naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: why recording at 96kHz or more?

Subject: Re: why recording at 96kHz or more?
From: "Greg Simmons" simmosonics
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:02 pm ((PDT))
Mark R. wrote:

"as a bass player for some twenty odd years, i have found that
listening to 24/96 brings out movement and a sense of space that 16/44
just can't come close to... "

As a recording engineer who records a lot of acoustic instruments, I
have noticed the same thing. The following is purely anecdotal and
unscientific, but I'll put it here anyway.

I suspect that this effect has to do with how well the recording
system captures the harmonics of the bass (I am referring to
frequencies that are well and truly in the midrange of human hearing,
up to about 3.5kHz or so). If these are captured and/or reproduced
with greater definition and/or less distortion (e.g. not louder, but
clearer), the lower fundamental frequencies creating those harmonics
are perceived as being stronger.

Some years ago the British loudspeaker manufacturer ATC released a
range of drivers using a new magnet technology they called 'Super
Linear'. This technology had reduced the distortion found in drivers
by an order of magnitude. When I A/Bd my old model against the new
model (which was essentially the new SL drivers fitted into the old
model), using a direct-to-stereo string quartet recording I had made
and was therefore very familiar with, I noticed an obvious increase in
LF energy, *particularly* in the acoustic bass, along with
considerably better detail of its midrange harmonics. I discussed this
with Billy Woodman (ATC's founder and chief designer), and he said
many listeners had reported the same thing. He did not know the reason
for it at the time, but it wasn't measurable, suggesting it was more
related to human perception. The lower distortion figures of the Super
Linear technology were mostly beneficial in the midrange, and yet they
seemed to be extending the perceived LF response.

The new drivers did not, of course, increase the sample rate of the
recordings... But it wouldn't surprise me if the better acoustic bass
reproduction being discussed here is driven by how well the system
resolves the upper harmonics of the bass - whether it be a higher
sampling rate during recording, or a lower distortion speaker system
during playback.

Please remember, this is just a purely anecdotal and unscientific
theory of mine - I'm not claiming it is a proof of anything at all!

- Greg Simmons




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: why recording at 96kHz or more?, Greg Simmons <=
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU