Dear list,

I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of 
soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit. 
I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted 
these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files 
themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as 
reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix, 
aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in 
48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would 
give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections) 
and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the 
amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this 
make sense?

Best regards,

Jan Jacob


sound         |         movement          |          object         |   
        space
sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music

-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Hi,
If you're doing all the processing in one pass (all in one csd with no
further processing), there is no difference between using the original
16 and a 24 bit file, since the data loaded would be exactly the same in
both cases. If you plan to do cumulative processes, like doing something
in csound, exporting, and doing something somewhere else, there might be
a benefit in using 24 bit files. Remember to dither when going back to
16 bits.
I would think that going to 48k and back again to 44.1k would be more
damaging than staying in 44.1.

Cheers,
Andrés

On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 11:45, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:
> Dear list,
> 
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of 
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit. 
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted 
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files 
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as 
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix, 
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in 
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would 
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early reflections) 
> and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher headroom for the 
> amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my thoughts on this 
> make sense?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Jan Jacob
> 
> 
> sound         |         movement          |          object         |   
>         space
> sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music

-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the  
sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so  
unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really  
worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)  
are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to  
dither it down anyway.

peace,

Math Static


On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of  
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.  
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted  
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files  
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as  
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,  
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in  
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would  
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early  
> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher  
> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my  
> thoughts on this make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound         |         movement          |          object         |   
>         space
> sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-- 
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the better 48
frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is recorded will
have a much more profound impact.

To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get from
adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects are
very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the decay
runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
physical or electronic.

Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean it
needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means that
everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Max McDougall [mailto:max@realisticom.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
sense?


First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
dither it down anyway.

peace,

Math Static


On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:

> Dear list,
>
> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
> thoughts on this make sense?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jan Jacob
>
>
> sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>         space
> sonic architecture       |        site: http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>
> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Actually the sampling rate of DVD is 96k. 44.1k - 48k rates are  
unnoticeable. The only reason I would use 48k is if I were to dump to a  
DAT.

Math Static

On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Michael Rempel wrote:

> Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the  
> better 48
> frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
> metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is  
> recorded will
> have a much more profound impact.
>
> To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get  
> from
> adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects  
> are
> very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the  
> decay
> runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
> ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
> physical or electronic.
>
> Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
> quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean  
> it
> needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means  
> that
> everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
> anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max McDougall [mailto:max@realisticom.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
> sense?
>
>
> First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
> sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
> unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
> worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
> are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
> dither it down anyway.
>
> peace,
>
> Math Static
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
>> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
>> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
>> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
>> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
>> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
>> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
>> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
>> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
>> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
>> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
>> thoughts on this make sense?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jan Jacob
>>
>>
>> sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>>         space
>> sonic architecture       |        site:  
>> http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>>
>> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>
>>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
> .---.-.----.--.--------.----------
> MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
> Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
> Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
> (218) 205-1600
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........
>
> - 9 West Seventh Place
> - Saint Paul, Minnesota
> - 55102     APT 243
>
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
> --  
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-- 
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600  
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

Converting to 48 is unnoticeable, but recording in 48 vs recording in 44.1
is quite noticable.

Once recorded in 44.1 no up conversion is noticable in the source, but may
be in the resulting effects.

In fact converting to 48 from 44.1 has artifacts. By definition it must, but
these are percieved in the 15k and up range which is seldom recorded in the
first place. If you want to hear it, try recording high notes on English
handbells with a good small condenser mic. Neither format records all the
harmonics, since for a small bell, they range well into the 50mhz range, but
48 sounds far supperior to 44.1 in sympathy to the sound of the original, at
least to my ear. I can not comment on 96 or 128 because a) my equipment is
not good enough, and b) I am not convinced that microphones exist that are
able to distinguish it and still have good bass. I suspect if they exist,
then they are likely to be in the Earthworks line. All that said, the item
with the least quality in the recording chain defines the limits of quality
reproduction, and I dont have the money to bring the entire chain up to that
standard. Further more I wonder if good music needs it. Higher quality can
be plesant, and higher bit count can be more accurate, but no virtuoso is
made from these ingredients. Also adding even slight traditional EQ to a
sound adds far more distortion than these small things, as does the phase
and frequency response of most microphones. Given the highly agresive
editing most stuff endures (mine included) it is not a terrible thing to
have 44.1 equipment. I still abide by the old music business maxim I
suggested in my first response. If it sounds good it is good.

