The Breakfast.info
Breakfast Babble => Score! => Topic started by: CraigT on June 23, 2005, 08:50:42 am
-
16bit/44.1k (CD quality) (http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=15468)
24bit/96k (DVD quality) (http://bt.etree.org/details.php?id=15470)
The Breakfast
May 14, 2005
North-by-Northwest - Philadelphia, PA
Source: Studio Projects ***2 (cards x/y 90*, FOB)> Lunatec V3 (24bit/96k)> PDAudio-CF> iPaq 3835 (Live2496, Addonics Pocket ExDrive); Wave Lab 5 (fades, resample, Apogee uv22hr dither); CDWave (tracks)
Recorded by Craig Taraszki (ctaraszki@hotmail.com)
Disc #1
1. No Regret>
2. Cut Me Some Slack
3. What The Funk
4. Sleeping Beauty>
5. Phatty Boom Batty
6. Good Times Bad Times>
7. Attraction To The Shade Ditty>
8. Cosmic Spaceway Rhyme
Disc #2
1. May Fly Disarray
2. Fairy
3. Puppetry
4. Grand Scheme Of Things
5. E: Uncle Freddy>
6. Inner Glimpse>
7. In The Flesh
-
I thought I was at this show, but after further review, I think it was my evil twin Stefano...
-
thanks Craig! :thumbsup:
-
Nice, the Breakfast\'s first 24/96 recording!!!
thanks
-
Nice, the Breakfast\'s first 24/96 recording!!!
thanks
Explain
-
Nice, the Breakfast\'s first 24/96 recording!!!
thanks
Explain
24 bit recordings have the ability to capture a wider dynamic range(volume) than 16 bit recordings
96khz recordings are more accurate and can capture higher frequencies than 44.1khz recordings.
-
What is required to listen to/ burn 24-bit?
-
I believe 24 is for DVD quality sound or something along those lines. Not 100% and I could be 100% wrong.
It\'s good to see some new tapers. It feels as if we have a strong taping brigade. Thanks to all those who have this hobby. It is also good to see these type of recordings coming out.
Thanks again.
-
What is required to listen to/ burn 24-bit?
1. Listen from your computer with a 24bit capable soundcard.
2. Burn DVD-Audio using Disc Welder Bronze (Steel or Chrome), Wave Lab 5, etc. You\'ll need a DVD-A capable player. Supports any sample rate.
3. Burn DVD-Video using http://www.audio-dvd-creator.com, or similar. Playback on any DVD player. DVD-Video only supports 24/48 and 24/96 in 2-channel stereo.
-
What is required to listen to/ burn 24-bit?
1. Listen from your computer with a 24bit capable soundcard.
2. Burn DVD-Audio using Disc Welder Bronze (Steel or Chrome), Wave Lab 5, etc. You\'ll need a DVD-A capable player. Supports any sample rate.
3. Burn DVD-Video using http://www.audio-dvd-creator.com, or similar. Playback on any DVD player. DVD-Video only supports 24/48 and 24/96 in 2-channel stereo.
all I\'m getting is clicking and buzzing noises....
I guess I will just stick with what I know....
-
Nice, the Breakfast\'s first 24/96 recording!!!
thanks
Explain
24 bit recordings have the ability to capture a wider dynamic range(volume) than 16 bit recordings
96khz recordings are more accurate and can capture higher frequencies than 44.1khz recordings.
Thanks for the enlightenment. Didn\'t kindm do some 24 bit a while back?
-
A lot of people are now recording in 24bit / 44.1, 48, 96, 192khz.
Here are several things to consider:
Humans can hear frequencies up to about 21khz.
Frequency is equal to one-half the sampling rate.
So, cd quality is 44100hz/2 = 22050hz (highest frequency) and is already higher than tha range of human hearing.
and dvd quality is 96000hz/2=48000hz, more than double the highest frequency humans can hear.
From this perspective, sample rates above 44100 seem overkill.
From another perspective higher sample rates (more pionts) means greater accuracy when compared to the original analog wave.
16bit vs 24bit
I find it hard to hear the difference with most live audio applications. For example, it\'s like listening to a live breakfast show and when the band stops playing, everyone in the room is quiet, except one person in the corner of the room whispers to another person. In theory, if we turn up the stereo loud enough we should be able to understane what that person said. With the 24bit recording we should hear them and the 16 bit we would just hear nothing or noise/hiss. How important is it to hear this person? Depends what they said!! :lol:
-
holy moley... i see the words, but it might as well have been greek.
