Login / Register
 
What's the purpose of 192kHz?
New Reply
Subscribe
#31
11th December 2004
Old 11th December 2004
  #31
Gear nut
 
Mr. Victory's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: LIC, NY
Posts: 141

Mr. Victory is offline
Quote:
Originally posted by SnakeCained
The only real advantage, apart from the subjective nature of sound quality, is that digital systems have lower latency at higher sample rates.
How is that? Could you expand...???
#32
11th December 2004
Old 11th December 2004
  #32
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: The Rockies and the Himalayas
Posts: 127

mangoid is offline
Maybe i can clarify a few points...

1. THE DOG EARS MYTH. While in theory the 192KHz audio spec might seem to suggest that all audio up to 192KHz is recorded, in practice most 192KHz converters employ low pass filters somewhere just over 20KHz to prevent aliasing artifacts (figuring the human ear can't hear up there anyway so nothing is lost), so 192KHz converters generally wouldn't even let your dog hear anything above about 23KHz or so.

So why do 192?

2. THE ALIASING THANG. All converters have to issue a pulse for each clock cycle. That pulse, while very quiet, disturbs the waveform in ways that are not necessarily musical or desirable (noise). 192KHz allows that pulse to be moved way up above the audio spectrum to get *most* of the noise out of the way.

3. THE RESOLUTION THANG. Neil Young, at the height of his anti-digital days, used to rant about square waves. The fact is that, the all-important subjective experience aside for a moment, a waveform at 44.1 *does* look like a staircase compared to the same waveform at 192 (especially at lower signal levels, where resolution deteriorates even further), and 96 is in the middle (Loony Toons?), while DSD (2.8MHz sampling frequency) looks more than twice as smooth as 192. Comparing 44.1 to 192 is like comparing South Park animation to Pixar.... some people might subjectively prefer the choppy animation style of South Park over the silky smooth kinda-realism of Pixar animations, but people who are into "realism" are obviously gonna prefer Pixar. 192 has twice as many "frames" per second as 96, so the digital audio "cartoon" is going to be smoother and more realistic - there's more information there, so it better approximates the original waveform (assuming the waveform hasn't been mangled by processing somewhere along the line).

4. THE TRANSIENT RESPONSE THANG. Back in the real world, one place where 192 (or, better yet, DSD) really makes a difference is with transients (very, very brief sound events). The lower the sample rate, the more distorted the transients, because the *slower* sample rates don't react quickly enough to accurately represent very short-lived events. Since higher frequencies have shorter lives, this transient response is more noticeable at higher frequencies - try listening to a triangle or high-pitched bell recorded clearly at 44.1, 96, 192, and DSD, and see if you can't hear the difference. Are most of you gearslutz recording a lot of triangles these days? I dunno, but personally i like to capture all the shimmer of cymbals and the magical sparkling transients from my Matchless amp, too, through high-end mics and preamps that actually register all those transients, and higher sample rates clearly do a better job of preserving that glorious detail. But if you earn your living recording fart noises through an SM57 (nice work if you can get it), you might or might not notice much of a difference at 192 vs 44.1 or 96, knowamsayn?

5. THE "FEEL" THANG. Some engineers argue compellingly for finding alternatives to the LPF, so as to allow the rest of the spectrum up to 192 to be rendered clearly - not because humans can *hear* above 20something KHz, but because we can *feel* it. Whether one is consciously aware of feeling something different at 192 is an entirely different question, but, hey... waves is waves; there's something physically different going on at 192 - it may be subtle, but it's objectively real - and who's to say someone else doesn't notice or care? It is understandable, then, that both feel-oriented audiophiles and technical purists alike don't wanna mess with even those parts of the spectrum that can't be heard but certainly can be felt (at least by some of us, and i count myself among those).

6. THE... ER... SOUND... THANG. Well, folks, we like to say that, in the end, all that matters is what each of us hears and prefers... and some of us, myself included, do hear a difference at 192, and we prefer it. I also hear the difference between well-recorded DSD and 192, and i prefer DSD - it's indeed the closest digital has come to 2" 16-track. But that's me... YMMV, etc.


