Group,
We had a long discussion regarding the optimum sample rate and settings for LP records. Many subjects were covered and I had a number of comments/observations about my experience of 96 kHz vs 44.1 kHz , and other things.
With my recent upgrade to a "decent" computer system, I'm re-exampling my earlier work. One reason is that the computer that I used in the past did NOT sample correctly and gave me false info. So.....
I'm trying flat vs RIAA preamps and 96 kHz sampling vs 44.1 kHz sampling last night on a 78 record "House of Blue Lights" by Freddie Slack and Ella Morse (great stuff!!).
My multifilter for 78 records was orginally built up using my old system with 44.1 kHz sampling.
What I found was that the best noise reduction (clicks and hiss) was obtained by recording at 96 kHz, then converting to 44.1 kHz, and then running the multifilter. I used the flat transfer preamp.
I tried to optimize the multifilter chain for the 96 kHz rate, but I always found that the BEST results were to first, record at 96 kHz, then convert to 44.1 kHz ?
I tried recording at 44.1 kHz and then running the filters, but in each case, the results were always better if I FIRST started at 96 kHz and then converted down to 44.1 kHz. for the filters.
So...my "gut" says that more information to the various filters in my multifilter ( Ez Impulse/Median/CNF) should sound better, yet if I use the lower rate (44.1 vs 96), it's better ?
Is the answer that I just have to optimize all the filters for 96 vs 44.1 or, do the various software routines have an optimum sample rate ?
Maybe the conversion from 96 to 44.1 by the DC software gives the filters a little more ultrasonic info than a straight recording at 44.1 kHz ?
Marc
We had a long discussion regarding the optimum sample rate and settings for LP records. Many subjects were covered and I had a number of comments/observations about my experience of 96 kHz vs 44.1 kHz , and other things.
With my recent upgrade to a "decent" computer system, I'm re-exampling my earlier work. One reason is that the computer that I used in the past did NOT sample correctly and gave me false info. So.....
I'm trying flat vs RIAA preamps and 96 kHz sampling vs 44.1 kHz sampling last night on a 78 record "House of Blue Lights" by Freddie Slack and Ella Morse (great stuff!!).
My multifilter for 78 records was orginally built up using my old system with 44.1 kHz sampling.
What I found was that the best noise reduction (clicks and hiss) was obtained by recording at 96 kHz, then converting to 44.1 kHz, and then running the multifilter. I used the flat transfer preamp.
I tried to optimize the multifilter chain for the 96 kHz rate, but I always found that the BEST results were to first, record at 96 kHz, then convert to 44.1 kHz ?
I tried recording at 44.1 kHz and then running the filters, but in each case, the results were always better if I FIRST started at 96 kHz and then converted down to 44.1 kHz. for the filters.
So...my "gut" says that more information to the various filters in my multifilter ( Ez Impulse/Median/CNF) should sound better, yet if I use the lower rate (44.1 vs 96), it's better ?
Is the answer that I just have to optimize all the filters for 96 vs 44.1 or, do the various software routines have an optimum sample rate ?
Maybe the conversion from 96 to 44.1 by the DC software gives the filters a little more ultrasonic info than a straight recording at 44.1 kHz ?
Marc
Comment