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
Is it time for a new (preferably higher) standard? Yes? No? Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 3 weeks ago
  #121
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
I participated in tests in the 80s, and I personally know people who could reliably tell the difference between the same signal passed through a 44.1 chain and a 48K chain. That said, those tests were run with 1980's class AD/DA gear, and I'm reasonably sure that today's gear, even the cheap gear, is better than the best gear we had back then.

I'll dig through the AES library and see if I can find any. I do agree that the number of people who can reliably differentiate between 48K/98K is going to be MUCH smaller (if it exists at all), than the 44/48K difference
I am not a scientist, but I am fairly convinced you can reliably tell the difference between 44k and 48k with older designs, or newer for that matter, because of poorly implemented filtering.

Even one highend modern ADDA designer, which is highly regarded on this forum, openly admitted they use the standard filtering in the chips.

Which is why I stayed with my current AD conversion.

Focussing on high samplerates leaves the door wide open for lesser filter implementations, both in ad and da converters.

At one point I tested a highend dac with 15 filter options. It is amazing how much difference these make, while listening to essentially the same dac. Not one option sounded truly great though ... on 44.1 K.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #122
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
And worse behavior in others and in some play back chains. So not a good idea over all.

Alistair
I once got a panic email and telephone call by one of my clients who requested a hi samplerate recording. The 88.2k master sounded like it had tweeting birds and crazy HF, this on a highend audiophile system !
44.1, 48 and 96 K were all fine. Turned out the usb dac must have had a really poor driver or bug to make the 88k version sound like utter crap.

It goes without doubt the 44k version sounded superior on that system
That was not a beginning of the 2000s dac, it was a fairly recent one.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #123
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by aracu View Post
Relevant to the thread, yes, there is a school of thought similar to yours, but also another one which seeks to capture and playback ultrasonic and/or infrasonic frequencies.
Again, the reason for the extended bandwidth has no bearing on the final digital delivery format.

As for different schools of thought like wanting to capture and playback ultrasonics, there are people of the "school of thought" of using magic pebbles, magic clocks, green markers on their CDs etc.

Brilliant Pebbles Advanced Audio Video Tweak

So? That isn't a school of thought. That is plain ignorance and magical thinking. It is like comparing a child's sketch of an airplane done in crayon with the digital blue print of a Boeing 747. They are not comparable.

The science is clear. That some people or companies can't follow the science or choose to intentionally ignore it for commercial reasons has no bearing on the sound of the final product. (Unless their high-bandwidth recordings cause distortion in the playback system of course).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aracu View Post
In summery there are three different belief systems:

1. no advantage to recording over 44.1

2. better to record over 44.1 but not to playback ultrasound and/or infrasound

3. better to record over 44.1 and to playback ultrasound and/or infrasound

It seems that most agree that it is better to record with 24 bits rather than 16, and some believe it
is better to process with 32 bits.
You are mixing up beliefs and knowledge. AKA a category mismatch. The elements of 1, 2 and 3 above are not in the same category. (And element 1 is an oversimplification).

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #124
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush View Post
I can always hear the difference between 44.1 and 96. Also between 96 and 192 and 384.

I can always hear the difference, so I use the high sample rates.

In fact I can always hear when a 24 bit 96k program is being played back at 16 bit without dither.

I hear and feel it--something is wrong with that bit reduced program sound.
I can always spot the pixies and fairies dancing in the garden. I wrote it on the internet so it must be true.

(You might want to reconsider your testing methodology or, possibly, consider getting better converters and by better I do not mean more expensive or from audiophile/marketing brands that have a vested interest in making their converters sound worse at the base rates).

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #125
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Spearritt View Post
This has been well and truly debunked I think. I am not aware of any peer reviewed papers proving this. Happy to be wrong.
I believe there is still one paper that hasn't been debunked but nor has the research been reproduced by anyone else. All the other tests and papers I have seen did indeed show fundamental flaws in methodology or understanding.

Alistair

Last edited by UnderTow; 3 weeks ago at 12:34 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #126
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
I participated in tests in the 80s, and I personally know people who could reliably tell the difference between the same signal passed through a 44.1 chain and a 48K chain. That said, those tests were run with 1980's class AD/DA gear, and I'm reasonably sure that today's gear, even the cheap gear, is better than the best gear we had back then.

I'll dig through the AES library and see if I can find any. I do agree that the number of people who can reliably differentiate between 48K/98K is going to be MUCH smaller (if it exists at all), than the 44/48K difference
There are many base rate converters that do indeed affect the sound but that is a question of implementation rather than an inherent problem with the sampling rates.