Oh, yeah, and before i go, let me address one more myth... someone mentioned the notion that bit depth (e.g. 16 vs. 24) is more important than sampling rate in determining sound quality. Well, this used to be subjectively true, at least to some folks, when all there was in digitaland was PCM audio. The jump from 8 bit to 16 was a quantum leap, and the hop to 24 didn't suck either. But DSD turns all that on its arse... it's *one* bit, yo. One bit moving at just over 2.8 *MegaHertz*. At that speed, that lonely little solo bit has more detail than 24 bits at 192KHz - it's more like good analog tape, because it's sampling the sound nearly 3 billion times a second... a lovely curvaceous waveform for Neil and the gang.... So, in this case, increasing sampling frequency has a much more dramatic benefit than bit depth.

But humans can't hear anything over 20-to-23 KHz, right? Right (usually), but clearly music sounds better at 2.8MHz than it does at 44.1 or even 192KHz (1 bit at 192KHz is roughly equivalent in resolution to 24 bit at 384 KHz), all other things equal. So the superiority of DSD is a prime example of how the whole "we can't hear way up there anyway so what's the point" argument is founded in misunderstanding - presumably originating from non-techies reading techie threads and misunderstanding them and then passing them along to others until the misunderstaning grows to urban legend proportions.

Fellow gearslutz, higher sample rates are not about *hearing higher frequencies*; they're about increased resolution, accuracy, detail, transient response, and subjective and objective realism in the frequency range we *can* hear, and... also stuff that's subtler and harder to express in words (and thus harder to "defend" in jousts of naked, ignorant wit) but nonetheless real and powerful and valuable... ya know... the "energy" of a performance.

Whether a given converter box or signal path actually *delivers* the full picture of purity and energy that the technology theoretically allows for is an engineering issue (and no doubt poor engineering will continue routinely to be paved over by compelling marketing) and, as always, beauty is in the ear of the beholder. But at least let's talk about the real issues with high sample rates as they apply in real world applications (e.g. the unequivocal benefits on shredding triangle solos vs. the negligible improvents for flatulence tracks).

HTH
mangoman

~~

Have any good gear to donate to a great arts-oriented charity for an end-of-year tax deduction? http://www.creationation.org/heart/help.html
Quote
2
#33
11th December 2004
Old 11th December 2004
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,017

Yannick is offline
Just two more observations :

1. if you search the web you can find more than one manufacturer that states clearly (or less clearly) that they do not have 196K AD and/or DA convertors (yet), because the specs&sound are actually inferiour (with the current chips that are available).

Kind of negates the higher 'inherent' quality of the higher samplerate.

2. 64 bit recording resolution would result in 384 dB dynamic range - what should I record with that ?
I would surely think 24bit is more than enough - even if current 24 bit convertors don't get more than 20 REAL bits of resolution.
__________________
Yannick Willox
www.acousticrecordingservice.be
(mobile recording)
#34
11th December 2004
Old 11th December 2004
  #34
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: The Rockies and the Himalayas
Posts: 127

mangoid is offline
In response to Yannick's, post:

Quote:
1. if you search the web you can find more than one manufacturer that states clearly (or less clearly) that they do not have 196K AD and/or DA convertors (yet), because the specs&sound are actually inferiour (with the current chips that are available).

Kind of negates the higher 'inherent' quality of the higher samplerate.
To be more specific, some of the *middle class* of converter box manufacturers don't yet have 192KHz products because the *more affordable* 192KHz converter chips are inferior at *lower* sample rates. In other words, some of the mediocre 192KHz converters (particularly some of the popular and affordable AKM and Crystal chips) don't sound so great at 44.1 and 48. Other manufacturers, however, already make good 192KHz units that sound better at all sample rates, in part because they take very different approaches to filtering.

Mytek just released a stereo 192 box and will introduce an 8-channel 192 AD/DA in a few months using great converter chips and, importantly, their great analog circuit design, for under $3k. And then there's dCS, who already has converters that support up to 384KHz PCM I/O, mostly for the few dozen mastering houses who need it for converting between PCM and DSD. Yes, now you too can run out today and buy a 24 bit 384KHz AD converter with a FireWire interface to plug into your laptop - a great stocking stuffer, and it'll only set you back $7000 or so. Some of the manufacturers of $1k-$3k converter boxes (Benchmark et al) are waiting for the price points to drop on the *good* 192KHZ converter chips - so, it's not that great 192KHz converters don't exist yet, just not yet in the middle and lower price points.
#35
11th December 2004
Old 11th December 2004
  #35
Gear Guru
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 10,252
My Recordings/Credits

Jim Williams is offline
Quote:
Originally posted by mangoid
In response to Yannick's, post:




it's not that great 192KHz converters don't exist yet, just not yet in the middle and lower price points.
Which is why you will never find them in "pro" recording gear. The D-Master project of Michal's uses a BB 1704 dac, already obsolete due to the superior PCM1792. It's available in a dsd version as well. Any bets when the 1792 ever appears in a pro audio product? Don't hold your breath on that or the crystal 5381 adc.

