ail.com
Date: Sun May 23, 2010 3:26 pm ((PDT))
Hello,
I would like to report here my experience with ADC.
My previous recordings were made with the converter that is in the reco=
rders: Edirol r09 and M audio Micro track II.
Now I am using one external converter the Mytek 192 ADC stereo.
My first inpressions is that the converter not the sample rate make the =
difference. The converters in the Edirol r09 and in the M audio micro track=
II can't compete with the Mytek.
To make it simple the sound in the Mytek is bigger,much more information=
passes trough the mytek to the digital recorder via spdif, very realistic =
sound in the Mytek, the other converters are no noisy or deffective the ide=
ntification of sounds is easy but the ambience is poorer that in the mytek.=
However if I record 24 bit 48khz or 24 bit 96khz in the mytek I can't =
ear the difference or the difference is minor.
I think you must have a good reproduction system so you can ear the dif=
ference.
--- In Dan Dugan <> wrote:
>
> >> While the truth is that higher sampling rates unequivocally result in =
> >> greater bandwidth,
> >
> > I feel greater bandwidth is is not the primary reason for going to high=
er sampling rates. Doubling the sample rate - and this should be obvious f=
rom the term - doubles the number of times per second the original analog =
signal is sampled, giving a more accurate representation of the information=
in that waveform. There is an article on the WSRS website written by Nagr=
a's John Owen that makes a similar point:
> >
> > "The sampling frequency and frequency response go hand-in-hand really, =
and although using the Nyquist theory, 44.1 kHz is sufficient to record per=
fectly up to 22.05 kHz bandwidth, using higher sampling frequencies does ap=
pear to reconstitute the original sound more accurately."
>
> John is a good friend, but he also is in the business of selling higher-s=
ample-rate recorders...note the weasely "appear to reconstitute." No real d=
ata to support the claim.
>
> The idea that higher sample rates are more accurate in the human audio ba=
nd is a myth of digital recording that will never die. There is no differen=
ce except wider bandwidth. Wider bandwidth is a good thing for nature recor=
ding, though.
>
> > The benefit of recording at 24bit is largely dependant on the capabilit=
ies of the A/D used in the recorder. Many of the so-called 24bit recorders,=
especially if the design is a few years old, have A/D signal to noise rati=
os of less than 96dB, so there is very little to be gained recording at 24b=
it. The FR2-LE uses an A/D chip with S/N of 95dB for example which effecti=
vely makes it a 15-6 bit recorder. Raimund's recorder tests are performed a=
t 44.1khz/16bits (with one or two exceptions) which obscures the performanc=
e advantages of those recorders which are capable of more than 16bit perfor=
mance. The Olympus is a case in point, with substantial improvements to pe=
rformance when tested at 24bit.
>
> Even with a noisy recorder, a 24-bit master has more room for processing =
later, no harm in turning it up in post.
>
> It's a dirty little secret of audio engineering that even the best state-=
of-the art A-D converters only deliver about 21-bits of actual signal-to-no=
ise. That's more than we need, anyway.
>
> -Dan
>
|