The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Literature/Professional Write ups on 192khz Sample Rate Dynamics Processors (HW)
Old 21st December 2010
  #1
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

Literature/Professional Write ups on 192khz Sample Rate

I have been trying to find professional based write ups and scientific explanations on the pros and cons of 192khz and have found little legitimate information (mind you there are multitudes of opinion based material all over the Internet). Does anyone have any good links, reading material, youtube videos (besides the Lavry White Papers and Bob Katz's book) that would help me expand my knowledge base? Any suggestions would be of great help.

Thanks
Old 21st December 2010
  #2
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

To add to the list of material:

http://www.digitalaudio.dk/media/3Tr...of_192_kHz.pdf
Old 21st December 2010
  #3
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

This article is great:

The Emperor's New Sample Rate

This too:

More on ABX Testing

This hour-long video is my own contribution:

AES Audio Myths Workshop

--Ethan
Old 21st December 2010
  #4
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

Thanks for the links. I actually watched your video last week and found it to be very informative. I also enjoyed watching your personal audio set-up video that featured your traps.
Old 21st December 2010
  #5
Audio Alchemist
 
Lagerfeldt's Avatar
Why Very High Sample Rates Do Not Sound Better (by Dan Lavry)
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/1234224-post72.html
Old 22nd December 2010
  #6
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

I enjoyed reading both of your posts. For balance, does anyone have any positive articles? Having trouble finding arguments for 192khz in a positive light, other than opinions on future proofing, having to work with clients who use 192khz, and using 192khz as a coloring tool.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #7
Audio Alchemist
 
Lagerfeldt's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechSpec View Post
I enjoyed reading both of your posts. For balance, does anyone have any positive articles?
No, sorry.

Quote:
Having trouble finding arguments for 192khz in a positive light
You see a pattern her?

Quote:
using 192khz as a coloring tool.
No way Hosé, look elsewhere than your choice of sample rate to "color" something. :-)
Old 22nd December 2010
  #8
soulstudios
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechSpec View Post
I enjoyed reading both of your posts. For balance, does anyone have any positive articles? Having trouble finding arguments for 192khz in a positive light, other than opinions on future proofing, having to work with clients who use 192khz, and using 192khz as a coloring tool.
Nope. But I can say many good things about 96khz, properly implemented and used.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #9
Gear Addict
 

You are, to a large extent, "looking in the wrong place", by asking about high sample rates in this forum.

Less latency, less quantization error in the band of interest, digital processing advantages, filters can be placed a loooooooonnnnnnng way from the band of interest.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #10
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt View Post
No way Hosé, look elsewhere than your choice of sample rate to "color" something. :-)
Well, that's not 100% true. The LPF can affect the high freq. response when sampling @ 44.1/48

Also, Lavry states that sampling @ 44.1 CAN be more precise for lower frequencies in the text you linked to.

To the OP: For arguments PRO 192kHz, you might want to ask harddisc manufacturers..
Old 22nd December 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Nordenstam's Avatar
 

Verified Member
1 reason for 192: Some designers have jumped on the idea and tuned their circuits to perform best at higher rates. If you can find a good enough source (test tone generator), try the actual sampler you have and see at what base sampling frequency it behaves best.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #12
Audio Alchemist
 
Lagerfeldt's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kosmokrator View Post
Well, that's not 100% true. The LPF can affect the high freq. response when sampling @ 44.1/48
Sure, that's not my point. My point is that you shouldn't choose a very high sample rate because it "colors" something. Converters generally aren't supposed to color, they're supposed to represent.

Try reading what he wrote again, he wrote "[clients using] 192 kHz as a coloring tool". I think that's just plain silly.

Quote:
Also, Lavry states that sampling @ 44.1 CAN be more precise for lower frequencies in the text you linked to.
Sure. I don't think I refuted that.

48 kHz is great and I don't see the need for anything higher than 96 kHz.

Quote:
To the OP: For arguments PRO 192kHz, you might want to ask harddisc manufacturers..
LOL
Old 22nd December 2010
  #13
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

ha thanks to everyone again. I only asked for some positive articles as a balance, wanted to see the other side. Thus far , in a scientific manner, 192khz seems more like a marketing tool. For myself, I would just like to fine as close to a true reproduction tool as possible. I do see merits in using 192khz as a type of effect in the same way one would use an analog tube compressor to color a two track master, making the compressor act as a sweetener of sorts. Lagerfeldt's and Winer's sentinments are becoming more how I feel about the 192khz sample rate however. If I come across any more articles, I will make sure to post them here. I hope this thread can continue with its evidence based trend.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 

You need to discern between recording at 192k vs processing at 192k.