You may find that PCM1792 dac used in some high end consumer "audiophool" device, but even the chip makers have got the message as to the demise of the pro audio industry. There is simply not a desire in these companies to continue to develope high end converter chips as the market for them is too small to justify the development costs. Thank MP-3 for that one.

If you want better converters made, stop buying crap and hold your money until (if ever) these companies respond by making better stuff.

As to the wonderfull benefits of 192k recording, how does all that stunning audio sound once you squeeze it into the Red Book standards? How do you sample rate convert, or are you mixing into an analog console? What do you mix to? What is the sample rate of the mixed product? Do you reduce 24 bits to 16 via dither, noise shaping, by software or hardware?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

Crystal 5381 into Alesis hd24xr. Output to BB 1704, 1792 and Crytal 4398 dac's. Mixed into modified Soundcraft Delta. Stereo outs through Kimber AGSS wire into Crystal 5396 acd, 44.1k, noise shaped via hardware digital filter to 16 bits on either a PC or Fostex D-5 dat.
#36
11th December 2004
Old 11th December 2004
  #36
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: The Rockies and the Himalayas
Posts: 127

mangoid is offline
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Williams
Don't hold your breath on that or the crystal 5381 adc.
Actually, you may be pleased to know that Lynx will be releasing its Aurora 8 & 16 ADDAs, which use the CS5381 ADC, this Jan. I haven't heard them yet, but i look forward to a test because the price point is great for a 1U box with 16 I/O.

Quote:
As to the wonderfull benefits of 192k recording, how does all that stunning audio sound once you squeeze it into the Red Book standards? How do you sample rate convert, or are you mixing into an analog console? What do you mix to? What is the sample rate of the mixed product? Do you reduce 24 bits to 16 via dither, noise shaping, by software or hardware?
Personally, for most of the projects I'm doing these days I'm more likely to *upsample* to Scarlet Book than i am to downsample to Red Book, or, for DVD-Audio projects, we can just leave the stereo mix at 192 and, if there's a surround mix, downsample to 96 for the multichannel layer.

For hybrid SA-CD projects where a Red Book layer is also required, well, it depends on the project. Sometimes Barbara Batch for SRC and either PowrDither or UV22HR to get to 16bit, mixed either in the box or via whatever summing mixer is being used for the project (the gamut from Mackie to Massenburg). How does the end result sound at 44.1? Not as good as 192 or 96, but better than if the tracking and processing were done at 44.1 for sure, IMHO.

~~

Have any good gear to donate to a great arts-oriented charity for an end-of-year tax deduction? http://www.creationation.org/heart/help.html
#37
12th June 2006
Old 12th June 2006
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Greg B's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Posts: 885

Greg B is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
I hear a big improvement recording in 32 Bit Float as opposed to 24 Bit Fixed, but I can't tell the difference between 96k and 192k. So I record at 32/96.
__________________
Greg Blaisdell
Engineer - Musician - Pro Audio Sales
www.ProAudioToys.com - GEAR SALES!
www.RackRecording.com - STUDIO
#38
12th June 2006
Old 12th June 2006
  #38
Lives for gear
 
atma's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 2,773

atma is offline
the question in mind mind is:

from a technical standpoint, does the increased resolution at higher sample rates make any difference by the time a signal hits the DAC &/ or speaker? in other words, any loudspeaker that plays back a sine wave from a digital source must be physically incapable of even replicating the steps inherent in digital waveforms, so in a sense everything gets interpolated back to the smooth curves of the analog world once it hits the dac &/or speaker. does increasing the sample resolution really have any effect on how accurately digital waveforms get translated BACK into the analog world?
#39
12th June 2006
Old 12th June 2006
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,885

Duardo is offline
Quote:
I hear a big improvement recording in 32 Bit Float as opposed to 24 Bit Fixed, but I can't tell the difference between 96k and 192k.
What you're hearing is the difference in processing, not the difference in recording (in other words, not the difference in capturing eight "more" bits).