All I know: ChrisF\'s recordings sound goooooooooood, whether he\'s recording 24bit or through a huge paper cone attached to a needle diggin\' into a wax disc... doesn\'t matter much to me, just as long as he keeps doing what he\'s doing.
but hey, that\'s why it doesn\'t say taper geek or taper fanatic or digidude under my name.
-
Almost all of the recordings I have of the Breakfast were done 24Bit/48Khz. I just never seeded the 24Bit stuff. I have almost all of my originals (dont ask) but If people want the 24Bit stuff I can seed that as well. I almost never listen to 16Bit anymore unless im in the car or something. When I convert them it is so I can seed them and give to friends who cant playback 24Bit stuff.
The difference is prety dramatic as far as soundstage and imagaing is concerned. Cymbals dissapate natually. It is a very nice experience if you can step up to the 24Bit playback
Matt I just read what you wrote and I cannot disagree more. While a sweet 16Bit recording sounds sweet There is just more info and natural analog sound that the 24bit stuff has. I could playback the 16 and 24 bit masters i have over my system and you would be able to hear it clear as day. It isnt crowd noise it is the way the sounds dissapate and subtle sounds are captured accurately in 3 dimensions. the stage is HUGE.
-
Matt I just read what you wrote and I cannot disagree more. While a sweet 16Bit recording sounds sweet There is just more info and natural analog sound that the 24bit stuff has. I could playback the 16 and 24 bit masters i have over my system and you would be able to hear it clear as day. It isnt crowd noise it is the way the sounds dissapate and subtle sounds are captured accurately in 3 dimensions. the stage is HUGE.
we can do an experiment:
take an original 24 bit recording:
sample A: original
sample B: dither to 16 bit and then back to 24 (kicking out the lower 8 bits)
Do a poll and vote on which recording the original 24 bit
take a 48 or 96k original recording:
sample A: orginal
sample B: resample down to 44.1 then back to 48 or 96k
Do a poll and vote on which recording is the original 48 or 96k
take a 24bit/96k recording:
sample A: original
Sample B: resample and Dither to 16/44.1 and them back to 24/96k
Do a poll and vote on which recording is original 24bit 48 or 96k.
Would you agree this is a fair test? I\'m betting most people will be guessing on the correct answer.
-
and just how much does tea cost in China??? :lol:
-
I\'m betting most people don\'t care.
fixed.
;)
-
Just as much as it does here (tea).
-
I would say that the test you purpose is flawed. Once I resample to 16Bit and dither to 44.1 all of the original info would be lost. So resaving that file back to 24 Bit will do noting but increase the file size.(EDITED To ADD: MAtt I really need to read more carefully before I post. I see your reasoning to resave back to 24Bit after the dither so that in a side by side the file sizes would be the same and people wouldnt be able to just look at the file size to determine)
What would be a fair test would be to take the 24 Bit master and add gain ad then save 1 file at 24Bit and the other at 16 bit and do a blind test. But there are also some other serious considerations. Most folks will not have a playback system capable of really reproducing the 16Bits let alone 24.
If people are listening to shows through their crappy ass computer speakers than it really isnt going to be that dramatic of an improvement. If you move up to a higher class of playback it is very much like night and day. Bass response becomes much tighter and rounder in 24 Bits.
I agree that MOST people won\'t care, hence the popularity of lossy formats like MP3 and everybody loves their Ipods etc. But I don\'t tape for other people. I tape for ME! and my ears can easily hear the difference in a side by side A/B comp. I do it all the time. I have the 16Bit files and te 24Bit on my harddrive and can quickly go back and forth
I am not knocking recordings done at 16/44.1 or 16/48. I used to and still tape at those resolutions when the laptop is not practical or if I have the backup rig etc. It just comes down to if I can record a show in higher resolution than why not ? you can never go back in time and re-record a live show. So if I am gonna do it why not do it at the highest possible quality that I can. I can always take away, you can never add
I dont know what kind of system you guys use but this is my hobby (taping / semi-audiophile) so thats why I am as passionate about it as I am. And IMHO once you get used to listening to music with beter quality EQ, or sources or whatever it is almost impossible to go back. It is like when you have a really good playback system and then you go to a friends house and hear their better system. From that day on you can hear all of the short-comings in your playback becasue your brain heard it on the other system and is looking for that subtle sound etc.
1 example that I can think of that really hammers the point home is this. On Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon, during Great big Gig in the Sky the female vocalist towards the end of the tune says "If you can hear me whispering your dying." On most average playback systems this is muddled and almost in-audible. On a HQ playback system it is clear as day. Same analogy holds true in 24Bit IMO. On the Beardslee castle recording I just made, Jordan is playing a solo or about to play a solo and he just ever so slightly tickles the keys at 1 point (very dramatic I thought for some weird reason) and again it is sooo crystal clear on the 24 Bit it is exactly where it should be in 3D. On the 16Bit it isnt as clear you really have to concentrate to hear it.
-
What kind of setup is required for playing 24 bit. I am always one for superior quality. I would rather hear everything as clear as possible.
-
What kind of setup is required for playing 24 bit. I am always one for superior quality. I would rather hear everything as clear as possible.
What is required to listen to/ burn 24-bit?
1. Listen from your computer with a 24bit capable soundcard.
2. Burn DVD-Audio using Disc Welder Bronze (Steel or Chrome), Wave Lab 5, etc. You\'ll need a DVD-A capable player. Supports any sample rate.
3. Burn DVD-Video using http://www.audio-dvd-creator.com, or similar. Playback on any DVD player. DVD-Video only supports 24/48 and 24/96 in 2-channel stereo.
-
Perhaps, you can translate this into English?
-
I\'m betting most people don\'t care.
fixed.
;)
You\'re mis-quoting me! - - Dave gets a time out for abusing his administrative privileges...
fixed... :)
-
English:
If you have a DVD player capabale of DVD-A playback then you can already listen to 24Bit audio in this format. If you do not have a DVD-A capable dvd player aother option is if you computers soundcard can support 24Bit playback.
I have a 24Bit/192 capable ESI Waveterminal 192x soundcard. I run 1/4"-> RCA to my Marantz AMP for playback. Although I do listen on my PC desktop speakers soetimes as well
-
II see your reasoning to resave back to 24Bit after the dither so that in a side by side the file sizes would be the same and people wouldnt be able to just look at the file size to determine).
correct.
What would be a fair test would be to take the 24 Bit master and add gain ad then save 1 file at 24Bit and the other at 16 bit and do a blind test. But there are also some other serious considerations. Most folks will not have a playback system capable of really reproducing the 16Bits let alone 24.
If we add gain (say12db) to the 24bit master, the samples from 0 to -12db would be clipped/distorted; not a valid test. Adding a 16bit dither (bit reduction) to a 24bit file is the corect method and comparing the new file with the original 24bit is the correct method to compare the two.
If people are listening to shows through their crappy ass computer speakers than it really isnt going to be that dramatic of an improvement. If you move up to a higher class of playback it is very much like night and day. Bass response becomes much tighter and rounder in 24 Bits.).
I agree, crappy speakers, amps and a/d converter with poor signal to noise ratios make it impossible to hear the differences. The problem I have is I have very good speakers/headphones and soundcard and I am still guessing which is the 24bit vs. 16bit recording. I just disagree that it is night and day because most people, even on the best playback system, can\'t get it right consistently.
1 example that I can think of that really hammers the point home is this. On Pink Floyds Dark Side of the Moon, during Great big Gig in the Sky the female vocalist towards the end of the tune says "If you can hear me whispering your dying." On most average playback systems this is muddled and almost in-audible. On a HQ playback system it is clear as day.
you\'re just comparing good vs. bad playback system.
Same analogy holds true in 24Bit IMO. On the Beardslee castle recording I just made, Jordan is playing a solo or about to play a solo and he just ever so slightly tickles the keys at 1 point (very dramatic I thought for some weird reason) and again it is sooo crystal clear on the 24 Bit it is exactly where it should be in 3D. On the 16Bit it isnt as clear you really have to concentrate to hear it.
let me know what track #/ time and I will set up blind A/B test using a correct dither method.
-
"If we add gain (say12db) to the 24bit master, the samples from 0 to -12db would be clipped/distorted; not a valid test. Adding a 16bit dither (bit reduction) to a 24bit file is the corect method and comparing the new file with the original 24bit is the correct method to compare the two."
We are saying the samething just differently.
I mean if you want to do an A/B thats cool but I dont need to be convinced. I know what I hear. If you cannot tell the difference thats cool, it doesn\'t seem that it matters to you 1 way or the other. Like I said it isn\'t like I refuse to listen to 16Bit stuff or something a ripping recording is a ripping recording. And if most folks cant tell the difference again thats OK to. Most folks cant tell the difference from MP3\'s to PCM or they dont care.
My analogy about the playback systems was just trying to describe what i was talking about in a broader context. Relating it to something a lot of folks can relate to (Dark Side of the Moon). The clarity of subtle nuances in the recordings and how it relates to the overall sound experience.
I mean I am not the only person out there that believes it. If it wasnt as dramtic as I was tlaking about there would be no need for Bit Depth increase since DAT (16Bit/48khz).
