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 8th October 2011
  #781
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
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
.....and with modern SRC 176.4 and 192 would give exactly the same result! I thought you knew that, or is it another piece of "internet whizdum" you don't agree with?!

As it happens, in 10 years of working in the high end UK music scene, I've seen precisely NO records made at higher than 96k. we tried upsampling for a track once, for mixing..gave it up as a bad job, processing power just disappeared!
Old 8th October 2011
  #782
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
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
you are absolutely wrong
the audio range a/d/a quality is greatly improved by using higher sample rates

who told me that
the textbook, and three professors

fully proven
by two professors and the lab work
Old 8th October 2011
  #783
Lives for gear
 
Hansest's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you are absolutely wrong
the audio range a/d/a quality is greatly improved by using higher sample rates

who told me that
the textbook, and three professors

fully proven
by two professors and the lab work
May I ask

why

you write

like this

is it because

you are busy

thinking

about how high

sampling rates

are you going

to be able

to use

in 10 years

from now?
Old 8th October 2011
  #784
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you are absolutely wrong
the audio range a/d/a quality is greatly improved by using higher sample rates

who told me that
the textbook, and three professors

fully proven
by two professors and the lab work
If it was "actually" proved, why is there still a big debate? Did the results from your lab session get lost somehow?

Again - No-one is debating that up to a point, higher sample rates provide an audible quality increase - which is totally explainable using existing physics and the fact that filters can be higher and less steep. Also through the use of plugins at higher sample rates, it's quite clear there could be a quality increase.

But there is no text book anywhere to my knowledge that can explain why frequencies we can't hear can effect those that we can, except through the process of aliasing (and then of course, we ARE hearing the aliased "reflections" which have generated signals within our hearing range, again totally explainable).

If a 96k converter has a filter that starts to roll off well above 20kHz, and so does a 192kHz converter (except it rolls off higher, well above our hearing range"...what will the difference be? And how is it measurable? I want to know all about this lost lab experiment!
Old 8th October 2011
  #785
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
I want to know all about this lost lab experiment!
I think you're not the only one. But no evidence will be forthcoming, I predict.

or should
i just
wait and
see what new whizdum
will come
?


DC
Old 8th October 2011
  #786
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
I think you're not the only one. But no evidence will be forthcoming, I predict.

or should
i just
wait and
see what new whizdum
will come
?


DC
pretty certain
it will be written
in verse

and make about as much
sense
as some modern poetry

and wont clear things up
at all


Writing that, I had to actively delete several full stops!
Old 8th October 2011
  #787
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
pretty certain
it will be written
in verse

and make about as much
sense
as some modern poetry

and wont clear things up
at all


Writing that, I had to actively delete several full stops!
Free verse is so last century...


There was an old pedant who nattered
'bout how much high sample rate mattered.
When push comes to shove
there is never enough
until the quantum barrier is shattered.
Old 8th October 2011
  #788
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you are absolutely wrong
the audio range a/d/a quality is greatly improved by using higher sample rates

who told me that
the textbook, and three professors

fully proven
by two professors and the lab work
No I'm not wrong. If the audio range has flat FR, PS, inaudible noise and inaudible nonlinear distortion, how can it possibly be improved by catching higher inaudible frequencies?

There will always be technical limitations to the parameters listed above but that does not matter when the actual performance have already gone beyond the abilities of human hearing.

Regarding the textbook, professors and lab work.. show it to us and we will help you explain what is flawed or misunderstod.



/Peter
Old 8th October 2011
  #789
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you are absolutely wrong
the audio range a/d/a quality is greatly improved by using higher sample rates

who told me that
the textbook, and three professors

fully proven
by two professors and the lab work
Hi, just for clarification.....

The term "professor" is a professional role only. It carries no academic sanction, weight or brief and is used by the media as a medal of honour. It carries no such honour outside of TV fiction or sensationalism in the news and is a job title in much the same way a managing director or team leader. It's a job title and not a qualification of expertise although, granted, it'd be difficult to see how you could be a professor in a college without having some CV to get you there. My old boss held a professorship in Nottingham and had no qualifications or experience other than bringing several million quid into the uni.