Quote:
from a technical standpoint, does the increased resolution at higher sample rates make any difference by the time a signal hits the DAC &/ or speaker? in other words, any loudspeaker that plays back a sine wave from a digital source must be physically incapable of even replicating the steps inherent in digital waveforms, so in a sense everything gets interpolated back to the smooth curves of the analog world once it hits the dac &/or speaker.
It happens at the D/A converter...no converter tries to (or wants to) replicate the "steps" that are captured digitally. Filters in the D/A converter "smooth" them out before they get to the speaker. It's typically done at a higher sampling rate than what the converter's actually outputting, so there's no need to raise the rate that the audio is captured at if the converter is designed right.

-Duardo
#40
12th June 2006
Old 12th June 2006
  #40
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Sunny Vancouver, BC
Posts: 207

antiguru is offline
What's the purpose of 192khz?



































Sell more digidesign gear!
#41
4th September 2012
Old 4th September 2012
  #41
Gear interested
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 16

press_record is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeCained View Post
The only real advantage, apart from the subjective nature of sound quality, is that digital systems have lower latency at higher sample rates.
Yes, theoretically...
In real life, you'll have to double the buffer size and you'll lose the latency advantage...
Also, 192 khz (when using an audio interface, so not digital pa systems or something of that nature) eats away cpu-power.

In my humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with 44,1 or 48khz, and if you want to experiment, go ahead with 88,2 or 96...
192 khz seems to me as overkill...
#42
4th September 2012
Old 4th September 2012
  #42
Gear interested
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 16

press_record is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by press_record View Post
Yes, theoretically...
In real life, you'll have to double the buffer size and you'll lose the latency advantage...
Also, 192 khz (when using an audio interface, so not digital pa systems or something of that nature) eats away cpu-power.

In my humble opinion, there's nothing wrong with 44,1 or 48khz, and if you want to experiment, go ahead with 88,2 or 96...
192 khz seems to me as overkill...
+ your cat/dog will not like it...:p
#43
7th September 2012
Old 7th September 2012
  #43
Gear interested
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 10

MisterA is offline
Hm, i am a little into sounddesign. ergo you take a good amount of time stretch and all kinds of pitching in use.
and i got the feeling that my higher sample rate sessions are more stable when i use a good amount of pitch and stretch. What i am trying to say is i got a lot less of fragments in my results.
mds
#44
7th September 2012
Old 7th September 2012
  #44
mds
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,555

mds is offline
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
Quote
1
#45
7th September 2012
Old 7th September 2012
  #45
Lives for gear
 
rogerbrain's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: atlanta
Posts: 2,000

rogerbrain is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mds View Post
Holy thread resurrection, Batman!
SLAP - they're engineers
Quote
1
#46
7th September 2012
Old 7th September 2012
  #46
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Location Location
Posts: 1,007

energizer bunny is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
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
Hahaha. Gotta keep the integrity of those bat echos at all costs!.
#47
11th September 2012
Old 11th September 2012
  #47
Gear maniac
 
craigdouglas's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Location: houston
Posts: 194

Send a message via AIM to craigdouglas
craigdouglas is offline
if you do sound design.. high sample rates are needed.

Especially since your tuning things down all the time even several octaves sometimes
#48
11th September 2012
Old 11th September 2012
  #48
Lives for gear
 
emrr's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: nc
Posts: 1,469

emrr is online now
If you go back and forth from digital to analog to digital to analog; keep the highest res you can and down convert at the end. Just like photog's using large format cameras and sheet film rather than 35mm for everything.
__________________
Best,

Doug Williams
ElectroMagnetic Radiation Recorders
Tape Op issue 73
#49
11th September 2012
Old 11th September 2012
  #49
Gear maniac
 
Tallowah's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: Way out West
Posts: 171

Tallowah is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiwatt View Post
...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?
EXACTLY... Thank you!

Oh, and let's not forget that "thing" we use to drive those speakers...the common Stereo AMPLIFIER, also FR ~20-20k (certainly nowhere near 192k)!!!!

The range for human hearing (in HEALTHY YOUNG adults is ~20hz - 20Khz). In reality, most don't hear much above 15-16 Khz!!!