And that is my main beef with this whole topic. IMO manufacturers should be focusing on the aspects that count. The analogue stages, the clocks, the power supplies, the quality of the DSP in the filters etc and, when speaking of audio interfaces, the quality and efficiency of drivers and the overall feature set. Not on pointlessly increasing the sample rates just to be able to sell a new model every so many years...

There is still plenty of ground for product improvement without going into snake oil territory.

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #127
Lives for gear
 

There is another factor that we might consider:some new FX algorithms that are designed to utilize FP32/96K processing (sic Waves H-verb) require a more powerful server upgrade than the Digigrid IOS internal server. The The IOS has 8 Digico "D" pre channels and at 48K comfortably handles most all of the plugs Waves offers however some of the the best new plugs and/or potential expanded channel counts make the up-grade essential.
There really are two entirely different perspectives to evaluate when considering the higher standards question: Highest and best recording protocols with archival priorities--VxS--present end use customs. This thread has introduced a lot of info pursuant to pros and cons of resolution and sample rates and after thinking about the various posts I was struck by the realization that the trajectory of our recording gear technology VxS end user devices are moving in diametrically different directions. Are we dealing with an industry wide expectation of a much improved retail dissemination in the future or are we being sucked into chasing a technology illusion down a black hole with little or no potential financial return possible?
Hugh
Old 3 weeks ago
  #128
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
If this were to happen, ignorance and crooked marketeers would have won the day. This would be a great shame for the audio world.

Alistair
I agree, but my experience of human nature tells me otherwise. When 96K is standard in the low-end, people will make fun of it just as they do 48K today.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #129
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
There are many base rate converters that do indeed affect the sound but that is a question of implementation rather than an inherent problem with the sampling rates.

And that is my main beef with this whole topic. IMO manufacturers should be focusing on the aspects that count. The analogue stages, the clocks, the power supplies, the quality of the DSP in the filters etc and, when speaking of audio interfaces, the quality and efficiency of drivers and the overall feature set. Not on pointlessly increasing the sample rates just to be able to sell a new model every so many years...

There is still plenty of ground for product improvement without going into snake oil territory.

Alistair
On this, we agree.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #130
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

One of the problems is, many confuse the necessity of a good analogue stage to have wide bandwith to achieve transparancy with what is needed to make a digital stage transparant.

My Grace preamps have a 1 MHz bandwidth, so by the current "internet" understanding of how digital works, Gracedesign should design a 2 MHz AD stage.

A higher standard would be:

a. 90% of the consumers having decent, modern DA converters that handle red book audio correctly (I even saw pro cd players that could not play - 1dBFS signals correctly without hars clipping, let alone those cheapo multi player things)

b. at least half of them connecting a decent amp and modern speakers between 800 and 2000 euro, instead of 200 euro total.

c. positioning them more or less correctly

d. actually take the time to sit down and listen without distractions.

a+b+c+d now THAT would be a new and higher standard

When that is implemented, we can talk again about 37 bit and 500K bandwith sampling.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #131
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
I agree, but my experience of human nature tells me otherwise. When 96K is standard in the low-end, people will make fun of it just as they do 48K today.
That is indeed often how things go but so far the VAST majority of professional music is done at 44.1 KHz (or 48 KHz for TV and film) and SACD or DVD Audio have completely failed in the market place.

I think most people are simply not drinking the Kool-Aid. There are a bunch of "audiophiles" that do and every year there is a new group of youngsters fresh out of school that need to be (re)educated (like the person that started this thread) but overall snake oil men and marketeers are failing and reason is prevailing.

You mention the Music Group so here is a call to @Uli Behringer to see if he can join us and share his thoughts on this topic from a commercial/business point of view.

Alistair
Old 2 weeks ago
  #132
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
I participated in tests in the 80s, and I personally know people who could reliably tell the difference between the same signal passed through a 44.1 chain and a 48K chain.
This doesn't have anything to do with whether people can hear above 20k which is an all analog test independent on any digital encoding.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #133
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
One of the problems is, many confuse the necessity of a good analogue stage to have wide bandwith to achieve transparancy with what is needed to make a digital stage transparant.

My Grace preamps have a 1 MHz bandwidth, so by the current "internet" understanding of how digital works, Gracedesign should design a 2 MHz AD stage.

