Some commonsense

[Rt66indierock]

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

Common sense says that the higher sample rate file gives you a choice and thus, even if there is no audible difference to you between 24/192k and 16/44.1k,  preserve the choice for the future. There is no longer any justification in terms of size or bandwidth for 16/44.1k. I do not know of any professional studios recording in 16/44.1k these days, and not many amateurs do either. 

 

Paul, for there to be high resolution albums to purchase a high-resolution format must be specified in the recording contract. I asked Tommy Faragher, Rafa Sardina and Tony Braunagel last Saturday at t.h.e. Show in Long Beach if the labels often specified high-resolution deliverables. They said no.

 

The RIAA May 6^th press release said there are almost hi-res 400,000 tracks available in the United States. 7digital in their June 7^th press release outlining their survival plans said they have more than 70 million tracks. The 400,000 number includes studio production format, 24/44.1. Professionals give the labels what they specify.

 

The reason is simple economics. According to Tony Braunagel, an additional hi-res master costs between $18,000 and $60,000 more to other costs of making a record. That additional $18,000 would have to result in about a million more streams to breakeven.

[Rt66indierock]

10 hours ago, STC said:

 

As far as recording is concerned, go as high as possible. Even though most microphones spec can indicate frequency response up to 20kHz but they do not indicate at what distance they measured them. In most recordings, you see sharp attenuation after 15kHz for mic position at a practical distance. 

 

When you use microphones going almost flat extending up to 30kHz, the HF of audible range at recording position will be higher than a microphone which measures flat up to 20kHz only. And then if you take into consideration of the ADC filter, there will be difference in the recording of the two different formats.  Most of the comments that you hear that they do not make any difference, should ask when was the last time they used a microphone that can capture ultra frequencies.  Opinions based on recordings made with microphones designed to be flat up to 20kHz and justifying the results of double blind tests are not a proper way to judge the SQ of high rez format.

 

A recording made with microphones going up to 50 kHz at 24/96 will sound better at a distance compared to a mic that measures flat up to 20kHz. This is true even if you down sample the 50kHz mic to 24/44.1. Having said that, you would NOT hear the difference between the original 50khz mic at 24/96 format and the same track downsampled to 24/44.1. Not easy anyway nor it matters to me.

 

The last time I used high frequency mics was a couple of weeks ago with my Sony digital recorder. I don’t see much  up there with Americana music.

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

Look for frequencies from 10 to 20 kHz and compare them with a standard mic. 

 

Don’t get started on matching mics. And at a minimum I carry a frequency analyzer on my phone and use it. I’m constantly looking a 10 to 20 kHz.  And 20 hz which I try very hard to avoid.

[Rt66indierock]

26 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Here is a sample. MP3 upsampled to 24/44.1. Both Mics were designed for vocal. One spec'ed to 20kHz and another to50kHz. I hear the slight elevated HF even though the whole track did not extend more than 16kHz. Full details later. Maybe DW can come handy here.

 

HiMic vs Standard.wav 7.01 MB · 1 download

 

 

 

 

 

Are you making the assumption that higher is better? In many.cases lower would be what the artists, engineers and label wants.