Listen to the Diana Krall DVD-A and tell me you dont hear a difference. The science is the same
Something also occurred to me in what is at play here.
We are comapring the exact same original source. The original source was captured at 24Bit and then this same recording was dithered and resampled after the fact using 1 of the better dithering algorythms U2hvrr. So if the software is doing what it is supposed to the differences between these 2 files is going to be minimal. But take a source captured at 16/44.1 and 1 captured at 24/96 or whatever and I think you will hear the differences a lot more readily.
-
You aren\'t the only one - I also listen primarily to 24bit sources because I enjoy the added resolution and can tell the difference. Sometimes its obvious, sometimes not so much - depends on what you\'re recording. I also do some mid/side recording and the m/s>stereo mixdown definitely benefits from the higher bitrate. Same thing goes for any processing like EQ. I\'ve been recording 24bit since 2001, maybe early 2002, and have just started to torrent 24bit sources since the "user base" has finally begun to grow.
The argument for 96k and higher sampling isn\'t as significant. I think the main issue is that PCM decoding typically uses a very sharp low-pass filter to eliminate some high frequency nasties and at 96k its threshold is pushed way out of audible range. There are also some arguments that involve spacial cues, imaging, etc.
-
CraigT what else do you tape ? I have offered to others before as well but if you ever want to trade some 24Bit stuff let me know. I have a bunch of stuff on HDD right now (finally getting around to burning them to DVD)
-
search "taraszki" on bt.etree.org and you\'ll see a bunch of my recordings.
this is one of the best sounding:
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=26567
-
English:
If you have a DVD player capabale of DVD-A playback then you can already listen to 24Bit audio in this format. If you do not have a DVD-A capable dvd player aother option is if you computers soundcard can support 24Bit playback.
I have a 24Bit/192 capable ESI Waveterminal 192x soundcard. I run 1/4"-> RCA to my Marantz AMP for playback. Although I do listen on my PC desktop speakers soetimes as well
I missed this when you posted it earlier. I understand this mumbo-jumbo much more clearer now. I will have to check into what my DVD player is capable of. Thanks you for the translation Kind Sir.
-
You aren\'t the only one - I also listen primarily to 24bit sources because I enjoy the added resolution and can tell the difference. Sometimes its obvious, sometimes not so much - depends on what you\'re recording. I also do some mid/side recording and the m/s>stereo mixdown definitely benefits from the higher bitrate. Same thing goes for any processing like EQ. I\'ve been recording 24bit since 2001, maybe early 2002, and have just started to torrent 24bit sources since the "user base" has finally begun to grow.
The argument for 96k and higher sampling isn\'t as significant. I think the main issue is that PCM decoding typically uses a very sharp low-pass filter to eliminate some high frequency nasties and at 96k its threshold is pushed way out of audible range. There are also some arguments that involve spacial cues, imaging, etc.
both you and mike make some good points which I enjoy discussing on the forum.
m/s recordings are great; I wish more people would utilize this technique. I\'ve experimented with an alternate use with the m/s decoder and plugged in (soundboard-audience) > stereo mix. you can download one here: http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=5822.
I don\'t own a figure8 mic so I can\'t do it the standard way.
I also record live 24bit multitrack. Because mixing involves automating individual levels as much +24db and adding plugin effects, it\'s nice to know that a bounced mix utilized full bandwith. but at the same time the difference is still very tough to discern. Here\'s a hidden gem on lma. looks like only 2 people downloaded it:
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree-details-db.php?id=5716
BTW: best Cosmic Spaceway Rhyme, full of emotion, nice tempo.
-
Ok I have a taping question.
When running in M/S how does 1 set his/her levels ?
Are the levels supposed to be even or because of the pick patterns should the levels be run differently ?
I nevr really understood this technique. I can now do it but haven\'t so far. I did run the Blumlien (2x fig8\'s) for the Breakfast at StrangeCreek I think the recording sounds pretty good but probably should have been closer then 65ft or so.
-
I run them even. You essentially set your levels from your M (left) channel - the S (right) is usually lower. When I adjust one, I make the same adjustment on the other.
-
Set up one mic fig 8 and the other cardioid/hyper. Position the mic like :http://homepage.ntlworld.com/chris.burmajster/Coincident.htm Face the cardioid mic toward what your trying to capture. Record your levels the same way you always do (high as possible without clipping). I prefer to encode m/s using a plugin after the show; this way you can decide what sounds best by adding or subtracting gain with respect to the other channel. adjust all levels so you\'re not clipping or too low. I use the waves plugin. The left channel is the "m" channel and the right is the "s" channel.
go with what sounds best, you\'ll know when you go it right.