Re: [all-audio] Differences in audio recording quality

[Hamit Campos]

For the person that said they couldn't find the test files page on the 
auidio site Dain provided here's the deal. So ya know that as ya go in 
there's a downloads link? It's on that page. What it is it looks like 
they put some files there for you to practise downloading stuff. I guess 
so yu can see what your PC can take maybe? Cause it's in the explanation 
on how to download and the choises you can make.



On 4/1/2018 3:24 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:

I’ve given this some thought and have decided that - for the purposes of this 
discussion - the participants should be able to hear for themselves the 
differences that high sampling rates etc offer so here’s a way.
There a site called http://www.melbarecordings.com.au 
 which is an independent classical record 
label.
If you go through the site you’ll see a section labeled something like test 
recordings.
Follow the links and you’ll find test recordings in different formats and 
sampling rates you can download or preview.
The first thing I’ll say here is don’t be at all surprised if the higher 
sampling rate files don’t work on your computer system after all! Its all 
hardware dependent and some sound devices don’t support above 48K.



On 2 Apr 2018, at 4:10 am, Hamit Campos  wrote:

Ah I can hear up to 18 K. But I wana see how much difference I can really hear. 
Thing is I've done it with an LS-14 but of course this isn't as pro as the H6 
is. Maybe an LS-100 would be but saddly couldn't get that.


On 4/1/2018 2:08 PM, tim cumings wrote:

Inmy jhumble opinion, recording at 96 khz 24 kbps is really a waste of time. 
Even with perfect hearing most people can't hear above 22 khz anyway.



On 3/31/2018 11:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:

Unfortunately the chap who has been employed to do it didn’t turn up and I was 
annoyed about it to say the least so I’ll be following that one up after the Easter 
holiday break ends, Happy Easter and Happy listening/recording to you all by the way 
.



On 1 Apr 2018, at 12:55 pm, Hamit Campos  wrote:

Were you able to record the tree chopping?


On 3/31/2018 10:18 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:

Hmm.. I'm not sure where you got that info from?

Unless I'm totally wrong I understand that whatever the sampling rate is set to 
then that goes so if you're set to 96K 24-bit then go for your life with the 
whole 6 tracks.

There are two things you have to be aware of and the first is SD card size as 
you'd need something large to do 6 tracks at 96K 24-bit.

Second is that once the sample rate is chosen then that's all you can down mix 
to so in other words if you're performing a down mix on the H6 then everything 
you choose in your project has to be of the same sampling rate.



On 27/03/2018 10:25 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:

Ah that's fine. it won't let you go all the way to 96 KHz 24 bits if you go 
beyond stereo anyways. So Stereo is fine. I just wana hear the recorder's 
capabilities at full glorious HD.


On 3/26/2018 7:02 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:

Unfortunately I'll only be using 2 channels to make a stereo recording, I only have 
so many microphones you know .



On 27/03/2018 9:48 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:

Ah sure that will be interesting. I'd love to hear this thing fully unleashed.


On 3/26/2018 6:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:

I’m recoding a tree bing felled today so I’ll put that up later if this would 
help.



On 27 Mar 2018, at 8:21 am, Hamit Campos  wrote:

Dain, I've heard the mikes on Neal's podcast. But can you send me some stuff in 
full glorious 96 KHz 24 bits HD? After all neal's podcast is just an MP3. My 
email if you wana send it to me dirrectly is hamitcam...@gmail.com. I'd say 
just some out doors stuff but don't know how it's there in your part of 
Australia. Don't want ya to freese or something. lol


On 3/26/2018 11:09 AM, Dane Trethowan wrote:

Hi!
Thanks to the list member who recommended the Zoom H6 recorder, I’ve had mine 
for a month and to say I’m pleased with this recorder is indeed an 
understatement.
The Zoom H6 is the best field recorder I’ve ever owned for so many reasons 
which include usability.
The ability to record 6 tracks at once right out of the box is a plus as none 
of the recorders I have will do that.
The sound from the supplied microphone capsules has to be heard to be believed 
as it sounds so much better than most other supplied microphones for field 
recorders you’re likely to hear.
All of the functions I use are accessible without the help of the menu system 
though I do plan to write a menu shortcuts document for the recorder though its 
the usual thing of finding time.








































-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#439): https://groups.io/g/all-audio/message/439
View All Messages In Topic (7): https://groups.io/g/all-audio/topic/16663007
Mute This Topic: 

Re: [all-audio] Differences in audio recording quality

[John Covici]

hmmm, I cannot find anything that says test recordings on that site.
I tried with two different browsers, in case I was missing something.

On Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:24:17 -0400,
Dane Trethowan wrote:
> 
> I’ve given this some thought and have decided that - for the purposes of this 
> discussion - the participants should be able to hear for themselves the 
> differences that high sampling rates etc offer so here’s a way.
> There a site called http://www.melbarecordings.com.au 
>  which is an independent classical record 
> label.
> If you go through the site you’ll see a section labeled something like test 
> recordings.
> Follow the links and you’ll find test recordings in different formats and 
> sampling rates you can download or preview.
> The first thing I’ll say here is don’t be at all surprised if the higher 
> sampling rate files don’t work on your computer system after all! Its all 
> hardware dependent and some sound devices don’t support above 48K.
> 
> 
> > On 2 Apr 2018, at 4:10 am, Hamit Campos  wrote:
> > 
> > Ah I can hear up to 18 K. But I wana see how much difference I can really 
> > hear. Thing is I've done it with an LS-14 but of course this isn't as pro 
> > as the H6 is. Maybe an LS-100 would be but saddly couldn't get that.
> > 
> > 
> > On 4/1/2018 2:08 PM, tim cumings wrote:
> >> Inmy jhumble opinion, recording at 96 khz 24 kbps is really a waste of 
> >> time. Even with perfect hearing most people can't hear above 22 khz anyway.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 3/31/2018 11:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> >>> Unfortunately the chap who has been employed to do it didn’t turn up and 
> >>> I was annoyed about it to say the least so I’ll be following that one up 
> >>> after the Easter holiday break ends, Happy Easter and Happy 
> >>> listening/recording to you all by the way .
> >>> 
> >>> 
>  On 1 Apr 2018, at 12:55 pm, Hamit Campos  wrote:
>  
>  Were you able to record the tree chopping?
>  
>  
>  On 3/31/2018 10:18 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> > Hmm.. I'm not sure where you got that info from?
> > 
> > Unless I'm totally wrong I understand that whatever the sampling rate 
> > is set to then that goes so if you're set to 96K 24-bit then go for 
> > your life with the whole 6 tracks.
> > 
> > There are two things you have to be aware of and the first is SD card 
> > size as you'd need something large to do 6 tracks at 96K 24-bit.
> > 
> > Second is that once the sample rate is chosen then that's all you can 
> > down mix to so in other words if you're performing a down mix on the H6 
> > then everything you choose in your project has to be of the same 
> > sampling rate.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 27/03/2018 10:25 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:
> >> Ah that's fine. it won't let you go all the way to 96 KHz 24 bits if 
> >> you go beyond stereo anyways. So Stereo is fine. I just wana hear the 
> >> recorder's capabilities at full glorious HD.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 3/26/2018 7:02 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> >>> Unfortunately I'll only be using 2 channels to make a stereo 
> >>> recording, I only have so many microphones you know .
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On 27/03/2018 9:48 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:
>  Ah sure that will be interesting. I'd love to hear this thing fully 
>  unleashed.
>  
>  
>  On 3/26/2018 6:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> > I’m recoding a tree bing felled today so I’ll put that up later if 
> > this would help.
> > 
> > 
> >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 8:21 am, Hamit Campos  
> >> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Dain, I've heard the mikes on Neal's podcast. But can you send me 
> >> some stuff in full glorious 96 KHz 24 bits HD? After all neal's 
> >> podcast is just an MP3. My email if you wana send it to me 
> >> dirrectly is hamitcam...@gmail.com. I'd say just some out doors 
> >> stuff but don't know how it's there in your part of Australia. 
> >> Don't want ya to freese or something. lol
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 3/26/2018 11:09 AM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> >>> Hi!
> >>> Thanks to the list member who recommended the Zoom H6 recorder, 
> >>> I’ve had mine for a month and to say I’m pleased with this 
> >>> recorder is indeed an understatement.
> >>> The Zoom H6 is the best field recorder I’ve ever owned for so 
> >>> many reasons which include usability.
> >>> The ability to record 6 tracks at once right out of the box is a 
> >>> plus as none of the recorders I have will do that.
> >>> The sound from the supplied microphone capsules has to be heard 
> >>> to be believed as it sounds so much better than most other 
> 

Re: [all-audio] Differences in audio recording quality

[Kelly Pierce]

Besides sampeling rate, the number of bits of each filee influences
heavily the sound quality. I like to record in 24 bit audio when I
can. CD quality is 16 bit. bits refer to the size of each sample.
Bigger samples mean a greater range of audio is captured in each
sample. Even with spoken word recordings, 24 bit at 48 or 56k samples
sounds like the speaker is in the room!  bigger samples for spoken
word don't impress these ears and they are a hassle to edit.

