![]() With all the over the top home audio products those with the resources can acquire these days it's a pity the same sort of fanatical rigor isn't being applied to microphones.Ĭlick to expand.Actually, there's three versions, but essentially they are exactly the same thing. I suspect to capture all that as one would hear the event in situ would require higher sampling rates then we have now. That wasn't on my radar while I was looking at hardware (which I have yet to purchase).Ĭlick to expand.I won't deny the possibility that something else is going on where having the ability to properly track a 100khz waveform would produce an audible improvement in the midrange-in symphonic music you have the same note played by 30 or so people in the string section, no one playing exactly the same B♭, the room chiming along with various elements in the building resounding on a different pitch, in a different part of the biggish building, at different but close times, with the massed forces of brass, reeds, woodwinds and percussion playing pitches in the same tonal neighborhood and the auditorium doing the same tricks to all those other instruments as well. Hybrid dual layer discs, I just rip the redbook layer andĭeclare it good enough to sit beside the other stuff in my digital library. It bugs me I have some single layer SACD discs that I can't easily rip. ![]() I think I may also be "needle-dropping" some DVD-A, SACD, and/or BLU-RAY discs too (via the analog connectors). $1,000 is out of my league for this project. I don't think I'll be looking for anything that does 192 Khz but I was drooling over a $1,000 box that claims it can do it (and DSD as well). It seems like it should - but the conversion to the lower rate isn't intuitively obvious (you don't just take every other sample and call it a day).īut from the "try it and see" perspective, hardware that supports both 88.2 and 96 would give me another point of comparison. I'm not entirely convinced that 88.2 provides a better downsample to 44.1. ![]() I just looked at some that do, and some that don't. I'm not sure all consumer recording products support 88.2 sampling. That wasn't on my radar while I was looking at hardware (which I have yet to purchase). but I'd at least like to take a stab at it before I dismiss 96/24 entirely.Ĭlick to expand.You make a good point about 88.2. I can always re-sample after the fact or start using lower capture settings in the hardware if I decide they aren't worth it. Theoretically, my cartridge (Grado-Silver) claims it can capture high frequencies - and my tube pre-amp claims the same. I have a fairly nice turntable, cartridge, and tube pre-amp but I don't think the noise floor of vinyl needs the extra bits. Seems to me like dithering is what's done when the 24 bits are reduced to a smaller number. Would there be any point to dithering a 96/24 file to a second 96/24 file ? It would be easier to just create flac or alac files. I've read a lot about how to re-sample down from 96 Khz and then dither, but that seems mostly if I'm trying to get the files onto a red-book format media. Most of my vinyl is in good shape - but not everything was purchased new - so I inherited the care (or lack thereof) from the previous owner of each disc I purchased. just as a way to get my vinyl into a digital format. I'm not doing this a restoration project that will eventually be sold to other people. So the benefit of the extra data seems to mostly depend on the amount that I want to play with the raw data.īut is it really possible to clean up pops and clicks in vinyl ? More specifically, it is possible using an automated process ? I don't have the patience to go through and clean up every pop or click. Reading, it seems likes the biggest benefit I would get from the extra samples and increased bit depth is anything I might use to attempt to remove vinyl artifacts would have a better chance of working successfully if the processing is done on the original raw 96/24 data. I traditionally have recorded digitally at 44.1/16 and done very little to nothing to the files (other than trim the dead area between songs because the pops and clicks are more prominent during the zone between songs). But somewhere along the way I started to question what the value is of the extra data is. Given that hard-drives are fairly cheap, and files can be re-sized using lossless methods - I'm not too worried about the hard-drive space being a problem. That assumption was accurate, but along the way I started to question whether or not 96/24 was going to be worth the added expense (which I'm defining mostly as hard-drive space). I was assuming that I might be able to get something that can record at 96/24 for a reasonable cost. ![]() I posted something earlier this week about upgrading my current "needledrop" hardware to something more modern.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |