the original DVD audio spec being parked...
it's a lost battle.......
96k is neither here nor there......
Whatever

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-04-2000, 04:30 AM
Greg Malcangi Greg Malcangi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 491
Default Re: 24/96 Two Years away?

<< 96K: The most over-hyped marketing scheme in the business. And it's amazing how people get sucked in. My theory as to why Digi hasn't come out with 96K is that nobody would make the hardware upgrade... no one would care... When you consider sound quality, file size issues, and R&D costs, 96K is ridiculous. >>

96k isn't marketing hype. I've A/B'ed the same recording at both 96k and 48k in laboratory conditions. Now I can't consciously hear anything above 19k but I could easily hear the difference between the 96k and 48k recording. Most of the benefits I could hear were to do with imaging, although strangely enough I could also hear a slight improvement in the bass. The differences I heard can easily be put down to the artifacts of brick wall filtering at 48k. So I'd be very interested in a solution to the 48k filtering problem that gives me the benefits I heard from 96k.

<< Bit depth is the real indicator of digital sound quality. >>

No it's not, it is a combination. 16bit/32k is noticably poorer than 16bit/48k.

As to the question posed: Why are we bothering to think about 96k when so many people seem to be happy with MP3?

Because as audio professionals it is part of our job to try and attain the best quality recording we can. IMHO we shouldn't work on the principle that just because MP3 is in common use we should not bother trying to increase quality. If the motor industry took the same approach we would all still be driving around in a Model "T" Ford!

My 2 cents,

Greg
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WHY did I not do this 10 years ago?! midnightrambler Pro Tools TDM Systems (Mac) 6 08-19-2010 07:23 AM
What now , after all these years ...??? gweber 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) 23 05-31-2007 10:56 AM
5 Years JMS40 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 5 11-28-2005 06:05 PM
OT - How was your New Years gig? bigd General Discussion 7 01-05-2005 01:57 AM
OT - 60 Years After D-Day The Weed 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Win) 4 06-07-2004 01:49 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:26 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com