Kelly

On 4/1/18, Hamit Campos  wrote:
> Ah thanks for this. I'll get to the site right away. I do believe in HD.
> I do hear some more brightness, more openness and harshness on Blu-ray
> disks vs the DVDs but this will be good to hear. Cause like I said I've
> done different format files on my LS-14 but remember that thing ain't a
> pro recorder. Well it's part of Olympus's pro line, but it's like the
> little side arm if ya will to the main big gunn of the LS-100. Also I've
> not heard HD threw real pro mikes like my AT-8022 or thee awesome Rode
> NT1-A neal always uses. Man if I ever get even an LS-100 I'd totally get
> a pare of those.
>
>
> On 4/1/2018 3:24 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
>> I’ve given this some thought and have decided that - for the purposes of
>> this discussion - the participants should be able to hear for themselves
>> the differences that high sampling rates etc offer so here’s a way.
>> There a site called http://www.melbarecordings.com.au
>>  which is an independent classical
>> record label.
>> If you go through the site you’ll see a section labeled something like
>> test recordings.
>> Follow the links and you’ll find test recordings in different formats and
>> sampling rates you can download or preview.
>> The first thing I’ll say here is don’t be at all surprised if the higher
>> sampling rate files don’t work on your computer system after all! Its all
>> hardware dependent and some sound devices don’t support above 48K.
>>
>>
>>> On 2 Apr 2018, at 4:10 am, Hamit Campos  wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah I can hear up to 18 K. But I wana see how much difference I can really
>>> hear. Thing is I've done it with an LS-14 but of course this isn't as pro
>>> as the H6 is. Maybe an LS-100 would be but saddly couldn't get that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/1/2018 2:08 PM, tim cumings wrote:
 Inmy jhumble opinion, recording at 96 khz 24 kbps is really a waste of
 time. Even with perfect hearing most people can't hear above 22 khz
 anyway.



 On 3/31/2018 11:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> Unfortunately the chap who has been employed to do it didn’t turn up
> and I was annoyed about it to say the least so I’ll be following that
> one up after the Easter holiday break ends, Happy Easter and Happy
> listening/recording to you all by the way .
>
>
>> On 1 Apr 2018, at 12:55 pm, Hamit Campos 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Were you able to record the tree chopping?
>>
>>
>> On 3/31/2018 10:18 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
>>> Hmm.. I'm not sure where you got that info from?
>>>
>>> Unless I'm totally wrong I understand that whatever the sampling rate
>>> is set to then that goes so if you're set to 96K 24-bit then go for
>>> your life with the whole 6 tracks.
>>>
>>> There are two things you have to be aware of and the first is SD card
>>> size as you'd need something large to do 6 tracks at 96K 24-bit.
>>>
>>> Second is that once the sample rate is chosen then that's all you can
>>> down mix to so in other words if you're performing a down mix on the
>>> H6 then everything you choose in your project has to be of the same
>>> sampling rate.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/03/2018 10:25 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:
 Ah that's fine. it won't let you go all the way to 96 KHz 24 bits if
 you go beyond stereo anyways. So Stereo is fine. I just wana hear
 the recorder's capabilities at full glorious HD.