If it's been proven and published by post grads or doctors in the field, I'll listen. Otherwise its subjective blathering and opinion by a bloke with a job.

There is no textbook that says higher sample rates will make the sampling more accurate etc - the benefit (and I'm pretty sure this is what you're referring to) is pulling in a wider bandwidth (which may or may not have benefits in the sub-limited human hearing range), moving the inevitable filters further away from the hearing range with all of it's debatable issues and the hearable improvements in plugins at higher rates. I don't think any of that disagree with your initial statement.
Old 8th October 2011
  #790
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiop View Post
No I'm not wrong. If the audio range has flat FR, PS, inaudible noise and inaudible nonlinear distortion, how can it possibly be improved by catching higher inaudible frequencies?

There will always be technical limitations to the parameters listed above but that does not matter when the actual performance have already gone beyond the abilities of human hearing.

Regarding the textbook, professors and lab work.. show it to us and we will help you explain what is flawed or misunderstod.
/Peter
you are greatly confused
read this carefully until you see the difference from what you think you read/know

I FILTER THE AUDIO TO A 20-20K BANDWIDTH
THERE ARE NO HIGHER FREQS !!!!

The higher sampling rate IMPROVES THE A/D/A quality in a REAL LIFE CIRCUIT not some mathematical abstraction.

human hearing has nothing to do with this discussion
nor does what you think you know that does not apply wrt sampling theory
Old 8th October 2011
  #791
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Hi, just for clarification.....

The term "professor" is a professional role only. It carries no academic sanction, weight or brief and is used by the media as a medal of honour. It carries no such honour outside of TV fiction or sensationalism in the news and is a job title in much the same way a managing director or team leader. It's a job title and not a qualification of expertise although, granted, it'd be difficult to see how you could be a professor in a college without having some CV to get you there. My old boss held a professorship in Nottingham and had no qualifications or experience other than bringing several million quid into the uni.

If it's been proven and published by post grads or doctors in the field, I'll listen. Otherwise its subjective blathering and opinion by a bloke with a job.

There is no textbook that says higher sample rates will make the sampling more accurate etc - the benefit (and I'm pretty sure this is what you're referring to) is pulling in a wider bandwidth (which may or may not have benefits in the sub-limited human hearing range), moving the inevitable filters further away from the hearing range with all of it's debatable issues and the hearable improvements in plugins at higher rates. I don't think any of that disagree with your initial statement.
dont know where you are
but in usa professors have to have very high quals to get a job and promoted up to that level from the junior levels

plenty of ENGINEERING textbooks will tell you why higher sampling rates are better. If you have a MATH book it will just use the math theory which is correct but you cant build an a/d/A from math you need real life hardware built with engineering.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIGHER BANDWIDTHS.
WHY DOES EVERYBODY HERE MAKE THAT MISTAKE.

THE BANDWIDTH HAS BEEN FILTERED TO 20-20K
THE HIGHER SAMPLE RATES MAKE THE REAL LIFE A/D/A MORE ACCURATE WITH REAL LIFE HARDWARE.
Old 8th October 2011
  #792
Lives for gear
 

^^ Seems like everyone here is on the same side really, just with different opinions on where "diminishing returns" turn into "increasing inaccuracy". At that point, does it become "Lavry vs OAG"?
Old 8th October 2011
  #793
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
THE BANDWIDTH HAS BEEN FILTERED TO 20-20K
THE HIGHER SAMPLE RATES MAKE THE REAL LIFE A/D/A MORE ACCURATE WITH REAL LIFE HARDWARE.
It's because it has more dots, isn't it? Just like in video, more dots == better picture. Should apply just fine to audio.

Or my sampling oscilloscope. More dots, better detail in the displayed waveform.

Perhaps you could describe what your definition of "more accurate" as applied to audio is? As it seems to be at odds with....well let's just start there.