A higher standard would be:

a. 90% of the consumers having decent, modern DA converters that handle red book audio correctly (I even saw pro cd players that could not play - 1dBFS signals correctly without hars clipping, let alone those cheapo multi player things)

b. at least half of them connecting a decent amp and modern speakers between 800 and 2000 euro, instead of 200 euro total.

c. positioning them more or less correctly

d. actually take the time to sit down and listen without distractions.

a+b+c+d now THAT would be a new and higher standard

When that is implemented, we can talk again about 37 bit and 500K bandwith sampling.
If d. were implemented, that alone would take care of everything else including this thread.
Old 1 week ago
  #134
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjazzdad View Post
Archive the master recordings in the best available format; some day some engineer will be going back to them, the same way we have done in the last few decades - digitizing master tapes to re-issue old LPs on CD. What that format is will be a moving target, but lots of options are mentioned in this thread. THAT is the 'new' (and ever-evolving) standard we should chase.

As far as the music consumer goes, 44.1/16 already exceeds the requirements of 99% of them. Spotify and iTunes, etc. have demonstrated this. The other 1% have always chased the audiophile ideal and will continue to do so. They are in lockstep with the Mastering standards. Until the marketing mavens manage to sell the public something new, media distribution is already as good as we need or want - hence 4K video with $100 crappy 5.1 systems. We live in interesting times...

Lots of good discussion in this thread. And no vitriol.
I understand Apple's "Mastered for iTunes" has long recommended providing them with a master at 24-bit 96kHz resolution to support eventual better sonic quality ways of consuming the product.

https://images.apple.com/itunes/mast...for_itunes.pdf
Old 1 week ago
  #135
Lives for gear
I wonder what the average age of posters on this subject is
Most listeners over 60 have depleted hearing
If you can hear 10Khz at 70 then you are fortunate
Young ears can appreciate and perceive extended spectrum, older trained ears may hear enhanced artefacts but damaged ears are more common now from bad PA and overdriven earbuds
Roger
Old 1 week ago
  #136
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolo 46 View Post
I wonder what the average age of posters on this subject is
Most listeners over 60 have depleted hearing
If you can hear 10Khz at 70 then you are fortunate
Young ears can appreciate and perceive extended spectrum, older trained ears may hear enhanced artefacts but damaged ears are more common now from bad PA and overdriven earbuds
Roger
Though I'm not yet 60, I happen to believe that a hell of a lot of music lives below 10kHz...all that dog and bat stuff is overrated

If your ear/brain ably discerns all that sub 10k richness, you're in a good place to record, mix and master music. I say this as one who employs the dog whistle MKH8000 series mics happily, but there are many here who equally use Coles and other ribbons, which would struggle mightily past 10k. Plush advocates 'DC to light' range mics. At the end of the day the tools matter little.

If you don't believe me, explore the notion of downward-prone 'combination tones'...outlined below the harmonics spreadsheet halfway down this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music)

I'm not saying celebrate tinnitus or anything silly....but extended frequency response (like many other faculties) is wasted upon the young ! Get the midrange right, boys and girls.....
Old 1 week ago
  #137
Gear Addict
 

I am late to this thread but just realized that no one had posted Lavry's Sampling white paper, which may have been more useful earlier, but here it is anyway:
http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lav...ing-theory.pdf
This was written in about 2004. Lavry posits the optimal rate is about 60kHz, aside from issues of file size and processing. Yes, Lavry's products now handle sampling as high as 192, probably because there is demand for it. I ditched a whole dCS DSD setup when I first heard a Lavry DA924 running at 88.2.

Personally, for years my preference for small classical and jazz projects was either 24/48 or 24/88.2 but now I normally use 24/96 because it is fine and clients usually can handle the filesizes.
Old 6 days ago
  #138
Old 6 days ago
  #139
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
Recently released, and while it doesn't change any of the facts previously discussed, it does reinforce the idea that 96K/24bits seems to be what's getting recognized as a reasonable "standard":
https://www.grammypro.com/sites/defa...n_10_10_17.pdf
Thank you TMetzinger for posting this document. It was actually published 7 days after I started this thread but that is neither here nor there. The document addresses my original question.

Additionally, I would appreciate it if people refrained from telling other people they need to be "re-educated" because they asked a question. It comes across as hostile.
Old 6 days ago
  #140
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Given To Fly View Post
Thank you TMetzinger for posting this document. It was actually published 7 days after I started this thread but that is neither here nor there. The document addresses my original question.

