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
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why .... Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 3rd October 2011
  #751
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

hissssss hisssssss sss s.s.s s.s.s.ss ssssss
Old 3rd October 2011
  #752
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
hissssss hisssssss sss s.s.s s.s.s.ss ssssss
OK... maybe narcoman, too.

Either that or he needs to be recapped.
Old 4th October 2011
  #753
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffLee View Post
I have never noticed aliasing when using plugins.
Sure... add this aliasing and pass it on to the next plugin in the chain please...process that...add some more aliasing to the ...err..aliasing...multiply this for a large number of tracks...lots of lovely extra non harmonics for free

one is at 44khz with just one plugin...the other is at 96khz with just one plug in. Also it's just a simple sine wave, gets more interesting as more harmonics are added.
Attached Thumbnails
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why ....-44kh-aliasing.jpg   if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why ....-96khz-aliasing.jpg  
Old 4th October 2011
  #754
Lives for gear
 

This one is interesting for those that don't believe in intersample overs. Both pics were at -3db but show up as +20db on the meter.....lovely.

Can you tell which is 44khz and which is 96khz? When processing is applied the aliasing grows and grows passing on the errors to the next plugin. The source is a 10.4khz test tone, well within the human hearing range....yet the echoes still appear.
Attached Thumbnails
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why ....-aliasing-2-44k.jpg   if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why ....-aliasing-2-96k.jpg  
Old 4th October 2011
  #755
Gear Nut
 

Any idea why the 10.4Khz tone shows up as such a wide signal instead of a narrow spike? Is this a pure sine wave or noise that is being filtered?
Old 5th October 2011
  #756
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by don4777 View Post
Any idea why the 10.4Khz tone shows up as such a wide signal instead of a narrow spike? Is this a pure sine wave or noise that is being filtered?
Not noise but some windowing functions are better than others depending on the type of signal you want to analyse.

Windowing: Optimizing FFTs Using Window Functions - Developer Zone - National Instruments

/Peter
Old 5th October 2011
  #757
Lives for gear
 

As well as the windowing function itself, frequency-resolution depends on the block size (window size). Larger block size = greater frequency-resolution.
Old 5th October 2011
  #758
Lives for gear
 
cowboycoalminer's Avatar
Sorry for being off topic here guys but has anyone besides me went through and read all of Mandyc's posts. I'm a junky. It's better than Jerry Springer.
Old 5th October 2011
  #759
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Yep! Lol. I had to be restrained by big Steve at one point!
Old 5th October 2011
  #760
Lives for gear
 

It's quite rare that someone actually brings some proof to the table rather than pure theorising...and not that much interest from the previously vocal people?
Old 5th October 2011
  #761
Lives for gear
 
DaveUK's Avatar
Good luck!
Old 5th October 2011
  #762
Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboycoalminer View Post
Sorry for being off topic here guys but has anyone besides me went through and read all of Mandyc's posts. I'm a junky. It's better than Jerry Springer.
I've read a lot of them.

I mean... now when I see OAG's long, run together signature, it pops in my mind as Old Ocean Guy...

Mind you
... I was quite charmed by Mandy's apparent headslapper moment when he or she* realized he or she was calling oldeanalogueguy ocean.

I wish that was the level of the dumbest thing I'd ever done. I'd be king of the world.

But... then... he or she had to go and spoil it by getting back on what passes for topic at this point -- or, more like it, berating those who had tried to explain the issues to him or her (though he or she apparently sincerely refuses to believe they were but were, instead, finding indirect ways to insult him or her).


* I've never been entirely certain what gender MandyC is, since it's a diminutive applied to both men and women's names.
Old 5th October 2011
  #763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Proton View Post
It's quite rare that someone actually brings some proof to the table rather than pure theorising...and not that much interest from the previously vocal people?
Read the thread, Cap.
Old 5th October 2011
  #764
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Proton View Post
It's quite rare that someone actually brings some proof to the table rather than pure theorising...and not that much interest from the previously vocal people?
Well - the thread digressed into several subjects. The proofs for the diversions were given, many times. Nobody has an issue with the original post.
Old 5th October 2011
  #765
This one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
Some have derided my observation that higher sample rates do improve quality.

So if higher sample rates do not matter then why would a vendor produce this new DAC?

Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB :

Asynchronous USB with maximum input of 32 bit 768KHz.
Output : 24/768 max. All further sample rates supported.