DC
Old 8th October 2011
  #794
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
It's because it has more dots, isn't it? Just like in video, more dots == better picture.
*donning devil's advocate costume*

I still feel like oag isn't being fully understood ... I get the impression that the numerous mentions of "with real life hardware" (and similar) are signs that contradict the thought that oag is suggesting a purely "more dots" rationale.

*undress*

Then again, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding?
Old 8th October 2011
  #795
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
dont know where you are
but in usa professors have to have very high quals to get a job and promoted up to that level from the junior levels
In the USA? No you don't. You can be a professor/teacher with a bachelors degree or even less. Same as the UK (where I am). Professor carries no weight and means nothing. It is a job title. Dr is a title that indicates academic level and qualification directly, professor does not.

You're referring to a tenured professor, even then a tenured professor may get to the position via promotion and STILL have nothing more than a teaching credential as qualification. There is no requirement for a professor to have published works or a PhD (although nearly all do - it is their PhD which makes an opinion professionally meaningful - not the rather cloudy title of "professor"). Of course many professors ARE published and may have more than bachelors or masters - but there is no mandate for it and many "professors" are teachers by any other name. It's an overused, over assigned, media promoted and rater over broad term. It only has meaning when accompanied by it's particular seat.

My old boss - a professor at NTU - had no qualification other than a masters. I was higher qualified than him. He brought a lot of money into the university and got tenure that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
plenty of ENGINEERING textbooks will tell you why higher sampling rates are better.
No engineering book will tell you that simply because technical limitations change all the time. In THEORY the higher the better, even theorem. But the practicalities make it impossible. Something you stated yourself many posts ago!!
Old 8th October 2011
  #796
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
I FILTER THE AUDIO TO A 20-20K BANDWIDTH
THERE ARE NO HIGHER FREQS !!!!

The higher sampling rate IMPROVES THE A/D/A quality in a REAL LIFE CIRCUIT
How?

If it's band limited... how is it better? How CAN it be better?
Old 8th October 2011
  #797
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
*donning devil's advocate costume*

I still feel like oag isn't being fully understood ... I get the impression that the numerous mentions of "with real life hardware" (and similar) are signs that contradict the thought that oag is suggesting a purely "more dots" rationale.

*undress*

Then again, maybe I'm the one misunderstanding?
I gave up trying to understand OAG roughly two weeks ago. Now I'm just fishing for some - any - idea of what he's on about.

Both the data sheet and real-world measurements indicate that things get worse >96kHz. Not a lot, but it doesn't improve.

Interestingly, it may sound better at >96k, although I'm not entirely sure why. Possibly related to the ringing frequency, but it's not 100% correlated with hardware. Some is better at 192k, the majority is not. At least to my ear.


DC
Old 8th October 2011
  #798
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

same here. I've not heard an AD/DA that sound better at 192 than 96. Jim Williams has told me of at least one that does but I've not heard it.
Old 8th October 2011
  #799
Moderator
 
matt thomas's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArnieInTheSky View Post
768KHz sample rate, that'll take a snap shot of 384KHz. What note is that? Does it sound to my ears as infrared looks to my eyes? I don't see it... but it is there...
I'd say it sounds more like ultraviolet looks, being a very high frequency and all..

heh

matt
Old 9th October 2011
  #800
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you are greatly confused
read this carefully until you see the difference from what you think you read/know
Actually I'm not one bit confused.

Quote:
I FILTER THE AUDIO TO A 20-20K BANDWIDTH
THERE ARE NO HIGHER FREQS !!!!
I never said there was. And yes, there are examples of converters that performs better at higher rates but that is not proof for anything else but how that particular converter perform.

Quote:
The higher sampling rate IMPROVES THE A/D/A quality in a REAL LIFE CIRCUIT not some mathematical abstraction.

Nope. Higher sample rate than say 96kS/s does not improve the audio range audibly. A sample rate of 50-100kS/s is everything that is needed in order to give flawless performance. Don't confuse shortcomings of gear with shortcomings of format.

Quote:
human hearing has nothing to do with this discussion
nor does what you think you know that does not apply wrt sampling theory
I think it's fair to say that human hearing has a lot to do with music and audio engineering.