 On 3/26/2018 7:02 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> Unfortunately I'll only be using 2 channels to make a stereo
> recording, I only have so many microphones you know .
>
>
>
> On 27/03/2018 9:48 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:
>> Ah sure that will be interesting. I'd love to hear this thing
>> fully unleashed.
>>
>>
>> On 3/26/2018 6:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
>>> I’m recoding a tree bing felled today so I’ll put that up later
>>> if this would help.
>>>
>>>
 On 27 Mar 2018, at 8:21 am, Hamit Campos 
 wrote:

 Dain, I've heard the mikes on Neal's podcast. But can you send
 me some stuff in full glorious 96 KHz 24 bits HD? After all
 neal's podcast is just an MP3. My email if you wana send it to

[all-audio] Differences in audio recording quality

[Dane Trethowan]

I’ve given this some thought and have decided that - for the purposes of this 
discussion - the participants should be able to hear for themselves the 
differences that high sampling rates etc offer so here’s a way.
There a site called http://www.melbarecordings.com.au 
 which is an independent classical record 
label.
If you go through the site you’ll see a section labeled something like test 
recordings.
Follow the links and you’ll find test recordings in different formats and 
sampling rates you can download or preview.
The first thing I’ll say here is don’t be at all surprised if the higher 
sampling rate files don’t work on your computer system after all! Its all 
hardware dependent and some sound devices don’t support above 48K.


> On 2 Apr 2018, at 4:10 am, Hamit Campos  wrote:
> 
> Ah I can hear up to 18 K. But I wana see how much difference I can really 
> hear. Thing is I've done it with an LS-14 but of course this isn't as pro as 
> the H6 is. Maybe an LS-100 would be but saddly couldn't get that.
> 
> 
> On 4/1/2018 2:08 PM, tim cumings wrote:
>> Inmy jhumble opinion, recording at 96 khz 24 kbps is really a waste of time. 
>> Even with perfect hearing most people can't hear above 22 khz anyway.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/31/2018 11:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
>>> Unfortunately the chap who has been employed to do it didn’t turn up and I 
>>> was annoyed about it to say the least so I’ll be following that one up 
>>> after the Easter holiday break ends, Happy Easter and Happy 
>>> listening/recording to you all by the way .
>>> 
>>> 
 On 1 Apr 2018, at 12:55 pm, Hamit Campos  wrote:
 
 Were you able to record the tree chopping?
 
 
 On 3/31/2018 10:18 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> Hmm.. I'm not sure where you got that info from?
> 
> Unless I'm totally wrong I understand that whatever the sampling rate is 
> set to then that goes so if you're set to 96K 24-bit then go for your 
> life with the whole 6 tracks.
> 
> There are two things you have to be aware of and the first is SD card 
> size as you'd need something large to do 6 tracks at 96K 24-bit.
> 
> Second is that once the sample rate is chosen then that's all you can 
> down mix to so in other words if you're performing a down mix on the H6 
> then everything you choose in your project has to be of the same sampling 
> rate.
> 
> 
> 
> On 27/03/2018 10:25 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:
>> Ah that's fine. it won't let you go all the way to 96 KHz 24 bits if you 
>> go beyond stereo anyways. So Stereo is fine. I just wana hear the 
>> recorder's capabilities at full glorious HD.
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/26/2018 7:02 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
>>> Unfortunately I'll only be using 2 channels to make a stereo recording, 
>>> I only have so many microphones you know .
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 27/03/2018 9:48 AM, Hamit Campos wrote:
 Ah sure that will be interesting. I'd love to hear this thing fully 
 unleashed.
 
 
 On 3/26/2018 6:07 PM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
> I’m recoding a tree bing felled today so I’ll put that up later if 
> this would help.
> 
> 
>> On 27 Mar 2018, at 8:21 am, Hamit Campos  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dain, I've heard the mikes on Neal's podcast. But can you send me 
>> some stuff in full glorious 96 KHz 24 bits HD? After all neal's 
>> podcast is just an MP3. My email if you wana send it to me dirrectly 
>> is hamitcam...@gmail.com. I'd say just some out doors stuff but 
>> don't know how it's there in your part of Australia. Don't want ya 
>> to freese or something. lol
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/26/2018 11:09 AM, Dane Trethowan wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> Thanks to the list member who recommended the Zoom H6 recorder, 
>>> I’ve had mine for a month and to say I’m pleased with this recorder 
>>> is indeed an understatement.
>>> The Zoom H6 is the best field recorder I’ve ever owned for so many 
>>> reasons which include usability.
>>> The ability to record 6 tracks at once right out of the box is a 
>>> plus as none of the recorders I have will do that.
>>> The sound from the supplied microphone capsules has to be heard to 
>>> be believed as it sounds so much better than most other supplied 
>>> microphones for field recorders you’re likely to hear.
>>> All of the functions I use are accessible without the help of the 
>>> menu system though I do plan to write a menu shortcuts document for 
>>> the recorder though its the usual thing of finding time.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>