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
192khz, 96khz, 48khz. I hear the difference.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #241
Lives for gear
 
Space1999's Avatar
 

Just wondering why 16/44.1k is mentioned as the end stage format in 2019? As in “it doesn’t matter in the end it will all end up 16/44.1khz...”

I must be way out of touch. Do they still sell CDs? I don’t own any. I have everything on iTunes. I buy the highest rated format that the music is sold at.

The last time I had a CD player in the studio was when I had a burner from HHB in 2006.

There is a CD player in my car but it was the last year they offered it back in 2015.

Digital downloads are just convenient and require no storage space and my iPhone links to my car stereo so that’s great. I think the quality is just fine.

As far as recording, I use 24/96k because it seems to be the right spot to record through my Apollo gear. I use mostly UAD plugs they seem very nice.

I wonder if anyone will regret having only 16/44.1khz masters in the future as opposed to a higher sampled rate. I don’t know the answer to that. I also couldn’t tell you what consumers will be using to listen to music 10 years from now.

Everyone laughed when Bill Putnam was making mono and stereo masters of every single he did in the 50’s. Bill laughed all the way to the bank.

Ah me, well there’s my two cents.

Pat
Old 4 weeks ago
  #242
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space1999 View Post
Everyone laughed when Bill Putnam was making mono and stereo masters of every single he did in the 50’s. Bill laughed all the way to the bank.
Mono to stereo to surround to 3d isn't even remotely the same as comparing moving from a 44.1kHz sample rate upwards though.

Plus, we've had 88.2kHz (and up) for years and years already.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #243
Lives for gear
 

Paul Wolf made so much more sense than the binary zealots spouting cherrypicked gospel in this thread.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #244
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Space1999 View Post
Just wondering why 16/44.1k is mentioned as the end stage format in 2019? As in “it doesn’t matter in the end it will all end up 16/44.1khz...”

I must be way out of touch. Do they still sell CDs? I don’t own any. I have everything on iTunes. I buy the highest rated format that the music is sold at.

The last time I had a CD player in the studio was when I had a burner from HHB in 2006.

There is a CD player in my car but it was the last year they offered it back in 2015.

Digital downloads are just convenient and require no storage space and my iPhone links to my car stereo so that’s great. I think the quality is just fine.

As far as recording, I use 24/96k because it seems to be the right spot to record through my Apollo gear. I use mostly UAD plugs they seem very nice.

I wonder if anyone will regret having only 16/44.1khz masters in the future as opposed to a higher sampled rate. I don’t know the answer to that. I also couldn’t tell you what consumers will be using to listen to music 10 years from now.

Everyone laughed when Bill Putnam was making mono and stereo masters of every single he did in the 50’s. Bill laughed all the way to the bank.

Ah me, well there’s my two cents.

Pat
Last I checked, CD Baby requires that you submit a 44.1/16bit master for distribution. It's been about a month. I think that's still the standard.

But I agree. That should change.

Steve
Old 4 weeks ago
  #245
Gear Nut
 
VirusAndSpamBin's Avatar
 

Anything above hearing range should not be played.

If converters allow high freqs out and speaker plays the high freqs, nobody really knows how loud they actually are, therefore it can be damaging at worst, when playing loud, creating ear fatique sooner. Stick to 44.1 and 44.8 out.

Use whatever inside digitally / 96k / 1 million, but not out to ears, through speakers. Make sure anything above 20k gets cut before hitting the ears.

Stay on the safe side of the fence.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #246
Gear Addict
 

Most listening these days is compressed formats. MP3, AAC, Vorbis etc to earbuds, headphones, a bluetooth speaker or car sound system. 44.1/16 is still far higher resolution than what the end product is in most cases. So while in our control rooms on our wide bandwidth monitors we might notice a hair of difference the rest of the world just wants to hear some music. So we have to mix and master for that and hope the small percentage of audiophiles are happy too.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #247
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

These threads usually divide people into three discrete groups:

1) Folks who aren't actually listening but sit on the internet all day regurgitating links and graphs about sample rates claiming they are in possession of the word, the truth and the light

2) Folks who can't be bothered to listen and find it easier to just believe the stuff posted by the folks in (1)

3) Folks who are listening critically every day of their professional lives in the studio and who make it their business to make an informed decision about new technological developments based on the changing needs and expectations of their clients
Old 4 weeks ago
  #248
Gear Addict
 

I was just speaking to dealing with the world the way it is. And for now, the standard for music is 16bit/44.1. To say some other rate sounds better is fine, but if you are releasing music into the market place, it's 44.1. And it's a good idea to keep that in mind.

