Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Multitrack recorder question

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:24:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've been thinking about going digital for about a year and a half and,
due to how I tend to come up with ideas and songs have pretty much
decided that for me a standalone would be best.

Still I don't like the idea of recording at say 96k/24bit only to
perserve the mixed down results to the CD standard 44k/16bit. Surely
(?) companies can economically have built-in recorders that use
recordable DVDs, (or even DVD-Audio or SACD, but perhaps designed to
only use the main stereo channels).

In lieu of a standalone that can do that, I've thought the next best
option might be sending a higher-than-CD quality 2-track mix down to a
computer; and then using the computer to record that material to a DVD.
Does anyone here do something like this? I 've considered going the
Alesis MasterLink route, but at a sale price of $800.00 it a pretty
expensive option; you could probably buy a computer with a DVD recorder
for that much. Any thoughts or info about this would be appreciated.
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 1:25:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Still I don't like the idea of recording at say 96k/24bit only to
> perserve the mixed down results to the CD standard 44k/16bit.

neither do we - if you publish in 44.1 record @ 88.2 or 44.1 to avoid having
to resample - not what you asked but something to watch for ... i.e. don't
record at 96 then publish at 44.1

okay, so you like the idea of 2496, but the sound ? the price of the gear
..... can you make a recording with 24bits of dynamic range ? and does the
rest of yr kit respond well above 22k audible range ?
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 8:46:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"daz[at]roughdiamondmarketing[dot]com" wrote:
>
> if you publish in 44.1 record @ 88.2 or 44.1 to avoid having
> to resample



Recording at 88.2 requires resampling same as recording at 96. I think
it may have been Monty who posted results that burst the bubble on the
commonly held belief that exact multiples of sampling rate have any
mathematical advantage.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Related resources
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:23:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

daz[at]roughdiamondmarketing[dot]com wrote:

> > Still I don't like the idea of recording at say 96k/24bit only to
> > perserve the mixed down results to the CD standard 44k/16bit.
>
> neither do we - if you publish in 44.1 record @ 88.2 or 44.1 to avoid
having
> to resample - not what you asked but something to watch for ... i.e.
don't
> record at 96 then publish at 44.1
>
> okay, so you like the idea of 2496, but the sound ? the price of the
gear
> .... can you make a recording with 24bits of dynamic range ? and does
the
> rest of yr kit respond well above 22k audible range ?

Leaving aside the science and subjectivity surrounding questions about
bits and sampling frequencies, if a person wanted to record at 24 bits
/ 96k and then retain those 'values' when preserving the mix down onto
a disk of some sort, what would be the best way to go? I was wondering
about questions such as... How hard is it to save music to
computer-based DVD, is video needed to get it to work? Is there a less
expensive alternative to Alesis' Masterlink? How about a
non-computer-based DVD recorder, would this be a good alternative to
Masterlink? What's out there that I don't even know about?!!
May 9, 2005 6:46:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I believe re-sampling at integer multiples is much easier to do
_correctly_.

Yes you can re-sample at a non-integer ratios but it is much more
difficult to do correctly at a non-integer ratio.

When I say difficult to do correctly, I mean the DSP software is much
more complex. If you have good software and you know it is done
correctly, then fine, but why take the chance.


Mark
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:27:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark wrote:
> I believe re-sampling at integer multiples is much easier to do
> _correctly_.
>
> Yes you can re-sample at a non-integer ratios but it is much more
> difficult to do correctly at a non-integer ratio.
>
> When I say difficult to do correctly, I mean the DSP software is much
> more complex. If you have good software and you know it is done
> correctly, then fine, but why take the chance.

It's not more complex, it's just computationally more of a
burden to do it with sinc interpolation (needed if an
irrational factor is required) than it is with polyphase
(which you can use if the factor is rational).

There is no excuse anymore for poor sample rate conversion
in any event. It is just not that difficult a problem, has
been well studied and has solutions that are well known and
easily implemented.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 5:43:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 7 May 2005 23:24:21 -0700, Godolphin&fellow <g4th1@netscape.net> wrote:

> I've been thinking about going digital for about a year and a half and,
> due to how I tend to come up with ideas and songs have pretty much
> decided that for me a standalone would be best.
>
> Still I don't like the idea of recording at say 96k/24bit only to
> perserve the mixed down results to the CD standard 44k/16bit. Surely
> (?) companies can economically have built-in recorders that use
> recordable DVDs, (or even DVD-Audio or SACD, but perhaps designed to
> only use the main stereo channels).
>

The most universal format would be DVD Video which can handle uncompressed
stereo 24/96 files. These would be playable on any DVD player (although
cheaper ones would resample to 48kHz). Just use a simple still picture for
the video part.

Cheers.

James.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 7:01:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I believe re-sampling at integer multiples is much easier to do
> _correctly_.


That's long been a common belief, but some "experts" seem (to me) to be
saying that's not really true.

I'm totally unqualified to speak to this issue myself, so I'm simply
restating that which others have written on the subject. Maybe I'm
misunderstanding, but my take on it is that the formulas for "good
quality" resampling work equally well for *any* source rate, and exact
multiples of the end rate have no inherent advantage.

Then there are those of us who figure that higher sample rates offer so
little benefit over just starting at the target rate in the first place
that you gotta wonder why you'd bother.

A couple years ago I did a test tracking a session simultaneously at 48
and 96, using the same converters from the same source. I did the mix
on the 96K session, saved it, then applied the same mix session to the
48K files. If there was a difference, it was SO insignificant as to be
totally swamped by the slightest little variation anywhere else in the
chain. Trying to find a difference was like trying to hear a mouse fart
in a steel mill.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:37:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I agree resampling has been well studied, it has solutions, (it can be
> easily implemented (using one of the chips below) it can be done and
> it can be done very well and there is no excuse for not doing it
> well,........ but it ain't simple.

And with the various middling software tools I have that offer SRC, the
results don't all sound alike. I recently pulled some DAT 48 KHz
recordings into the MIO via SPDIF and found my best option was to use
the MIO's SRC. I can live with it easily.

--
ha
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lorin David Schultz wrote:

> "Mark" <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > I believe re-sampling at integer multiples is much easier to do
> > _correctly_.
>
> That's long been a common belief, but some "experts" seem (to me) to
be
> saying that's not really true.

If this is the case, which I don't doubt,
then why the existence and popularity of
including both 88.2k _and_ 96k rates on most
new equipment ?
Has the myth only recenctly been debunked or
is it "give the customer what he expects"
whether or not there's any benefit ...

rd

DISCLAIMER: I normally track @ 44.1/24
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:25:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1115770897.417292.299790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> annonn@juno.com writes:

> If this is the case, which I don't doubt,
> then why the existence and popularity of
> including both 88.2k _and_ 96k rates on most
> new equipment ?

So we don't have the "sample rate conversion" agonizing when the
consumer playback medium is DVD.

> Has the myth only recenctly been debunked or
> is it "give the customer what he expects"
> whether or not there's any benefit ...

Mostly the latter, but some of the former.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
!