Next new korg workstation? 1 bit?

Thoraldus · Post by **Thoraldus** » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:23 pm

This is a useful read too ...

Square Wave

erik_ · Post by **erik_** » Sat Nov 01, 2014 12:09 am

Some improvement should have... Why do korg it would put a tape recorder as MR-2000?

jerrythek · Post by **jerrythek** » Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:15 pm

The whole issue of high-resolution audio is fraught with arguments, advocates and detractors. Having been involved (and educated) in the technology I grew to appreciate the benefits of the audio for certain applications.

In music that has room to breathe, a sense of ambiance and dimension, the benefits become quite clear to me (and others). The sense of space around the notes, their location in the stereo and dimensional field etc. becomes quite apparent and enhanced.

For general-purpose recording where the mix is thicker, and for louder music with little dynamics I don't think you could hear the benefits. For creating sampled waveforms it would be a huge waste.

Here's the 5 cent tour of technical specs:

Bit resolution increases the dynamic range, by allowing lower level signals to be heard more cleanly without added noise from the components and technology. So it only benefits the quiet passages, and sounds trailing off into silence. Reverb trails etc. Metallica won't likely sound any different in 16-bit, 24-bit or better.

Sampling resolution, or frequency - 44.1, 96k etc. helps in the accuracy of sampling, by taking more snapshots per second. So it can more accurately capture an audio signal. Many argue that 44.1 is "good enough" coupled with 24-bit words when you consider the mechanics of the human ear. Others feel and can hear the benefits of better (i.e. 24/96, 24/192). Again, it is most apparent when there is some space in the mix, and for reproducing higher frequencies (as Dan points out). So cymbals, bells, and other high-frequency elements are better captured/preserved.

I have been presented with compelling audio references (live listengin demonstrations) from top engineers in the field (Michael Bishop, George Massenburg, Seigen Ono) and others to appreciate the benefits of DSD for acoustic and in general "live-captured" musical performances. But I am not here to sway any opinions.

Just sharing some simple info on bits and sample rates.

Jerry

danatkorg · Post by **danatkorg** » Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:55 pm

Specifically with regards to the linear PCM (as opposed to 1-bit, aka "bitstream"), there's actually a trade-off between the accuracy of the amplitude measurement and the capture of higher audio frequencies. At higher sample rates, the accuracy of the amplitude measurement is decreased, due to there being less time to make the measurement. Hi–end converter designer Dan Lavry has commented that, in his opinion, a 64 kHz sample rate - midway between 48 kHz and 96 kHz – might be an optimal compromise with current technologies.

That said, 1–bit recording is really a pretty different way of looking at the problem.

michelkeijzers · Post by **michelkeijzers** » Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:48 pm

Maybe a bit offtopic: In the past I have worked on the Super Audio CD project by Philips/Sony, which uses 1 bit conversion.

It was used at studios at that time, but for normal consumers it never got any success. However, afaik there was not an instrument builder interested in this technique (what does not mean that it is good or bad).

For consumer CDs, consumers just want as much as possible music on a CD and most people don't even hear the difference between a 128 kbit or 256 kbit MP3.

Kevin Nolan · Post by **Kevin Nolan** » Mon Nov 03, 2014 8:02 pm

This is worth watching !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM

(also recommend reading the opening chapters of Bob Katz "Mastering Audio" book. A revelation!)

Jan1 · Post by **Jan1** » Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:52 pm

...but DSD is not quite dead yet.
I just came across the announcement of a new DAW, Serenade, which supports the DSD format (as well as other high resolution formats). This certainly has my interest.