Steve
Old 4 weeks ago
  #249
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
These threads usually divide people into three discrete groups:

1) Folks who aren't actually listening but sit on the internet all day regurgitating links and graphs about sample rates claiming they are in possession of the word, the truth and the light

2) Folks who can't be bothered to listen and find it easier to just believe the stuff posted by the folks in (1)

3) Folks who are listening critically every day of their professional lives in the studio and who make it their business to make an informed decision about new technological developments based on the changing needs and expectations of their clients
Unfortunately those in category 3 sometimes turn into those in category 4: folks who think results in their system and needs apply to results on every system and the requirements of others.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #250
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Space1999 View Post
Just wondering why 16/44.1k is mentioned as the end stage format in 2019? As in “it doesn’t matter in the end it will all end up 16/44.1khz...”

I must be way out of touch. Do they still sell CDs? I don’t own any. I have everything on iTunes. I buy the highest rated format that the music is sold at.

The last time I had a CD player in the studio was when I had a burner from HHB in 2006.

There is a CD player in my car but it was the last year they offered it back in 2015.

Digital downloads are just convenient and require no storage space and my iPhone links to my car stereo so that’s great. I think the quality is just fine.

As far as recording, I use 24/96k because it seems to be the right spot to record through my Apollo gear. I use mostly UAD plugs they seem very nice.

I wonder if anyone will regret having only 16/44.1khz masters in the future as opposed to a higher sampled rate. I don’t know the answer to that. I also couldn’t tell you what consumers will be using to listen to music 10 years from now.

Everyone laughed when Bill Putnam was making mono and stereo masters of every single he did in the 50’s. Bill laughed all the way to the bank.

Ah me, well there’s my two cents.

Pat
With Bandcamp consumers and can download files up to 24/192. Honestly 96khz or 88.2khz should be the standard, or 24/48 at the lowest. There is no reason for CD quality to exist at this point except to make into small compressed files for streaming services. There are no physical media limitations, very few bandwidth limitations, no DAC limitations that say we should still be using 16/44.1, it's just customary for some reason to use the 35 year old format.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #251
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ambientdrone View Post
Not to argue with Mr. Lavry...but these arguments don't do justice to the underlying physics.

Suppose I create a simple 1kHz square wave with my analog synth. No big deal. Now, according to Mr. Fourier, this simple square wave is accurately represented by an infinite Fourier series of sine waves. Infinite Fourier series of sine waves means lot's of high-frequency content, even in my simple 1kHz square wave.

The more of this high-frequency content I can record, the more accurately my square wave can be recreated. So, higher sampling rates are necessary for something as simple as an analog synth square wave.

It's not necessarily about the conventional audio range or human hearing limitations, but rather the shape of the waveform being recorded. Unless you're recording only sine waves, it's important to understand the relationship between Nyquist and Fourier. For some reason, this relationship is usually left out of the discussions about sampling rates...

Dave
All very true as a theoretical concept, but that has always been with us. If you record a square wave onto analog tape and look with a storage scope at what comes back off the tape, It isn't exactly square . Try to cut one on a Vinyl disk and it won't be a true square wave either. Don't get me started on what the diaphragm of the headphones/loudspeakers that you are listening to the square wave on are going to do the the leading and trailing edge of that wave.

Bandwidth restriction of a square wave is equally inherent in analog circuitry, and definitely in analog storage on magnetic tape and reproduction by a moving diaphragm. Hence we have always missed information from the a square wave

IMO, to some degree the square wave has become the straw man (straw wave?) of the sampling debate.