Different considerations apply.

Sean
Old 22nd December 2010
  #15
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TechSpec View Post

I do see merits in using 192khz as a type of effect in the same way one would use an analog tube compressor to color a two track master, making the compressor act as a sweetener of sorts.
Yeah, that must be it. I think there's a blue paper about using 192kHz instead of a compressor. Or maybe its a tan paper, hard to say [but its definitely paper].
Old 22nd December 2010
  #16
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by editronmaximon View Post
Yeah, that must be it. I think there's a blue paper about using 192kHz instead of a compressor. Or maybe its a tan paper, hard to say [but its definitely paper].
I didn't mean as a replacement for compression, just coloring in sound (which is subjective). In any case, Ha I get the point. heh
Old 22nd December 2010
  #17
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by diggo View Post
You need to discern between recording at 192k vs processing at 192k.

Different considerations apply.

Sean

Should I assume you're reffering to plug-in enhancement at 192k, or did you mean something else?
Old 22nd December 2010
  #18
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

From 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.
__________________
Bob's room 615 562-4346
Georgetown Masters 615 254-3233
Music Industry 2.0
Interview
http://bobolhsson.com"

This was from the discussion (for full context): https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-...se-192khz.html

Decided to include the quote because it was written by someone who is well respected in audio.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #19
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
This is a case where everybody's right but only as far as they go. In real world designs all things are not equal and actual implementation determines the quality of the results as opposed to specifications like sample rate.

It's about the quality of the analog stage, the quality of the filtering and the ability of the power supplies and physical layout to keep the RFI from the digital stages away from the clock and the other analog stages.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Besides essential sonic quality considerations (in which there's been no evidence I've ever heard that the 4xFs rates are in fact any superior in performance to the 2xFs rates) there's the realities of what actual demand or usage for the 4xFs rates as a tracking or delivery format (rather than simply as a processing capability).

While I see mixes delivered for mastering at the 2xFs rates all the time (and in fact have been delivering back at these rates with increasing frequency for both vinyl record pre-masters and hi-res downloads such as the ones offerred at http://www.hdtracks.com ) - I have yet to get even a single order where the mixes were delivered to me at 192kHz or 176.4kHz.

I'd say for in-the-box mixers the fact that jumping to 192kHz from 96kHz often inhibits there ultimate plugin and track count and the smoothness with which there DAW handles their session that there are in fact very real pragmatic reasons why they do not choose these higher rates as well.

For processing though I'd say there are indeed many advantages in terms of less anti-aliasing for plugins that do upsample to the 4xFs rates while performing their manipulations. But in terms of storage and delivery - to me the 4xFs rates simply do not make any sense. With digital audio sometimes "more" does not equate to "better"!

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 22nd December 2010
  #21
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TechSpec View Post
For balance, does anyone have any positive articles?
You might find some in the hi-fi press, but they'll mostly be anecdotal rather than scientific.

--Ethan
Old 22nd December 2010
  #22
Gear Nut
 
TechSpec's Avatar
 

Thanks for the suggestion Ethan. Some of the anecdotal findings are nice as jump off points and help encourage me into looking into the "why" of what's happening. I prefer trusting the scientific studies, because (as your audio seminar pointed out) the human ear can be easily fooled. In situations where A/B/X comparisons would be hard to accomplish I would take the advice of many in this forum and test for myself, see how my ear hears it, combine that with whatever hard documentation there is and make a final decision (as far as personal purchases would go). I am also glad to receive responses from Bob and Steve. All in all I feel a bit more informed than when I originally posed my question. Once again, I will continue to post more links as I find them. I hope this post will make it easier for others to get quick 192k information that is backed by informed tests and professional findings.
Old 22nd December 2010
  #23
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lupo View Post
1 reason for 192: Some designers have jumped on the idea and tuned their circuits to perform best at higher rates. If you can find a good enough source (test tone generator), try the actual sampler you have and see at what base sampling frequency it behaves best.
Is there a converter chip that performs better at 192k?


DC
Old 22nd December 2010
  #24
Gear Addict
 

Hi TechSpec

I think to have a better understanding of the reasoning of higher sample rates is to have an idea from a technical standpoint of audio. In addition to how well one can hear ultra/infrasonic frequencies.

Loudspeakers is the deciding factor so, if your loudspeakers are –10 dB @ 16 kHz, even if you can hear up to 20 kHz you are not going to notice anything beyond 16 kHz since the limiting factor is your high frequency driver. Since sound is subjective, debating what is right and what is wrong solely depends on the person’s hearing ability and, the loudspeakers they are using.

