Tony Johnson Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 - Higher sample rates yield better results during manipulation. Elastic audio, noise reduction and other tasks performed by post every day yield fewer artifacts when recorded at 192/24. Post will often upsample before manipulation. This above quote taken from Brian Liston post on "What specs really matter" an interesting read and makes the point re artifacts heard when sound recorded at 48/24 is manipulated in post which nowadays is a common occurrence. On the hobbit we recorded at 96/24 for dial that was going to be manipulated after, ie Smaug/ necromancer and a few others. Does anyone else record at 96khz or higher on a regular basis on films?? Will it become the norm soon. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Woodcock Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Did the dialogue sound any better for it? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Johnson Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Yes it did especially as it went through manipulation, pitch change etc. What I am hearing from post is that when noise reduction notch filtering or RX is applied to dial, which in the case of The hobbit was often as there was a lot of unwanted Bg noise on set, then they can hear the artifacts applied when the dial is recorded at 48khz. The more processes the dial has to go through then the less 48 holds up. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Wexler Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 "On the hobbit we recorded at 96/24 for dial that was going to be manipulated after, ie Smaug/ necromancer and a few others. Does anyone else record at 96khz or higher on a regular basis on films?? Will it become the norm soon. Tony" I think there are very few that record dialog at 96K except in those instances, as you mention, where there is going to be extensive manipulation. I would not consider use of eq, compression, noise reduction schemes typically employed on dialog tracks to be extensive manipulation. Though differences in "artifacts" may be discernible when comparing the same processes applied to 48K vs. 96K, I don't believe these differences are compelling enough to make 96K a new standard for production sound recording. I think all the current production recorders can do 96K, I just don't think there will be much call for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Are the artifacts lower because the dialog was recorded at 96k? Or because the processing engine is running at a higher sample rate, meaning there's less interpolation between samples? In other words, could you get the same improvement by recording 48k and up-sampling before you process? Or if the issue is that up-sampling would just cause 2 or 4 adjacent samples with the same value, and so interpolation would be the same… could you add a little low-level HF noise when up-sampling to 96k or 192k, to simulate just about anything that the higher s/r would have been picking up on the set? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I have recorded at 96 on set for some slow mo shots where production wanted to use the sound slowed (and pitched) down but in sync with the 47 fps footage. It makes no difference to me on set if I record at 96 or 48. I am also curious about Jay's question of upsampling vs. recording at higher rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Johnson Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I don't see how up scaling could be as good as higher sampling for the original. A lot of post sound people record all of the effects at 96 these days I wonder if the music is being recorded at 96 too. Of course we have capabilities to record production sound at 96 but mirroring takes a long time plus in some recorders it reduces the track count available. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 I don't see how up scaling could be as good as higher sampling for the original. First the theory: If there's nothing on an original track > 20 kHz besides electronic noise, then 48k s/r in a good oversampled recorder would be as good as higher sampling rates. So the question is, is there anything on a film set worth recording up there? Remember also, once you're in the digital domain, there isn't any HF falloff from multiple generations. So if your final release medium is 48 k s/r... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsnd Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Higher sample rates create a more analogous digital capture. I'm an advocate of 96 (at least) because - Why not. Processing power is there, HDD space is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASI Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Of course we have capabilities to record production sound at 96 but mirroring takes a long time plus in some recorders it reduces the track count available. We have a good number of people's from manufacturers here. Will be "challenge accepted". Best V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Famous Author: " First the theory: If there's nothing on an original track > 20 kHz besides electronic noise, then 48k s/r in a good oversampled recorder would be as good as higher sampling rates." well, I'm not quite onboard with that theory, and somewhat agree with CC: " Higher sample rates create a more analogous digital capture. " though I would phrase it differently. When I studied Calculus (circa 196n), the professor kept saying that the more we integrate a function, the more accurately we can determine the area under the curve... Digital Audio is calculus, and the more we sample (integrate) the wave, the more accurate our reproduction of that wave can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Constantin Posted February 5, 2014 Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 Digital Audio is calculus, and the more we sample (integrate) the wave, the more accurate our reproduction of that wave can be.Yes of course, that much is pretty much a given. The question is how much more accurate than 48k do we need the wave to be? Jay is right in that we don't need more than 48k as far as frequency response is concerned, however, and this was discussed before here and in other threads, when it comes to audio manipulation in post, especially time/pitch shifting and others, higher sample rates are clearly preferable. (Sorry for the long sentence) However, if post can up-sample the audio and if that is really working just as well (is it?), then maybe that is a good way. Although, it would probably still be better if we recorded everything at higher rates to begin (and yes, I did mean rates as in money and samples) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Rose Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 When I studied Calculus (circa 196n), the professor kept saying that the more we integrate a function, the more accurately we can determine the area under the curve. That's probably still true. But the area under the curve is defined by the mics, preamp, and ultimately those harmonics in the human voice* that