So feel free to tell me why they andor I are idiots for believing that higher sample rates are better.




should this be in the new gear listing too ?
more info at
Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB DAC
Old 5th October 2011
  #766
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Well - not in so many words - but I don't think anyone has an issue with "higher sample rate = better".

In theory - it's true.

In practise - it's hard to implement.

The reasons - less to do with audible benefits but just on a technicality!!! Nothing above 96 is worthwhile as far as i'm concerned.
Old 6th October 2011
  #767
Lives for gear
 
Old Goat's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
OK... maybe narcoman, too.

Either that or he needs to be recapped.
Hey, I'll give that a shot. I need the practice!

Hold still, dammit, you don't want a burn there!
Old 6th October 2011
  #768
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Well - not in so many words - but I don't think anyone has an issue with "higher sample rate = better".

In theory - it's true.

In practise - it's hard to implement.

The reasons - less to do with audible benefits but just on a technicality!!! Nothing above 96 is worthwhile as far as i'm concerned.
actually a lot of people here claim higher sample rate has no value. anything over 2x nyquist is wasted they think. worse they confuse bit depth with bandwidth. think higher sample rates are only for wider bandwidth instead of better a/d/a for an already bandlimited signal. the amount of krapp people spout here is only exceeded by the amount of vitrioul they spew if someone dares to contradict their internet whizdumb.
Old 6th October 2011
  #769
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
actually a lot of people here claim higher sample rate has no value.

True. But having no value doesn't mean it's not better, "having value" is subjective, collecting a higher sample rate is objective. Nobody can argue that a higher sample rate doesn't capture a truer version of the source single simply because a higher sample rate catches the stuff outside of our hearing range. Now, whether or not those uber high frequencies have any bearing on the hearing range is still open to some debate.

I know this much though; recordings I've done at 96 and mixed at 96 DO sound clearer and more euphonic than my 48 stuff. The 48 stuff is still awesome, excellent, lovely etc, but the 96 is better. AFTER 96 (ie 192 for me) I have noticed a WORSE sound quality that I have put down to the technical limitations of all commercially available converters at this time.

So
+ A higher sample rate is technically better.
+ A higher sample rates effect on the hearing range is debatable and not provable.
+ Plugins act and work noticeable better at higher rates.
+ There are technical limitations holding back actual, but not necessarily noticeable, improvements with much higher sample rates.
Old 6th October 2011
  #770
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
actually a lot of people here claim higher sample rate has no value. anything over 2x nyquist is wasted they think. worse they confuse bit depth with bandwidth. think higher sample rates are only for wider bandwidth instead of better a/d/a for an already bandlimited signal. the amount of krapp people spout here is only exceeded by the amount of vitrioul they spew if someone dares to contradict their internet whizdumb.
No one who understands what they're talking about would disagree with that. The problem comes because you put things in such a convoluted way, married with the pedantry of your problem with existing terminology, and a healthy amount of condescension, which results in 4 pages of trying to understand what the he'll you're talking about, another 5 trying to agree on what the terms are you'll accept, and about 2 pages of actually discussing the issue! Full sentences and punctuation and an acceptance of existing definitions that the guys who build the f-big gear use, and I'm sure you'd find a whole lot more agreement.

But that wouldn't fill half as much of your day would it?!
Old 6th October 2011
  #771
Lives for gear
 
cowboycoalminer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
But that wouldn't fill half as much of your day would it?!
Bet he's thinking, "Damn, there on to me." With a grin, of coarse.
Old 6th October 2011
  #772
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Well - not in so many words - but I don't think anyone has an issue with "higher sample rate = better".

In theory - it's true.

In practise - it's hard to implement.

The reasons - less to do with audible benefits but just on a technicality!!! Nothing above 96 is worthwhile as far as i'm concerned.
Well, when you put it that way.


The eyebrow lifter for me in OAG's first post was his citation of the 'audiophile' DA box with its "32 bit 768KHz" maximum input and its 24/768 max out as seeming 'proof' that more is always better.
Old 7th October 2011
  #773
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
Well, when you put it that way.


