Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

44.1/88.2 - Final Assessment

We're always right back where we started, it seems: where the order of importance seems to be song / arrangement / performance / "vibe" / all that technical stuff. o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: captdan and Arjan P
I was aware of the Lavry document and think Dan Lavry has a very good and well-argumented point against going higher than 96k sampling rate. I also think 192kHz or even higher sampling rates are good for marketing and no more. But scientifically there is an argument to go to 88k2 or 96k, as opposed to 44k1 or 48k. I just didn't really hear it in a convincing way yet.. Still undecided though.
 
BobF said:
After reading these, I decided that for the money I'm willing to spend on converters, 48K is plenty good for me, even if not quite in the 50-60K range. 24 bit

The first references the second.

http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2...-when-it-isnt/

http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lav...ing-theory.pdf
Click to expand...
These two quotes from the first article sum it up for me:

"So, if you are ever using a converter and find it sounds dramatically better at a higher rate, don’t get excited about the sample rate. Get suspicious of the design shortcuts instead! Why isn’t the 44.1kHz on that converter up to snuff? How does this converter compare to the best-designed converters when they are set to a lower rate? Is it still better, or does the advantage disappear?"

"Another valuable thing to remember is that when a converter does sound surprisingly different at different sampling rates, those distinctions are usually still audible once you down convert to 44.1kHz. Ironically, this only goes to show that any benefit in the higher rate exists in the sonic range that 44.1kHz can capture!"

I believe this is the case with my DA-3000 and why I am not hearing much difference between 88.2 and 44.1. I'm going to start 44.1 project sessions again, keep the same fidelity and enjoy less resource constraints on what I would consider a beefy audio workstation.
 
My mind was made up before ever reading any documents on the subject so in my mind, my laymen suspicions were validated by the above link. That's enough of a blind test for me without being influenced by arguments.

I'm convinced, like the article states, that the reason I am not really hearing a difference between 44.1 and 88.2 is because the converters were designed properly on the DA-3000. The article says that poorly designed converters or converters designed with shortcuts will sound better at higher sample rates. Hey that's probably why the DA-3000 was critically acclaimed?

Maybe there is a difference between 44.1 and 88.2 with the original Tascam DM converters.
 
Last edited:
I'm no scientist but I'm suspicious of the statement about 'surprisingly better.' These differentials can't be characterized as 'surprising.' They just don't jump out at you like - say - the perceivable difference between a condenser, dynamic or ribbon mike.

Another way to look at this: Dan Lavry builds respectable, industry standard converters. Do you see him eschewing 96/88.2khz because of a claim his product is so well designed it doesn't need to operate at higher specs? Of course not. He's stated several times there can be benefit in those higher sample rates, at very least in terms of signal processing.

Personal opinion stated before: perhaps some converters DO operate best at higher S/Rs. I tend to believe the DM's versions are among them. I also accept the fact that the audible improvement may well be in the DAC portion of the signal chain, rather than, perhaps, in the A/D. I certainly hear better detail in my monitored material at 96kz, allowing me to dial in EQs and balances I might have to struggle with at lower S/Rs. In other words, the proof is in the summing bus; there's just more to work with - in my opinion.

And Charlie, your DA3000 likely DOES operate at 44.1 in a more coherent way than the DM's raw converters do at that spec. I think that's the bottom line: some converters - A/D/D/A - just work better at 88.1/96kz. Others may perform more equally at all sample rates.

By the way, the DM's AKM converters allegedly sample @ 192khz. :)

CaptDan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gravity Jim and cmaffia
captdan said:
And Charlie, your DA3000 likely DOES operate at 44.1 in a more coherent way than the DM's raw converters do at that spec. I think that's the bottom line: some converters - A/D/D/A - just work better at 88.1/96kz. Others may perform more equally at all sample rates.
CaptDan
Click to expand...
That's EXACTLY what I am saying too ;-). I heard an improvement in 88.2 before over 44.1 when using the DM converters.. but once I put the DA-3000 in my monitoring and mastering chain it seemed equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gravity Jim and captdan
This all makes sense to me. As my rig sits today, it sounds best recording at 24-bit/96Khz, so that's what I do.

Boy, if this was a guitar forum, we'd be calling each other names by now. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: captdan
captdan said:
By the way, the DM's AKM converters allegedly sample @ 192khz. :)
Click to expand...
Capt., the clock rate of an AD converter is not quite the same as the sample rate of digital audio - it needs to be higher than the highest audio sample rate at all times.
 
My take-away is like most things. If you're willing to spend enough, you can record at 24/96K (or higher) and get improvement. If you're willing to spend enough. In my case, there is also a whole lot of ancillary gear/mics/cables that would need to be upgraded before those higher rates could actually be a benefit.

As a hobbyist ... the ROI isn't there. If I was running a studio doing the kind of work that demanded it -and I could get decent returns by doing so- sure, I'd go as far it made sense. After lots and lots and lots of research.

Anyway ... I found those articles helpful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New posts

New threads

Members online

Total: 24 (members: 2, guests: 22)
© 2004-2024 TASCAM Forums. Forum software by XenForo. This site is not affiliated with TEAC or TASCAM.
Top Bottom