are louder than both the ambient noise and any noise contributed by the electronics. *When I studied the human vocal tract (circa 196n), the vocal folds, throat, and head resonators were mostly soft tissue - even the bony parts had a tissue covering. So very high frequencies are going to get absorbed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Rubilar Posted February 6, 2014 Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 I thing like Jay, , a 1khz signal recorded at 8khz sf. will sound the same that a 1khz signal recorded al 48khz sf or 96khz sf. if it is reproduced with a properly designed converter. I thing that there is a general missunderstanding of converters, and the details of the real limitations that every process have. I think the diferences in the processing of signals recorded at diferent rates is related to the algorithm used, If the process is bad wen using 48khz , and is good when upsampling the same signal to 96khz... "that" is software related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syncsound Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Tj, I had a question about the Hobbit : were your booms hardwired or wireless setups? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Davies Amps CAS Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Did the dialogue sound any better for it? Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk PM sent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pvanstry Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Ultimatly, it is about giving to post what they want and need not about what we think is the best or what makes sense or not. Of course it is also our job to suggest ( and also sometimes strongly suggest ) certain things. BUT, if post request 96khz because down the road of the audio chain, it is required, then it is what we need to give them. If it was possible to someone who knows the definite answer to this, to answer if in order not to have artifacts on manipulation of the files, an oversampled ( 48khz up sampled to 96khz ) is the same or it actually needs to be recorded at 96khz to avoid them. 48khz is a standard, it is also a great balance in between DSP power requirements, equipment design and hard drive space/transfer speed. My two cents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Wielage Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 The pros and cons of 96kHz and 192kHz sampling frequencies were discussed some years back at this link: Me personally, I think it's silly given the limitations of most locations and sound stages, but I can see where it would make a difference if the sound was going to be drastically altered in post by the SFX editors. I don't think it makes any sense for dialogue, but I do think 24-bits is a standard and is expected most of the time for production sound on serious projects with realistic budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsnd Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I just wrote a whole big thing and then safari crashed and it was gone... It was well thought out, written, and better before. Thanks Safari... In short - subsonic and supersonic frequencies interact with the audible range of frequencies. being able to capture and manipulate these frequencies creates a natural more realistic product. The majority of perceived spatial relationship is created within high and supersonic frequency ranges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Blankenship Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 ... The majority of perceived spatial relationship is created within high and supersonic frequency ranges. What's your source for this supersonic information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wandering Ear Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 The majority of perceived spatial relationship is created within high and supersonic frequency ranges. The majority of sound localization is derived from time, volume, and spectral differences perceived by your ears. For various reasons it is difficult to localize low frequency sounds, but we are talking about very low frequency, i.e. below 75hz or so. Above that, localization is possible and not just limited to the high frequencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncg Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 What's your source for this supersonic information? I wouldn't mind seeing this too. The last time I dug through all this I came across this from the Apogee marketing department. [On the face of it this is quite absurd. Do we need to capture “audio” signals at up to 96 kHz? Obviously not – such signals don ’t exist. However, some recent research suggests that the human brain can discern a difference in a sound's arrival time between the two ears of better than 15 microseconds – around the time between samples at 96 kHz sampling – and some people can even discern a 5µS difference! So while super-high sample rates are probably unnecessary for frequency response, they may be justified for stereo and surround imaging accuracy. However, it should be noted that many authorities dispute this conclusion.] http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/SoapBox/soap2_Apogee.htm I couldn't find the papers they referenced but did find and interesting response from Dan Lavry, here. http://www.lavryengineering.com/lavry_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=479 I actually agree with CCalandro in that, if there is no technical reason not to do it and It doesn't screw workflow, why not. I just haven't found any evidence to support the claims of increased HF giving better audible localisation and imaging. Not losing sleep over this, just interested if there's any new data? Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiomprd Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 ncg reported: " “audio” signals at up to 96 kHz? Obviously not – such signals don ’t exist. " actually, they do exist, we just don't hear them, and, BTW, neither do many microphones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncg Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I know, but thanks for pointing that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsnd Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 Not only do they exist but they interface and interact with the "regular" 20 - 20 range. The majority of left vs right localization happens through time. The majority of hight localization happens through frequency and the shape of your ears. In digital audio these high frequencies are sampled less, and sometimes creates aliasing. (depending on a lot of factors) Higher sample rates help you to better capture high frequencies both audible and inaudible. the more true representation of transients, harmonics, etc you can capture, the more interesting things you can do. I can get pretty deep into this stuff, but it will quickly turn into a discussion about the ear, physics, and other smartie pants kind of stuff I don't feel the internet would benefit from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.