It's something that does not (and cannot) exist in nature because it changes level instantaneously and has an infinite bandwidth. It doesn't matter if its frequency is 1hz or 10Khz, it still has an infinite bandwidth. Hence, we have always filtered square waves a bit, either in producing them or recording them.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #252
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by john morris View Post
Don't be mistaken sir...These DAC designers are very serious about the silly products they put out. Maybe they laugh themselves stupid when they get home....mmmm... I am sure the company in question has big signs that say, ANYONE CAUGHT LAUGHING AT THE POINTLESS 768 KHZ SAMPLE RATE WILL BE DISMISSED IMMEDIATELY!
Might be useful for directly sampling long wave Am radio signals? Hell, give us a 3200Khz rate and we could do medium wave too!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #253
Gear Guru
Look I believe golden ears exist but most of the guys I work with do not use higher sample rates for anything other than sfx. They make television every day and many have worked in recording studios...... Just to get back on topic and release the hounds!.......

Personally I can hear lossy format compression and CD quality is important, FWIW. Why would you listen to degraded sound?.......
Old 4 weeks ago
  #254
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
Unfortunately those in category 3 sometimes turn into those in category 4: folks who think results in their system and needs apply to results on every system and the requirements of others.
Oh yeah - sure. 4) Shouty people who deploy argument from authority to try to impose their imprecise reality on others in the name of physics - we've a few of those on Gearslutz too!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #255
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
I'm just glad that 48/96/192 is at least somewhat available for people who care, can hear the difference, or have the setup that it makes sense on.

So there's something for everyone.

My release a couple days ago, I offered it to my friends in 24/48 or MP3 320. Just because I know there's a few that don't care, or for some reason don't know how to play a FLAC file.

Bandcamp offers buyers a choice of formats. I have one buyer LOL.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #256
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
I'm just glad that 48/96/192 is at least somewhat available for people who care, can hear the difference, or have the setup that it makes sense on.

So there's something for everyone.

My release a couple days ago, I offered it to my friends in 24/48 or MP3 320. Just because I know there's a few that don't care, or for some reason don't know how to play a FLAC file.

Bandcamp offers buyers a choice of formats. I have one buyer LOL.
Agreed! Also having high quality cables tubes, and transmission choices. Some mastering setups are insane with monitors drilled down into bedrock stands and a real atomic clock.....

OK I'll bite, which format did they buy?!
Old 4 weeks ago
  #257
Lives for gear
 
Space1999's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Lehmann View Post
These threads usually divide people into three discrete groups:

1) Folks who aren't actually listening but sit on the internet all day regurgitating links and graphs about sample rates claiming they are in possession of the word, the truth and the light

2) Folks who can't be bothered to listen and find it easier to just believe the stuff posted by the folks in (1)

3) Folks who are listening critically every day of their professional lives in the studio and who make it their business to make an informed decision about new technological developments based on the changing needs and expectations of their clients
James,

Threads don’t divide people
People divide people

Try and relax and have some fun with it all. None of this is really going to change the color of the sun tomorrow.

I have enjoyed some of your threads. I like you. I hope your professional life isn’t every day of your life.

Be well.

Pat
Old 4 weeks ago
  #258
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
Agreed! Also having high quality cables tubes, and transmission choices. Some mastering setups are insane with monitors drilled down into bedrock stands and a real atomic clock.....

OK I'll bite, which format did they buy?!
My friend is a fellow audio engineer so I assume (hope) that he got the FLAC or wav files. Bandcamp doesn't tell you though, all they tell you is the date of the sale and how much was paid. In this case, $6.66 for 13 songs.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #259
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 

