What's the purpose of 192kHz?

[MarkH]

There was a time when 96kHz was 'the in thing' to have and now more and more companies are supporting 192kHz. My question is what are the benefits of 192 and how many people are actually recording at this level? Seems like the world never fully migrated to 96kHz (ie. music CDs) before companies are aiming higher and going 192kHz.

[genericperson]

well, here's my crappy take on it:

1) the converter makers keep upping their specs, so the other related parties just go along with the progress

2) DSD kicks the crap out of PCM. going to 192k is a way to vaguely compete with DSD.

3) PCM has the advantage of being established for plugins and signal processing, so DSD is kind of a moot point right now except for the occasional Roger Waters-recorded-live-to-analog-tape-and then put directly onto DSD.

4) I don't see much of a purpose in it right now. Most of the advantage imho is from bumping up to 48k or 88.2 or 96k. the gains start getting less, and the file sizes just get huge. this taxes your hard drives, and then you can't deliver the specs to an established consumer market anyway.

5) dvd-related audio has an established spec at 96k. so any "exotic" sample rates are best to cater to that one market...the 96k compatible market.

6) DSD really is better, but it's going to be some time until it becomes a working man's multi-tracking/mixing format.

So to me it makes sense to stay in the 44.1-96k range, and hold out until DSD replaces PCM (if it ever does).

I *do* like that manufacturers push the envelope. For example, the latest AKM converter chips go up to 192k. But the real benefit of these new chips is better specs in terms of lower distortion, better signal-to-noise ratio, etc., even at "standard" sample rates.

I personally use a 192k system, but never go above 96k.

That's my worthless or close-to-worthless opinion.

[Duardo]

DSD kicks the crap out of PCM

I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I think that 192kHz is more a marketing thing than anything else. "This one goes to eleven...that's one louder, innit?"

-Duardo

[RobMacki]

I agree, marketing.
But there is also the ability to sample at higher sampling rates to then play back at lower sampling rates to hear what the human ear is missing. ie animal sounds etc. There is also a theory that sampling all the inaudible overtones makes a difference in the timbre of the fundamental. But I don't use it even though I can.

[wwittman]

I never "get" this sort of argument...

Seems to ME, that one listens to 96k and then to 192 and one sees (hears) if it makes a difference.
To YOU.

If it really doesn't sound better, or better 'enough' (another concept I don't get!) to YOU, then don't use it.

It's not worth the track limitation and hard drive real estate YET, to me.
but I clearly hear the difference and if could sensibly record 192, I would.
And I am certain that, within some reasonable time frame, we will.

The quality of the final consumer product isn't the entire story.
CD's mastered from a superior sounding source sound better to almost everyone who listens, even if the CD specs themselves lose some of the original resolution.

And no one knows what is coming around net year, and the years after that, so you might as well make your masters as high quality as you can now.

One thing I won't ever do again, is make a record at 44.1 or 48 when 96 is available.

[Bob Olhsson]

In the early SACD experiments the only thing that could keep up with Sony's bitstream system was a 192k DCS converter so the DVD audio folks wrote it into their specs.

Today's 96k converters are much better but the format lingers.

[Duardo]

But there is also the ability to sample at higher sampling rates to then play back at lower sampling rates to hear what the human ear is missing. ie animal sounds etc.

That's a good reason to sample at 192 kHz, although I doubt that's what the majority are doing...

Sure, if a given converter sounds better at 192 kHz, by all means record at 192 kHz if you can. But there's no reason a well-designed converter can't sound as good at 96 kHz as it can at 192 kHz.

-Duardo

[ISedlacek]

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/2666/0

[jlotto]

Originally posted by ISedlacek
http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/2666/0

The 192khz convo always finds its way to being explained by science and theories, etc. Honestly, I cant even hear the difference between 24/48khz and 24/96khz so forget about 192khz. does it matter when we're still getting broken down to 16/44.1 cds? I cant see dvd-audio taking over any time soon. Consumers don't seem to care and are happy with their stereo 16/44.1 cds.

[tINY]

I have 192kHz converters for taking measurements. At higher conversion rates, measurements can be integrated over a smaller amount of time and can be more accurate. This is especially true when taking THD measurements.



-tINY

[SnakeCained]

The only real advantage, apart from the subjective nature of sound quality, is that digital systems have lower latency at higher sample rates.

[James Lehmann]

Originally posted by jlotto
Consumers don't seem to care and are happy with their stereo 16/44.1 cds.

And large numbers of them appear to be perfectly happy with sub CD-quality mp3!

[Revelation]

If your 10 years old, and you go to a professional studio, and listen to a recording that was done at 96 and then 192 with high end monitors, you may hear tiny tiny difference in that setting. However you could not say which one sounded better and why.

However for the rest of us, there is no audible difference at all. Lets not even get to listening to music on a Ipod.

So the purpose of 192 is to attract those who want the latest and greatest. No other reason.