This of course, does not apply to "audiophiles" w/golden ears & bottomless pocket-books!


`
__________________
"Balls" is a state of mind....
E. Cuyler
#50
11th September 2012
Old 11th September 2012
  #50
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 427

Bunjji is offline
88.1 is good for me! At 44.1, the Nyquist frequency is too low, resulting in more aliasing. 176/192 is just overkill though.
__________________
Q: What is the best mic for under $1000?

A: The one with a good musician in front of it!
PRH
#51
11th September 2012
Old 11th September 2012
  #51
PRH
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 299

PRH is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunjji View Post
88.1 is good for me! At 44.1, the Nyquist frequency is too low, resulting in more aliasing. 176/192 is just overkill though.
Unless I am mistaken, aliasing is no longer the problem it once was due to oversampling AD.

Oversampling converters use a simple low pass analogue filter on the input in the region of a couple of hundred khz. The audio is sampled at a rate in the low mhz, at an integer multiple of the desired sample rate. The audio is then digitally down-sampled to the desired sample rate by decimation.

The input analogue filter lies well above the audio range (which avoids phase issues), but as long as the filtering occurs below the over-sampling Nyquist frequency, aliasing is prevented.

No doubt I will be corrected if this is not accurate.
Quote
1
#52
11th September 2012
Old 11th September 2012
  #52
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 427

Bunjji is offline
That seems sensible, but do all converters have oversampling AD? I don't think my FireStudio Project does . . .
#53
5th October 2012
Old 5th October 2012
  #53
Gear nut
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 107

mike11 is offline
I definitely hear a difference between 44.1 and 96k. 32bit is only beneficial in processing, for recording and final mix 24bit is fine, distribution 16bit is fine (but 24bit is better). DSD is the bomb what a fantastic invention I hope one day we will have studios based around DSD with as many processing options and capabilities that we have today with PCM. That will really be the end game unless we go to holographic crystals that reproduce sound events at a quantum level generating sounds in mid air with perfect reproduction.... mangold if you're still around, those posts had me laughing.
#54
5th October 2012
Old 5th October 2012
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,123

legato is offline
Mangoid wrote:
Quote:
One bit moving at just over 2.8 *MegaHertz*. At that speed, that lonely little solo bit has more detail than 24 bits at 192KHz - it's more like good analog tape, because it's sampling the sound nearly 3 billion times a second...
Um........ that's stretching it a bit. (Excuse pun.)
Still, enough to make 192kHz a joke, relatively speaking. 5.6mHz even more so.

As to the original question: more=better.
Regardless.
And sometimes it really is.



Henk
#55
5th October 2012
Old 5th October 2012
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Mikey MTC's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 506

Mikey MTC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangoid View Post
3. THE RESOLUTION THANG. Neil Young, at the height of his anti-digital days, used to rant about square waves. The fact is that, the all-important subjective experience aside for a moment, a waveform at 44.1 *does* look like a staircase compared to the same waveform at 192 (especially at lower signal levels, where resolution deteriorates even further), and 96 is in the middle (Loony Toons?), while DSD (2.8MHz sampling frequency) looks more than twice as smooth as 192. Comparing 44.1 to 192 is like comparing South Park animation to Pixar.... some people might subjectively prefer the choppy animation style of South Park over the silky smooth kinda-realism of Pixar animations, but people who are into "realism" are obviously gonna prefer Pixar. 192 has twice as many "frames" per second as 96, so the digital audio "cartoon" is going to be smoother and more realistic - there's more information there, so it better approximates the original waveform (assuming the waveform hasn't been mangled by processing somewhere along the line).

4. THE TRANSIENT RESPONSE THANG. Back in the real world, one place where 192 (or, better yet, DSD) really makes a difference is with transients (very, very brief sound events). The lower the sample rate, the more distorted the transients, because the *slower* sample rates don't react quickly enough to accurately represent very short-lived events. Since higher frequencies have shorter lives, this transient response is more noticeable at higher frequencies - try listening to a triangle or high-pitched bell recorded clearly at 44.1, 96, 192, and DSD, and see if you can't hear the difference. Are most of you gearslutz recording a lot of triangles these days? I dunno, but personally i like to capture all the shimmer of cymbals and the magical sparkling transients from my Matchless amp, too, through high-end mics and preamps that actually register all those transients, and higher sample rates clearly do a better job of preserving that glorious detail. But if you earn your living recording fart noises through an SM57 (nice work if you can get it), you might or might not notice much of a difference at 192 vs 44.1 or 96, knowamsayn?