The eyebrow lifter for me in OAG's first post was his citation of the 'audiophile' DA box with its "32 bit 768KHz" maximum input and its 24/768 max out as seeming 'proof' that more is always better.
i did NOT say it was proof
but gave it as an example of a real product
then questioned whether it had value or not
and if not why would they build it

i do think that within clock jitter and voltage resolution limitations taht more is better

so are these people idiots trying to scam some golden eared stereophile with an overfull wallet
or is this really an improvement over other devices

read teh thread and see if you found the answer
Old 7th October 2011
  #774
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
True. But having no value doesn't mean it's not better, "having value" is subjective, collecting a higher sample rate is objective. Nobody can argue that a higher sample rate doesn't capture a truer version of the source single simply because a higher sample rate catches the stuff outside of our hearing range. Now, whether or not those uber high frequencies have any bearing on the hearing range is still open to some debate.

I know this much though; recordings I've done at 96 and mixed at 96 DO sound clearer and more euphonic than my 48 stuff. The 48 stuff is still awesome, excellent, lovely etc, but the 96 is better. AFTER 96 (ie 192 for me) I have noticed a WORSE sound quality that I have put down to the technical limitations of all commercially available converters at this time.

So
+ A higher sample rate is technically better.
+ A higher sample rates effect on the hearing range is debatable and not provable.
+ Plugins act and work noticeable better at higher rates.
+ There are technical limitations holding back actual, but not necessarily noticeable, improvements with much higher sample rates.
preaching to teh choir there

within clock jitter and voltage resolution limitations
the higher the sample rate/depth the better
Old 7th October 2011
  #775
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
preaching to teh choir there

within clock jitter and voltage resolution limitations
the higher the sample rate/depth the better
aye - but i've not heard a 192 khz converter that doesn't sound better at 96 (JW told of one that does - but I hadn't heard it).
Old 7th October 2011
  #776
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why ....


Some have derided my observation that higher sample rates do improve quality.

So if higher sample rates do not matter then why would a vendor produce this new DAC?

Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB :

Asynchronous USB with maximum input of 32 bit 768KHz.
Output : 24/768 max. All further sample rates supported.

So feel free to tell me why they andor I are idiots for believing that higher sample rates are better.




should this be in the new gear listing too ?
more info at
Phasure NOS1 24/768 async USB DAC
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
i did NOT say it was proof
but gave it as an example of a real product
then questioned whether it had value or not
and if not why would they build it

i do think that within clock jitter and voltage resolution limitations taht more is better

so are these people idiots trying to scam some golden eared stereophile with an overfull wallet
or is this really an improvement over other devices

read teh thread and see if you found the answer
I stand corrected.

To address your final, unpunctuated question: well, scam is such an ugly word... heh I would have to say that my gut and my mind agree that the product strikes me as being marketed to a sector of the audiophile market that is not always long on common sense or solid grounding in the sciences and the marketing claims seem to be trying to exploit a certain naivete.
Old 7th October 2011
  #777
Lives for gear
 

Like those who buy directional audio cables or spend thousands on a few audio cables.

I agree, anything higher than 96k is really not needed. For me it really is just about the aliasing, it's why plugins sound so plastic, Nebula has shown that at 96k a plugin can sound so real so it is possible.

Soft synths, eq's anything that varies the pitch etc all sound so much smoother at higher sample rates.

Over sampling for me doesn't do it because it has to be a realtime conversion and that would take a lot of cpu to do it justice, so it's a low quality process.

Computers are so much more powerful now that 88.96k is totally possible.
Old 7th October 2011
  #778
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Proton View Post
Like those who buy directional audio cables or spend thousands on a few audio cables.

I agree, anything higher than 96k is really not needed. For me it really is just about the aliasing, it's why plugins sound so plastic, Nebula has shown that at 96k a plugin can sound so real so it is possible.

Soft synths, eq's anything that varies the pitch etc all sound so much smoother at higher sample rates.

Over sampling for me doesn't do it because it has to be a realtime conversion and that would take a lot of cpu to do it justice, so it's a low quality process.

Computers are so much more powerful now that 88.96k is totally possible.
real time is a different problem

broadcast is not noted for quality
so dont worry about even using 96

if you are doing studio work for max quality
then you want 192 or higher (if your gear is good enough)
for cds as end result 176.4 would be good enough
Old 7th October 2011
  #779
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
if you are doing studio work for max quality
then you want 192 or higher (if your gear is good enough)
for cds as end result 176.4 would be good enough
False!

The quality of the audible range is not improved by using ultra high sample rates. Who told you that? 50-100kS/s is all that is ever needed for perfect fidelity.

Sure, there are some that claim what you claim but is it not strange that no one ever have been able to proove that's the case?


/Peter
Old 7th October 2011
  #780
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

musical boobs.
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
Forum Jump