In the endless debate we need to be mindful that digital has improved immeasurably since the beginning. Tape OTOH was a mature technology at the time digital began supplanting it. In all honesty I can't conceive of how tape technology could be improved significantly. But it sounded great in those last late 70's early 80's analogue years. In short it sounded good enough for whatever job it had to do. But in the ever present push to improve audio fidelity digital's march upward more or less began at the same level that tape produced. So there was only one way digital could/can go and that's upward. That said the days of ice pick digital harshness are behind us. Mics, amps and technique have evolved to compensate for digital's unpleasant attributes. The explosion of LDC tube mics and tube preamps are in part a response to tame the aforementioned artifacts.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #260
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson View Post
In the endless debate we need to be mindful that digital has improved immeasurably since the beginning. Tape OTOH was a mature technology at the time digital began supplanting it. In all honesty I can't conceive of how tape technology could be improved significantly. But it sounded great in those last late 70's early 80's analogue years. In short it sounded good enough for whatever job it had to do. But in the ever present push to improve audio fidelity digital's march upward more or less began at the same level that tape produced. So there was only one way digital could/can go and that's upward. That said the days of ice pick digital harshness are behind us. Mics, amps and technique have evolved to compensate for digital's unpleasant attributes. The explosion of LDC tube mics and tube preamps are in part a response to tame the aforementioned artifacts.
I'm starting to wonder if digital audio progress is turning down to a plateu also.

I've just heard so much good sounding stuff in the past 7 or so years, as well as being disappointed with hardly any of the better gear (even some of the bad ones get good results).

Certainly the progress is not on some exponential explosive rise, in terms of audio quality. I think more of the developments will be related to workflow and functionality rather than sound quality.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #261
Lives for gear
 
White Falcon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
In this case, $6.66 for 13 songs.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #262
a little side question
can anyone approximate what processing power difference there is mixing a 48kz project, vs the same that'd be recorded at 44,1?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #263
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownSideUp View Post
a little side question
can anyone approximate what processing power difference there is mixing a 48kz project, vs the same that'd be recorded at 44,1?
This is actually an excellent question. And the more I think about and study this sample rate problem, the more I'm starting to believe it's all about filters(as Bob Olhsson pointed out in his 2006 post on this thread) . At 96KHz there's far more room for anti-aliasing filters to work than at 44.1KHz. At 44.1KHz there's 2KHz(or something like 1/10th of an octive) to work with between the upper limit of the audio range and the Nyquist. At 96KHz, we have 28KHz(or more than a full octave) to work with.

I'm not a DSP expert, but I'm thinking with oversampling employed, which moves the filtration into the digital domain, it would require 10 times the DSP power to do the job at 44.1 than it would at 96. Either that or the latency has to go up by that much to get the same effect.

I know a few things about filters, but again not an expert. And it seems amazingly difficult to get 80dB or more of cut in 1/10 of an octave and not bother anything below 20KHz, ether in amplitude or phase.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #264
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I've literally heard every format and sample rate beat every other which suggests that it is really only about implementation.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #265
Lives for gear
 

Hurray for this thread/topic never dying! lol

Old 2 weeks ago
  #266
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
Hurray for this thread/topic never dying! lol

Kinda spooky, eh?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #267
Gear Addict
 
haysonics's Avatar
 

Nothing spooky about it. John keeps digging up old samplerate debate threads.

I think the solution is to cryogenically freeze the steps and then apply gold plating to them.

You can hear the difference comparing Peter Gabriel's SO vs US. SO has good treble but its missing on US because the steps have worn out.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #268
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownSideUp View Post
a little side question
can anyone approximate what processing power difference there is mixing a 48kz project, vs the same that'd be recorded at 44,1?
I'm even questioning using 48kz. I run out of power quickly. No one on this?

is this even possible to evaluate ? or some roughly tested?
thx
Old 2 weeks ago
  #269
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownSideUp View Post
I'm even questioning using 48kz. I run out of power quickly. No one on this?
I see essentially zero difference of significance as far as processing (CPU) requirements go.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #270
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattiasnyc View Post
I see essentially zero difference of significance as far as processing (CPU) requirements go.
true, I just made a test. I had memory of having horrible cpu issues but it was 88K.
It's seems 48k takes like 10 to 15% more power to the cpu.

88,96k require around 40% more. that's where my old computer gave up !

latence is 18ms at 44,1k
17. at. 48
13. at. 88


so no gain for me there either.

I'll stick to 44,1k or 48k, just like many pros; as Bob said, to sound good: it's all about implementation. as far as processing and latency, not worth it either to go up high.

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
cleantone / Music Computers
20
Peakly / So Much Gear, So Little Time
105
entheon / Music Computers
6
shaggy digital / So Much Gear, So Little Time
40

Forum Jump
Forum Jump