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: Max McDougall [mailto:max@realisticom.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 7:26 PM
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
sense?


Actually the sampling rate of DVD is 96k. 44.1k - 48k rates are
unnoticeable. The only reason I would use 48k is if I were to dump to a
DAT.

Math Static

On Sep 2, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Michael Rempel wrote:

> Re consumer audio, CD is 44.1, but DVD and other formats use the
> better 48
> frequency. I think you will find effects with long tails are a bit less
> metalic/harsh in 48. However mic and preamp selection if it is
> recorded will
> have a much more profound impact.
>
> To further explain a bit,it is not clear what benefit you would get
> from
> adding bits, however dynamic range is improved in 24. If your effects
> are
> very thick you might see some slight difference in the tails as the
> decay
> runs out to silence. That is what RT60 means, generaly 60db below the
> ambient level of the source is considered silent for most stuff, be it
> physical or electronic.
>
> Further more, in general your best result in the end will reflect the
> quality of your worst step in the creation process. This does not mean
> it
> needs to be clean or distortion free or commercial. Rather it means
> that
> everything matters. What sounds good is the only deciding factor for
> anything. So the answer is, and always will be .... try it!
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max McDougall [mailto:max@realisticom.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:22 AM
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Conversion into 48 khz and 24 bit, does it make
> sense?
>
>
> First of all, a jump to 48 will not have a noticeable effect on the
> sound. Also- going to 24 bit is only going to effect the dynamics so
> unless the rt60 of the verbs are dynamically important its not really
> worth the extra storage. Keep in mind that consumer formats (cds, etc)
> are 44.1/16bit so if you are going to burn to disc you will need to
> dither it down anyway.
>
> peace,
>
> Math Static
>
>
> On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Jan Jacob Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> I am planing to do a major remix of my pieces. They consist of
>> soundfiles originally recorded at a sample-rate of 44,1 khz at 16 bit.
>> I wonder if there would be an increase of sound-quality if I converted
>> these files into 48 khz and 24 bit beforehand. I know the files
>> themselves would surely not sound better themselves, but as
>> reverberation and early reflections are added in the course of he mix,
>> aswell as the amplitude of these files is altered, I guess doing it in
>> 48 khz and 24 bit might be an advantage: the higher sample-rate would
>> give a better temporal resolution (important for the early
>> reflections) and the higher bit-rate more definition and a higher
>> headroom for the amplitude level. What do other Csounders think? Do my
>> thoughts on this make sense?
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jan Jacob
>>
>>
>> sound         |         movement          |          object         |
>>         space
>> sonic architecture       |        site:
>> http://www.sonicarchitecture.de
>> spatial electronic composition     |    2nd order ambisonic music
>>
>> -- Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>
>>
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
> .---.-.----.--.--------.----------
> MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
> Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
> Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
> (218) 205-1600
> -.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........
>
> - 9 West Seventh Place
> - Saint Paul, Minnesota
> - 55102     APT 243
>
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
> --
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk
>
>
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--
.---.-.----.--.--------.----------
MATH STATIC-.---..-.---.-----..-.-.
Max McDougall-.-.-.-...--.---..
Digital Mixed-Media . Recording Engineer
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.------..-...-.-.....
(218) 205-1600
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--.-.-...-..-.-...-.......-..........-..........

- 9 West Seventh Place
- Saint Paul, Minnesota
- 55102     APT 243


--
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 21:26:01 -0500
Max McDougall  wrote:

> Actually the sampling rate of DVD is 96k. 44.1k - 48k rates are  
> unnoticeable. The only reason I would use 48k is if I were to dump to a  
> DAT.


http://www.minnetonkaaudio.com/info/info.html

"Everything you wanted to know about DVD-Audio"

I'd argue the 44.1 vs 48k thing but it seems to be rather pointless.

-- 
WWW.RTaylor-Design.Com
-- 
Send bugs reports to this list.
To unsubscribe, send email to csound-unsubscribe@lists.bath.ac.uk