Page 2 of 2

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:56 pm
by Fredo
64bit all over does require a bit more memory and memory management from your computer.
So if your machine can't handle it, you can switch back to the old 32bit.

I was not aware that they left the switch in, I thought it only was for betatesting purposes.
(I focus more on Nuendo, so I am not really up-to-date with Cubase details)
Anyway ... that gives you a chance to compare a 64bit mix and a 32-bit mix.
Render both out in 48/24 and flip phase to hear what the differences are.

Fredo

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:13 pm
by alexis
Fredo wrote:
Mon Nov 20, 2017 6:56 pm
64bit all over does require a bit more memory and memory management from your computer.
So if your machine can't handle it, you can switch back to the old 32bit.

I was not aware that they left the switch in, I thought it only was for betatesting purposes.
(I focus more on Nuendo, so I am not really up-to-date with Cubase details)
Anyway ... that gives you a chance to compare a 64bit mix and a 32-bit mix.
Render both out in 48/24 and flip phase to hear what the differences are.

Fredo

Not expecting to hear any from what you've posted, and others.

Thanks again for the explanation.

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:31 pm
by mitchiemasha
I'm pretty sure for many of us this is going to be the hot subject for some time. One which will never truly be put to bed.

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:15 am
by Carvin Man
bigtexasthriller wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:39 pm
If you do choose to record at higher resolution, a pretty well-known engineer once told me that recording at 88.2 is better than 96 because it's divisible by 2 when you reduce to 44.1....

An interesting thought at least.....
That well-known engineer should stay by his tape-machine and analog desk.... FACEPALM (we need a new emoticon)!

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:17 pm
by Fredo
Carvin Man wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:15 am
bigtexasthriller wrote:
Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:39 pm
If you do choose to record at higher resolution, a pretty well-known engineer once told me that recording at 88.2 is better than 96 because it's divisible by 2 when you reduce to 44.1....

An interesting thought at least.....
That well-known engineer should stay by his tape-machine and analog desk.... FACEPALM (we need a new emoticon)!
As long as we are talking about stuff that ends up on CD or DVD, I agree with this statement.
88.2 to 44.1 kHz is a simple dvising by two. It results in pretty even numbers.
96kHz to 44.1 is a much more complicated computation, which will leave much more artifacts after conversion.
So, yes ....


Fredo

Re: More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:56 pm
by reekster
The problem with these studies is it looks at the best possible scenario, a full 16 bit signal which is only in the peaks. Typically, on a 16 bit audio recording, your averaging around 11-13 bits or less. Bumping up to 24 bits brings that average to over 16 bits and NOW you have nice clear audio. 24 bit has smaller steps in between dynamics also so rounding errors are more subtle.

Also, you don't need a Mic that records 192kHz. The reasoning of using higher sampling rates is not so you can HEAR 192 kHz, it's so the filtering os so far beyond the human hearing range that it doesn't effect what you are hearing.

And I still like the photo analogy. It's a picture of an Apple yes but at higher resolution, you can see the various markings on the skin, details in the shadow etc. Higher quality audio produces a much better audio image of the recording. It's still a snare drum, but I can hear the subtle overtones of the drum, the rattling of the snares against the bottom head and subtle nuances that unexperienced listeners don't notice or don't care about.