Now please give us the proof, the text book and lab work you mentioned earlier.


/Peter
Old 9th October 2011
  #801
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
I gave up trying to understand OAG roughly two weeks ago. Now I'm just fishing for some - any - idea of what he's on about.

Both the data sheet and real-world measurements indicate that things get worse >96kHz. Not a lot, but it doesn't improve.

Interestingly, it may sound better at >96k, although I'm not entirely sure why. Possibly related to the ringing frequency, but it's not 100% correlated with hardware. Some is better at 192k, the majority is not. At least to my ear.


DC
Some people watch Jersey Shore. I follow this thread.

Who is sicker?
Old 9th October 2011
  #802
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
In the USA? No you don't. You can be a professor/teacher with a bachelors degree or even less. Same as the UK (where I am). Professor carries no weight and means nothing. It is a job title. Dr is a title that indicates academic level and qualification directly, professor does not.

You're referring to a tenured professor, even then a tenured professor may get to the position via promotion and STILL have nothing more than a teaching credential as qualification. There is no requirement for a professor to have published works or a PhD (although nearly all do - it is their PhD which makes an opinion professionally meaningful - not the rather cloudy title of "professor"). Of course many professors ARE published and may have more than bachelors or masters - but there is no mandate for it and many "professors" are teachers by any other name. It's an overused, over assigned, media promoted and rater over broad term. It only has meaning when accompanied by it's particular seat.

My old boss - a professor at NTU - had no qualification other than a masters. I was higher qualified than him. He brought a lot of money into the university and got tenure that way.

No engineering book will tell you that simply because technical limitations change all the time. In THEORY the higher the better, even theorem. But the practicalities make it impossible. Something you stated yourself many posts ago!!
you are confused
no legitimate accredited university in the usa will make anyone a professor without a phd ("dr" to you) and significant academic accomplishments.

if you have a masters and 20 years experience you can become an ADJUNCT "PROFESSOR" at dirt cheap wages to teach intro classes. but you are not a real professor.

back when i was in school there were a few professors without a phd , who had been pioneers in their field, but that has not happened in any real uni for 40-50 years now.

dont know how loose and sloppy the uk "unis" are
Old 9th October 2011
  #803
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcollins View Post
It's because it has more dots, isn't it? Just like in video, more dots == better picture. Should apply just fine to audio.

Or my sampling oscilloscope. More dots, better detail in the displayed waveform.

Perhaps you could describe what your definition of "more accurate" as applied to audio is? As it seems to be at odds with....well let's just start there.
DC
less mean square error compared to original after doing the a/d/a and comparing the reconstructed signal to the original
Old 9th October 2011
  #804
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
less mean square error compared to original after doing the a/d/a and comparing the reconstructed signal to the original
Please tell me how you came to the conclusion that more than 24 bit PCM quantization have anywhere near a positive audible effect.. In your explanations please include something about dynamic range, dither and analog noise floor.

And again, the title of the text book and the lab work please!


/Peter
Old 9th October 2011
  #805
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post

dont know how loose and sloppy the uk "unis" are
Ha !!! That's funny........ we'll leave that one as a mildly amusing entree......
Old 9th October 2011
  #806
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
less mean square error compared to original after doing the a/d/a and comparing the reconstructed signal to the original
That would be bit depth NOT sample rate that would give that effect. And it would work wonderfully, if only even the current 24 bit converters were working effectively as 24 bit converters. There are NO converters which reach the theoretical noise floor associated with 24bit as yet.

I have read about one 32bit converter - but the claims made about it were retracted for reasons unknown... tech limitations I guess.
Old 9th October 2011
  #807
soulstudios
Guest
Everybody please stop reiterating the same **** and read this thread, which already has covered this stuff - as well as multiple, multiple threads before it - and OP? A quick search wouldn't've gone amiss...
The difference between 44.1k and 96k is INSANE
Old 9th October 2011
  #808
Lives for gear
 
dcollins's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
That would be bit depth NOT sample rate that would give that effect. And it would work wonderfully, if only even the current 24 bit converters were working effectively as 24 bit converters. There are NO converters which reach the theoretical noise floor associated with 24bit as yet.
Nor will there be, unless you find a way to beat Johnson noise.