I created an equaliser that offers a tuneable frequency range up to 84,000 kHz (Not available to the public) that only activates when 192 kHz files are present. The only benefits of using sample rates beyond 96 kHz is to achieve the upper harmonics and fundamentals and, even then one must have a wide enough Q so the ultrasonic frequencies can help one another in the process. Humans just cannot detect 96 kHz (192 sample rate) since it is outside our hearing sensitivity range. If you are the type that likes to sever @ 20 Hz or 20,000 kHz, higher sample rate plug-ins may not be beneficial for you for that’s where they excel on.

One gentlemen mentioned greater stability under high sample rates, which is true. It is generally the end of the frequency bandwidth, which makes high sample rate plug-ins, delivers less distortion/artefacts since they are not limited to 22 – 22050 kHz. One can look at the difference between an amplifier’s frequency bandwidth versus its frequency response. You will not find any audio amplifier offering a limited frequency bandwidth of 20 – 20,000 kHz despite marketing 20 – 20,000 kHz frequency response. The bandwidth is always higher to ensure less errors @ 20 – 20,000 kHz.

This applies to all hardware audio components.

However, someone quoted from an author pertaining to greater precision under low sample rates at lower frequencies. That is not the case for the frequency bandwidth is extended at both ends of the spectrum once you up sample. Possibly the author’s speakers are limited from a low-frequency-sensitivity standpoint or cannot manage infrasonic frequencies without a high degree of distortion why he feels so.


Cheers!
Old 22nd December 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirElliot View Post
However, someone quoted from an author pertaining to greater precision under low sample rates at lower frequencies. That is not the case for the frequency bandwidth is extended at both ends of the spectrum once you up sample. Possibly the author’s speakers are limited from a low-frequency-sensitivity standpoint or cannot manage infrasonic frequencies without a high degree of distortion why he feels so.
The reason that high sample rate are less good at low frequencies is that there is barely any change in value from sample-to-sample, requiring very long filters to achieve the same processing accuracy that you would get at a lower fs.

It has nothing to do with upsampling vs. starting at a high rate.


DC
Old 22nd December 2010
  #26
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirElliot View Post
However, someone quoted from an author pertaining to greater precision under low sample rates at lower frequencies. That is not the case for the frequency bandwidth is extended at both ends of the spectrum once you up sample. Possibly the author’s speakers are limited from a low-frequency-sensitivity standpoint or cannot manage infrasonic frequencies without a high degree of distortion why he feels so.
Or maybe Mr Lavry has a deep understanding of how sampling actually works. Did you read his article?

Alistair
Old 22nd December 2010
  #27
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
The reason that high sample rate are less good at low frequencies is that there is barely any change in value from sample-to-sample, requiring very long filters to achieve the same processing accuracy that you would get at a lower fs.

It has nothing to do with upsampling vs. starting at a high rate.


DC
That depends on how low you are going. If you are stopping @ 20 Hz yes. However, moving further down, higher sample rates offer more dB gain since the frequency bandwidth is being rolled of under 20 Hz at a lower sample rate. One can look at the sensitivity below 20 Hz is lower @ 44.1 than 88.2 kHz.

I've actually designed plug-ins that offer tuneable frequencies below 20 Hz and, they are more noticeable from a dB standpoint using higher sample rates opposed lower rates.


Cheers!
Old 22nd December 2010
  #28
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Or maybe Mr Lavry has a deep understanding of how sampling actually works. Did you read his article?

Alistair
I did not read the article which is why I only commented on the quote from another poster.

We must not overlook the loudspeakers when he conducted his analysis and, where they stand from a frequency standpoint half space.

Cheers!
Old 22nd December 2010
  #29
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirElliot View Post
I did not read the article which is why I only commented on the quote from another poster.

We must not overlook the loudspeakers when he conducted his analysis and, where they stand from a frequency standpoint half space.

Cheers!
Who said he used speakers? Or even measured? I suggest you go and read Mr Lavry's articles. He starts from the first principles of sampling and moves on from there. The articles are very interesting. You should also reread what Dave Collins posted above. Your answer tells me you misunderstood what he wrote.

Alistair
Old 22nd December 2010
  #30
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
Who said he used speakers? Or even measured? I suggest you go and read Mr Lavry's articles. He starts from the first principles of sampling and moves on from there. The articles are very interesting. You should also reread what Dave Collins posted above. Your answer tells me you misunderstood what he wrote.

Alistair
Fair enough!

I give it a read.

Cheers!
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
sluttiedude / High end
2
ben_allison / Geekslutz forum
95
George Necola / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
5
urobo[l]us / Mastering forum
8

Forum Jump
Forum Jump