Additionally, I would appreciate it if people refrained from telling other people they need to be "re-educated" because they asked a question. It comes across as hostile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Given To Fly View Post
. . .

On the recording side of things, is it safe to assume everyone here is recording well above the CD "Red Book" standard of 16bit/44.1khz?

. . .

4K HDR or UHD, seems like it is set to replace standard BluRay. Why?

. . .
In rereading your original post, I thought a lot of responses answered your original questions, with a general consensus regarding redbook being that most record well above that standard (maybe with most resting at 24/96 but I haven't kept score). If you felt my response was hostile then I offer my apology, though I had no such intent.
Old 6 days ago
  #141
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMetzinger View Post
Recently released, and while it doesn't change any of the facts previously discussed, it does reinforce the idea that 96K/24bits seems to be what's getting recognized as a reasonable "standard":
https://www.grammypro.com/sites/defa...n_10_10_17.pdf
Unfortunately the people that wrote that document have the typical flawed "stair step analogy" understanding of digital audio. That document is best ignored. The title of the document is already a giveaway: Anyone talking about "high resolution audio" doesn't understand the subject and/or is marketing driven.

Alistair
Old 5 days ago
  #142
Lives for gear
 

Alistair, you are a real beauty, "best ignore this document based on typically flawed STAIR STEP ANALOGY"! Are we to assume you possess an academic technical knowledge base that can quantify the irrelevance of FP32/ 96K audio tracking and mixing with out the critical empirical evidence to prove the same. I have no quarter with anyone that is comfortable working within the limits of a Red Book or MP3 world: however the acoustic music I record is perceivably enhanced by the FP32/96K processing my system affords. Your arrogant negative attitude pursuant to those of us that enjoy the benefits of Hi Rez audio is beyond augumentative.
Hugh
Old 5 days ago
  #143
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
I just read the entire NARAS document. I think it is a very good educational document for those wanting to work in better sounding formats. There are a lot of people working in audio that do not have the experience with Hi-Res that some GS members have. This document encourages them to embrace modern possibilities.

Besides its technical recommendations, I found that it offers a valuable system to label files.

Also it does offer a stern warning about faking hi-res audio by offering 16 bit , 44.1kHz. recordings as Hi-res.

As for the term Hi-Res, it is legitimate and should be used.

However, I do not agree that 24/48 should be labeled as "Hi-Res."

With the Japanese software and a German converter, I now am at 24 bit 768 KHz recordings. Filters are completely out of the way. Sounds fantastic with MUSICFLOW. Mostly it is reproducing a tubesound.
Old 5 days ago
  #144
Lives for gear
 
Yannick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hughshouse View Post
however the acoustic music I record is perceivably enhanced by the FP32/96K processing my system affords.
That is exactly the point some are making.
Processing being the keyword.

That is why any halfway decent plugin will upsample when working at 44.1KHz.
Still no argument for recording at 768 KHz !
Old 5 days ago
  #145
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yannick View Post
That is exactly the point some are making.
Processing being the keyword.

That is why any halfway decent plugin will upsample when working at 44.1KHz.
Still no argument for recording at 768 KHz !
Has Nyquist's sampling theorem been proven wrong, theoretically or empirically?

When I had the dCS boxes all going I had a lot of filtering choices and many available sample rates going all the way to the early DSD. I heard a lot of differences with the different filtering chosen. I'd have to look at an old manual to refresh my memory, but I started to suspect a lot of what I heard in the higher sampling rates was due to the filtering.

Musicians today need an edge. If it helps them to sell with music recorded at 24/96 when I believe it is not necessary then I am still ok with it. It still sounds good and is not too far off the Nyquist "ideal." And the filesizes and cpu processing requirements are easier to handle. Having said all of that, properly recorded 24/48 or 24/88.2 to me sounds excellent.
Old 4 days ago
  #146
Lives for gear
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swing View Post
In rereading your original post, I thought a lot of responses answered your original questions, with a general consensus regarding redbook being that most record well above that standard (maybe with most resting at 24/96 but I haven't kept score). If you felt my response was hostile then I offer my apology, though I had no such intent.
No, your responses were not hostile at all. You are also right about most people recording above the "Red Book" standard. The significance of the document is the fact 8 people in the music industry collaboratively created a 40 page "best practices guide for high-resolution audio." That kind of organized leadership is rare in the various music-related industries. It would not have been written if people did not think this was an issue that needed to be addressed.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
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
Forum Jump