Hearing test...

P

Petrus

Well-known member
It would be interesting to see if somebody really could tell 16/44.1 from 24/96 recording.

It would be fairly easy to try:

- make a 3-5 min long high quality 24/96 recording with a good recorder (like SD722) using good microphones in a quiet place (to get max dynamic range).
- cut the audio into 30 sec segments
- convert one random segment to 16/44.1 and save it (have somebody else do it)
- reconvert it back to 24/96 (ditto)
- splice all segments back together (ditto)
- listen and try to tell where the modified segment is.

The file could be placed somewere in the net for people to upload.

What would be a good subject for this kind a recording? Chamber ensemble?
 
For what it's worth we did a bunch of tests with a Nagra V and a pair of Neuman mics just to see if we could hear any diferences between the "newer" rates and what we had been recording at DAT rates (44.1/16 in our case).

44.1 <> 48 = nobody could tell the diference.
24 bit <> 16 bit = very noticable, 24 much more open.
48 <> 96 = perceptible with high feq stuff, banging on metal etc. Very subtle.
at some point we also did a 96 <> 192 = we couldn't hear any diference. Maybe with a really great recording of very deicate sounds???

So we record in the field (FX) at 48/24. There is a trend now to record FX at higher rates but I think it's more about image (peoples self image not the sound image) than actual sound qualities. Sort of like the debate that raged for years about 48 VS 44.1. It involved a lot of " I record at 48 because I'm so good I can hear it" BS. Dolby digital is 44.1 so all of there high powered recordings had to get SRC down to 44.1 anyway and the conversion at the time was not so great. THere is a good reason to record at high rates for FX though and we do it also when we are planning to pitch shift stuff down, though we still top out at 96.

A lot of times with Foley we are recording at 96 because the ods are that we will pitch it a bit and were not trying to fit it on a portable drive.
 
Unfortunatly this test might say more about the SRC algorithm that the SR's them selves. A better test would be two recorders and a pair of mic splitters.


Petrus said:
It would be interesting to see if somebody really could tell 16/44.1 from 24/96 recording.

It would be fairly easy to try:

- make a 3-5 min long high quality 24/96 recording with a good recorder (like SD722) using good microphones in a quiet place (to get max dynamic range).
- cut the audio into 30 sec segments
- convert one random segment to 16/44.1 and save it (have somebody else do it)
- reconvert it back to 24/96 (ditto)
- splice all segments back together (ditto)
- listen and try to tell where the modified segment is.

The file could be placed somewere in the net for people to upload.

What would be a good subject for this kind a recording? Chamber ensemble?
Click to expand...
 
the bit rate is very obvious but sample rate is different.ive never seen any domestic sound equipment that can play at higher than44khz so no one can really tell you unless they have an interface with that capacity.
 
The only way to listen to this (upcoming?) test file is to have a 24/96 capable system. Some soundcards can play 24/96 but thay are usually plagued by high noise.
 
i have a 744 hooked to my home studer preamp monoblocks :-)
by tye way petrus recording something for dialog over 16/48 is still waist of space ,
music does worth it
 
Oleg 2 said:
petrus recording something for dialog over 16/48 is still waist of space
Click to expand...

lighten up dude.


The standard for features here in uk is to record in 24/48

if you don't have enough space then you buy a bigger hard drive. they are cheap.
 
ScoobySounds said:
lighten up dude.


The standard for features here in uk is to record in 24/48

if you don't have enough space then you buy a bigger hard drive. they are cheap.
Click to expand...
so - - standardt in uk is to drive on the left 2
nothing to deal with human fq hearing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top