Twisted Sister just go done re recording their Stay Hungry CD and it was recorded at 44.

[Plush]

Originally posted by genericperson
well, here's my crappy take on it:

DSD kicks the crap out of PCM. going to 192k is a way to vaguely compete with DSD.


That's my worthless or close-to-worthless opinion.

I would not be able to add anything to your last line.

[Duardo]

Twisted Sister just go done re recording their Stay Hungry CD and it was recorded at 44.

What did they do...did they re-record it from the ground up, or just remix from the analog masters at 44.1 kHz?

-Duardo

[Jim Williams]

More marketing numbers to sell the next batch of gear. 192 does have a major difference over 96k sample rates. You can record/playback bat echos with better resolution and your dog whistles will avoid Niquist related roll-offs...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[RobMacki]

Originally posted by Jim Williams
[Byour dog whistles will avoid Niquist related roll-offs...
[/B]

Yes! But at what SPL?

[RobMacki]

This may get way OT. But I have thought of taking my 192 Remote and venturing into a new area of business: Recording "Haunted House" "Spiritual Presence" ambience @ 192k and play back @ 48k. I think I could make a living just doing that. What a gig.

[grahluk]

I don't see any consumer demand for these higher sample rates. CD @ 44.1khz being hifi compared to mp3. DVD and broadcast is @48khz and full digital broadcast isn't even on line yet. DVDA and SACD might be there for the audiophiles but that's always been a niche market whose technologies may fortell wider development but also is littered with great technologies that are ignored or superceded before they left the hifi ghetto. On the production side now that we have 192 capable recording/editing systems how come many major players and studios still track at 44.1? I agree that hardware capable of greater and greater resolution pays dividends when working at the meat and potoatoes sampling rates. The problem I see in working at these higher resolutions is how do you prepare it for it's intended delivery medium? So you did a recording and mix @ 192Khz. The best solution I imagine would be being able to deliver those high resolution files to mastering and let them fiddle with downconversion so that any possible benefits you gained by using those larger files might be realized in the mastered mix. If you have an HD system and record @ 192Khz what are you going to use to downconvert? Protools built in SRC? Yikes! I bet it works. I bet it doesn't sound awfull. But why would you be so precious to work at 192khz and and not downconvert in the best possible way. IMO if you can work at 192khz, mix those discreet tracks on an nice analog board, and send it to big name mastering you're probably doing as good as anyone. It doesn't mean that your stuff is going to sound better than the guy in the next room tracking @44.1 on a similar rig.

[Riad]

Bit depth has a much greater effect on sound quality then sample rate. So you may start to get excited when you can recored 44.1/64... until then 96/24 should do for me. For the most part, the music I record can be 44.1/16 without anyone being able to tell.

JMTC
Rob

[Hiwatt]

I think using higher sample rates/resolutions result in better sounding recordings/mixes when you use a lot of plug ins for signal processing.

This might be a little off topic, but something I don't get about the whole higher saple rate thing is even if you catch frequencies 20k and up to say 50k how much of the difference can you actualy hear if your speakers are only rated 20hz - 20khz?

[Revelation]

Originally posted by Duardo
What did they do...did they re-record it from the ground up, or just remix from the analog masters at 44.1 kHz?

-Duardo

They recorded it from the ground up.

[zemlin]

Originally posted by MarkH
There was a time when 96kHz was 'the in thing' to have and now more and more companies are supporting 192kHz

because more is always better

still recording at 44.1 KHz

[tINY]

The other advantage of higher sample rates is that artifacts from jitter, ADC and processing are moved futher up in frequency so they are less audible....



-tINY

[tonymite]

so u can sell your old converters and buy new 192k ones. Repeat the procedure till u buy back your old analog tape machines.

[Duardo]

I think using higher sample rates/resolutions result in better sounding recordings/mixes when you use a lot of plug ins for signal processing.

Sure, some processors do sound better at higher sampling rates...but they can always upsample (as some, like Massenburg's EQ, already do). No need to actually record at a higher sampling rate if the benefits come solely from processing at that rate.

but something I don't get about the whole higher saple rate thing is even if you catch frequencies 20k and up to say 50k how much of the difference can you actualy hear if your speakers are only rated 20hz - 20khz?

Actually, it may well make things worse if your playback system can't handle it.

-Duardo

[ttauri]

Originally posted by Duardo
Sure, some processors do sound better at higher sampling rates...but they can always upsample (as some, like Massenburg's EQ, already do). No need to actually record at a higher sampling rate if the benefits come solely from processing at that rate.

Tho' in practice (at least currently), I reckon there's quite a few that don't upsample.

Peece,
T. Tauri

[Duardo]

Tho' in practice (at least currently), I reckon there's quite a few that don't upsample.

Of course. Not all would benefit from it.

-Duardo

[Drumsound]

What's the purpose of 192kHz?

Ummm... Better sound?

[cdog]

Originally posted by Plush
I would not be able to add anything to your last line.