Wow, I'm replying to a post from almost 9 years ago!

I think many of the level headed discussions (!) on this and other forums over the last 8 years have put more perspective to some of these points.

First of all, we're talking ONLY about sample rate here. The word "resolution" has no part to play. Sample rate is about the frequency response only. That whole South Park vs Pixar thing is a bit depth (ie. resolution) argument.

And that whole transient response thing . . . . the Nyquist business is all about needing twice the sample rate to perfectly replicate a given frequency. So my snappy snare drum that has a fundamental frequency of 400Hz (for example) and a bunch of cool harmonics above that, are going to be no better reproduced when sampled at 192 than 96 than 44.1 ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

Sample rate is all about how far the top end of the frequency spectrum stretches. A sample rate of 3K will easily reproduce a perfect 1K sine wave. It won't sound better if sampled at 44.1.
__________________
Useful tutorials on Groove3.

http://www.groove3.com/str/authors.php?authorid=13
Quote
1
#56
5th October 2012
Old 5th October 2012
  #56
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 612

string6theory is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey MTC View Post
Wow, I'm replying to a post from almost 9 years ago!

I think many of the level headed discussions (!) on this and other forums over the last 8 years have put more perspective to some of these points.

First of all, we're talking ONLY about sample rate here. The word "resolution" has no part to play. Sample rate is about the frequency response only. That whole South Park vs Pixar thing is a bit depth (ie. resolution) argument.

And that whole transient response thing . . . . the Nyquist business is all about needing twice the sample rate to perfectly replicate a given frequency. So my snappy snare drum that has a fundamental frequency of 400Hz (for example) and a bunch of cool harmonics above that, are going to be no better reproduced when sampled at 192 than 96 than 44.1 ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

Sample rate is all about how far the top end of the frequency spectrum stretches. A sample rate of 3K will easily reproduce a perfect 1K sine wave. It won't sound better if sampled at 44.1.

Although the DSD perspective is still quite valid... and since the thread discussion, Korg has even doubled this sample rate to 5.6MHz/1-bit.

The other important perspective(s) relate to the various implementations, including analog stages, etc, beyond the straight Nyquist maths context/calcs.


LOL... 9 year old thread indeed... but, I'm responding to a 3 hour old post.

#57
6th October 2012
Old 6th October 2012
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Mikey MTC's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 506

Mikey MTC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by string6theory View Post
The other important perspective(s) relate to the various implementations, including analog stages, etc, beyond the straight Nyquist maths context/calcs.

Exactly right. That's why we have to always say "all other things being equal" when we talk in absolutes like this. As we know, usually all other things are not equal!
#58
6th October 2012
Old 6th October 2012
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 3,359

ShadowAMD is offline
I can tell you know, there is google and there is plenty of info on this.. There are specific reasons why 192K is out there and for good reason, although it can also be abused as a marketing gimmick and /or make things worse.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs...lity_audio.pdf
__________________
http://mixalliance.co.uk Trade mixing and mastering skills.
#59
6th October 2012
Old 6th October 2012
  #59
Lives for gear
 
GYang's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Toward SoCal
Posts: 4,862

GYang is offline
Pls. give me a good music over any higher resolution!
I work usually in 96 kHz, but have no problems with 48 or 44 and consider myself as very picky on sound quality (but not sick about that).
Tried 192 few times, no point, abandoned it.
__________________
Be free or be rich !
Ask girl who knows
Quote
1
#60
6th October 2012
Old 6th October 2012
  #60
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1,231

projektk is offline
I can hear the difference between 48 and 96, however neither is bad and 48 gives me much better performance so I always use 48 with a 24 bit engine. There's no reason to use 192 unless you have the power of course. I mix ITB so using 96 eats up my resources quicker plus with the plug ins. I guess if you used a SSD it wouldn't really matter how big the audio file was and it would run smooth at any sample rate, that's just a theory I have.

Sent from my LG-P925
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
genericperson / High end
13
cleantone / Music Computers
20
electro / High end
1
shaggy digital / So much gear, so little time!
40

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.