Quote:
I have read about one 32bit converter - but the claims made about it were retracted for reasons unknown... tech limitations I guess.
The 32 bit part is just the digital interface frame. Not 32 bit conversion, which is not even remotely possible. 20 bit real-world performance is about all you can do, and there are plenty of converters with a spec of less than 0.0015% THD+N, which is a paltry 16 bit accuracy.

Here's a 1k @ -120dBFS tone, it should look like this on a good DAC:
Attached Thumbnails
if higher sample rate doesnt matter then why ....-120-comparison.jpg  
Old 9th October 2011
  #809
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

yup
Old 9th October 2011
  #810
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldeanalogueguy View Post
you are confused
no legitimate accredited university in the usa will make anyone a professor without a phd ("dr" to you) and significant academic accomplishments.

if you have a masters and 20 years experience you can become an ADJUNCT "PROFESSOR" at dirt cheap wages to teach intro classes. but you are not a real professor.

back when i was in school there were a few professors without a phd , who had been pioneers in their field, but that has not happened in any real uni for 40-50 years now.

dont know how loose and sloppy the uk "unis" are
Yeah, I hear that Oxford joint runs a real sloppy shop. heh


OAG is onto something, though. Professor is a term that varies in usage between countries and cultures. According to the font of all wisdom and knowledge:
Quote:
A professor is a scholarly teacher; the precise meaning of the term varies by country. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes" being usually an expert in arts or sciences; a teacher of high rank.[1] In most English-speaking nations professor is reserved for senior academics holding a departmental chair (especially head of the department) at a university, or an awarded chair specifically bestowed recognizing an individual at a university. In the United States and Canada the title of professor is granted to larger groups of senior teachers in two- and four-year colleges and universities.


In countries on the European mainland, such as France, Germany, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries, usage of professor as a legal title is limited much the same way as in most Commonwealth countries, that is, it is reserved for someone who holds a chair. But in the United States, while "Professor" as a proper noun (with a capital "P") generally implies a title, the common noun "professor" in the US describes anyone with a permanent position at the college (i.e. university) level, regardless of rank; also, as a prenominal title of address, it can be capitalized without implying the title rank.


In Portugal, France, Romania and Latin America (Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking), the term professor (profesor / professor / professeur / profesor) is used for anyone teaching at a school, institute, technical school, vocational school, college, or university, regardless of the level of the subject matter taught or the level or ages of students. This includes instructors at the grade/elementary school, middle school, and high school levels. However, when the professor teaches at a university, they are specifically called a "university professor"; if holding a chair, then catedrático is used in Spanish. It is common to call university professors just "profesor" (Spanish) or "professor" (Portuguese).


In Spain, the term professor (Basque, Galician and Spanish: (m) profesor, (f) profesora; Aranese and Catalan: (m) professor, (f) professora) is used for higher-level teachers at the secondary education level (high school, lyceum, institute, etc.) and above (i.e. institute, technical school, vocational school, college, or university). Instructors at the primary or elementary school level are called teachers (Aranese: (m) mèstre, (f) mèstra; Basque: (m) maisu, (f) maistra; Catalan and Galician: (m) mestre, (f) mestra; Spanish: (m) maestro, (f) maestra). When the professor teaches at a university, they are specifically called a "university professor"; if holding a chair, then chair (Aranese: catedratic; Basque: katedraduna; Catalan: catedràtic; Galician and Spanish: catedrático) is used. In Spain, it is not common to call university professors just "professor".


In Poland, the term profesor means professor extraordinarius and professor ordinarius at colleges and universities, and anyone who teaches at a (Polish) high school (grades 10-12).


Beyond holding the proper academic title, universities in many countries also append famous artists, athletes and foreign dignitaries with the title honorary professor, even if these persons don't have the academic qualifications typically necessary for professorship. However, such "professors" usually do not undertake academic work for the granting institution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor
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