More Bits/Higher sample Rate is not "better"

Post general topics related to Nuendo 7 here.
User avatar
Fredo
External Moderator
Posts: 2476
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:20 am
Contact:

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

Post by Fredo » 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

alexis
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 4417
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:55 pm
Contact:

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

Post by alexis » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:13 pm

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.
Alexis

-Cubase "Safe Start Mode" (CTRL-ALT-SHIFT)
-Get variable-tempo audio to follow a grid here,
-Replacing freely-timed section into a variable tempo project

Cubase 9.0.20; i5-4570 3.2GHz, 16GB RAM; W10 Pro 64-bit on Samsung SSD 840 Pro 256GB; Seagate 1TB SATA 600 Audio; UR28M; Motif8; UAD-2 Solo; Jamstix 3.6; RevoicePro3.3; EZDrummer 2

mitchiemasha
Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by mitchiemasha » Mon Nov 20, 2017 7:31 pm

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.
W10, CP10, i7 9700k OC 5.0, Noctua NH-U9S, MSI z390, 16Gb 3000Mhz DDR4, PCIe NVME 970 Pro, AC-1 Carillon Case, Be Quiet SP11, Virus TI (Integrated), Yamaha CS2x (Custom Mapped), Dynaudio BM5's mkII & Eve SC305's.

Carvin Man
Junior Member
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:47 am
Contact:

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

Post by Carvin Man » 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)!

User avatar
Fredo
External Moderator
Posts: 2476
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:20 am
Contact:

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

Post by Fredo » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:17 pm

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

reekster
New Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:27 pm
Contact:

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

Post by reekster » Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:56 pm

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.
Imagine- Create - Inspire

User avatar
MattiasNYC
Grand Senior Member
Posts: 3831
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:27 am
Contact:

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

Post by MattiasNYC » Sun Dec 01, 2019 6:05 pm

reekster wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:56 pm
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.
That's not how it works though. You're thinking about it the wrong way.

First of all we're not taking an entire signal and representing it with a sample, multiple samples become the signal during reconstruction. So really the one sample just represents one amplitude at one moment in time.

Secondly, I really think you're looking at numerical values in an odd way. "Resolution" isn't determined by how many digits you "fill" or "use" but by the lowest possible value. Consider the size of errors from quantization in these two examples:

Available range for both: 00000 to 99999

Input 1: 12345.6
Output 1: 12346
Error 1: 0.4

Input 2: 012.3456
Output 2: 00012
Error 2: -0.3456

Error in all cases = -0.499.. to +0.5

Lastly: read up on sigma-delta (or "delta-sigma") conversion on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The converted analog signal ends up a a 1-bit stream that gives us an average level that is then decimated into a 16- or 24-bit word representing an average during an oversampled period of time.
Nuendo 7.1.4 / Lynx TWO-B / Windows 10 Pro 64-bit / Ryzen 1700 3.7GHz (oc) / 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4@3200MHz / Nvidia GTX 660 / ASUS x370-A mobo/ 500GB WD Blue system drive / Crucial BX100 250GB SSD media / spinners for library/backup ::::: iZotope RX / Phoenixverb Surround / DaVinci Resolve / Faderport / Applied Acoustics UltraAnalog / my pet pony Frank

Post Reply

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests