The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
192khz perception idea...
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #151
Lives for gear
 
ARIEL's Avatar
Let me repost the test of Eric Valentines info in a summary . They did the blind test , so visual foolery and obviously had someone else switching between the 2 sample rates .Then comments were made on the 2 blind tests and the result was they had heard a difference .

So all of you knowing this , the test being blind and notes were taken , those fellows heard a difference between the two , and your still saying there is no difference ? or that they heard wrong ? So they would be deluding themselves into believing they could hear a difference with a blind test ?
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #152
Lives for gear
 
chrisdee's Avatar
I find it hard to hear any difference between 192 and 96 on a raw unprocessed file. Adding effects (especially reverb) i hear a noticeable difference. Not huge but clearly noticeable.

The difference between 44 and 96 is noticeable even when listening to the raw audio file.
Note this is for files recorded at each sample rate and not up or down sampled.
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #153
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ARIEL View Post
Let me repost the test of Eric Valentines info in a summary . They did the blind test , so visual foolery and obviously had someone else switching between the 2 sample rates .Then comments were made on the 2 blind tests and the result was they had heard a difference .

So all of you knowing this , the test being blind and notes were taken , those fellows heard a difference between the two , and your still saying there is no difference ? or that they heard wrong ? So they would be deluding themselves into believing they could hear a difference with a blind test ?
No, I believe that they heard a difference. But that could be caused by all kinds of factors, like mentioned before many times, it might be based on the implementation of the audio interface - many interfaces perform optimal at a specific sample rate, which hasn't anything to do with the "additional information" in the supersonic frequency domain. Also the text only says "mixed the tracks in pro tools" - nothing about plugins/effects used, may also be an implementation thing. So it's just not valid to conclude that the better result is based on a higher sample rate. It just states, that this specific system, with the specific interface and software used, performed better at 192k.
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #154
Vogon
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post
This is not entirely true. It's "worse" than that.

We CANNOT distinguish a timbre above HALF of our hearing range! That's EXACTLY half, not a 0.000001 Hz more than exactly half, and it's true for 100% of the population.

If someone can hear up to 18 kHz that means that he can distinguish timbre (sine, saw, square or whatever...) up to 18/2=9 kHz. That's it! Not a tiny bit more than 9 kHz.

Above 9kHz, we can only distinguish volume. Not the color.

IF someone can distinguish different timbre (for example, a distortion) at, say, 17 kHz, that will necessarily mean that he can hear up to 34 kHz. Which is not possible.

So, even if there are some tiny distortions in the 9-20 kHz range, those distortions DON'T MATTER! No body can really hear them and that has been proved again, again and again in numerous blind tests.

If someone says to you "I don't like 44.1 kHz CD quality because of distortion near the top end, caused by hard sloping filter" you can confidently respond "BS!", unless you're talking to a dog or a bat.

Well, consider me "schooled".
I must admit I tested myself a lot at the higher pitches after someone challenged me.
After your post, I was thinking "well, the harmonics would be audible up to 20k (theoretical bandwidth)".
But generally, the first harmonic is often an octave, or I think maybe a 5th for certain waveforms. But the 5th of a 10k tone, though lower than 20k, would still be "right up there" and quiet, probably inaudible to everyone except the under 10s, and then below the threshold of being able to change the character of the sound's fundamental. Obviously the octave partial of a 10k sound will be at 20k - inaudible. So it makes sense.
So this really does bring into question some of the Golden-Ear mythical claims of people hearing tiny phase changes in certain eq's high-spectrums. (Though there ARE perceptable differences I'm convinced they are normally simply non-linearities etc. lower down. This is what someone I know calls "Mis-attributation syndrome".)

I find phase inaudible without summing in the source - as in a LP/HP/BP etc. filter. I have never heard an allpass change phase, once, [except when the cutoff is modulated fast enough as in a univibe so as to cause phase-pitch modulation] and I consider that claim to be "wrong".

BTW, you said: "Above 9kHz, we can only distinguish volume. Not the color."
For clarity, one had better add "pitch" or frequency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chk23 View Post
No, I believe that they heard a difference. ... it might be based on the implementation of the audio interface...It just states, that this specific system, with the specific interface and software used, performed better at 192k.
Bingo.
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #155
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post

If someone says to you "I don't like 44.1 kHz CD quality because of distortion near the top end, caused by hard sloping filter" you can confidently respond "BS!", unless you're talking to a dog or a bat.
I agree with most of what you wrote except this bit in part,I've heard differences in type of filter used, though I think the difference heard is probably more to do with the phase and the impulse response differences, not the change in the frequency response at the very top, as my hearing drops off above 17K.

For example, with R8Brain Pro sample rate converter I prefer the way it sounds with ultra steep mode switched OFF and the difference between linear and minimum phase modes is audible. audible enough for me to have a preference. Came to this conclusion by blind testing myself. I would have expected to of liked ultra steep on the best as that preserves the most highest frequencies so my expectation bias would have been to of had that switched ON, but actually it's increased steepness I found a detriment to the audio in other ways.
So yes, it may well be BS if the reasoning is claimed purely down to freq response. But no. Filter types used isn't just about freq response alone, phase and impulse ripple play their part too.
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #156
Lives for gear
 

I do wish people would stop talking about "distortions" and "artifacts" supposedly caused by anti-aliasing filters.

Normally we talk about distortion and artifacts we mean that something has been added to the signal, some harmonic or enharmonic content that wasn't there before.

Digital filters don't do that (unless specifically engineered to so so to emulate an analogue system), all they do is change phase and level of the components that are already there. And digital filters are what we're talking about when it comes to both the final stages of ADCs, and internal SRC.

An anti-aliasing filter can be imperfect in one or both of two ways.

The first is if it doesn't attenuate enough at and above the Nyquist frequency, in which case you will get aliasing... now this IS distortion, but it is not caused by the filter, the filter is failing to prevent it.

The second is that its response in the audio band deviates enough from flat to be audible, but this isn't distortion in the normally used audio sense, unless you think of adjusting your EQ as distortiing your signal (I'm not talking about EQ levels high enough to drive an analogue system into saturation of course).
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #157
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv View Post
If someone says to you "I don't like 44.1 kHz CD quality because of distortion near the top end, caused by hard sloping filter" you can confidently respond "BS!", unless you're talking to a dog or a bat.
When I say "Bull****" to my dog, he thinks it's a compliment!
Old 3rd April 2013 | Show parent
  #158
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
When I say "Bull****" to my dog, he thinks it's a compliment!
Be thankfull that he doesn't take it as a command...
Old 4th April 2013 | Show parent
  #159
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vogon View Post
BTW, you said: "Above 9kHz, we can only distinguish volume. Not the color."
For clarity, one had better add "pitch" or frequency.
of course! My mistake forgetting pitch.
Old 4th April 2013 | Show parent
  #160
Lives for gear
192 khz was brought out because they could. There's nothing about the specification that improves anything beyond time domain processing. We've had 100 khz+ converters since the 80s sampler behemoths, which were used for anti-aliasing reasons.

That's why it exists. if you've got a singer tracking vox and they want to use melodyne, BY ALL MEANS use 192.

For musical record and playback using instruments, mics, and so on (ie, DAW is nothing more than a fancy tape machine) you will gain little by using higher sample rates, per Nyquist theorem. the rest is the converter design itself outside of the chip. (clock, opamps, etc) At 96k, you'll have more breathing room than you can spare. At 48k, you'll have a nice extension that equals roughly to what the mixer equipment and so on can produce. At 44.1k, you may lose some stuff, but the majority of it is noise.

However, when you bring synths and especially square waves into the equation, you will notice a difference because of the nature of the extended unnatural harmonics in the generated waveforms. If it's analog, then the waveforms will never sound the same twice which invalidates the blind test. You would have to record the synth once, say even 192 khz, then re-record that through the converter again and re-do the blind test.
Old 15th April 2013 | Show parent
  #161
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisdee View Post
I find it hard to hear any difference between 192 and 96 on a raw unprocessed file. Adding effects (especially reverb) i hear a noticeable difference. Not huge but clearly noticeable.

The difference between 44 and 96 is noticeable even when listening to the raw audio file.
Note this is for files recorded at each sample rate and not up or down sampled.
That´s why we put some random content (reverb) into the files. Then you can say there´s an improvement. Sound needs more density if you want to "hear" differences at some level of comparison. Filters, aliasing, ad performing plus the unknown, etc... it sounds better to our ears.
Old 15th April 2013 | Show parent
  #162
Lives for gear
 
Mr. Lau's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
That´s why we put some random content (reverb) into the files. Then you can say there´s an improvement. Sound needs more density if you want to "hear" differences at some level of comparison. Filters, aliasing, ad performing plus the unknown, etc... it sounds better to our ears.
Reverb is not random content, but if it has extended frequency range and or we listen to it through crappy converters, bad antialiasing filters, etc, the artifacts could sound worse, thus eliminating its purpose of smoothing out rough edges of audio
Old 15th April 2013 | Show parent
  #163
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lau View Post
Reverb is not random content, but if it has extended frequency range and or we listen to it through crappy converters, bad antialiasing filters, etc, the artifacts could sound worse, thus eliminating its purpose of smoothing out rough edges of audio
Right. Random content came with hardware synthesis, with some little random behaviours feeding the reverb, as we did. My last post was mistaken, sorry. 192k is not "better" than any SR. Some DA/AD´s performs better at 192k, that´s all.

HEY LAU!. Como vas?.
Old 15th April 2013
  #164
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Sound View Post
To me, it's kind of the law of dimishing returns. There should always be an "improvement" with increased fidelity.
The reality is NOT intuitive.

You can't hear frequencies above 20kHz.

However, frequencies above 20kHz can cause distortion in audio equipment, e.g. power amps and transducers, and part of that distortion can affect the audible band. Yep, I really am saying hi res can result in lower fidelity, in terms of what is audible ... this extra distortion isn't generated by your equipment when using 44/48kHz.

Differences heard between 44/48kHz and higher sampling rates could be due to the distortion issue above and, more straightforwardly, cognitive bias.
Darren

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e 2
Old 15th April 2013 | Show parent
  #165
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by darrenyeats View Post
Differences heard between 44/48kHz and higher sampling rates could be due to the distortion issue above and, more straightforwardly, cognitive bias.
Exacltly, they could be because of distortion. Or intermodulation, or anything. The thing is to decide of what is right for you. If 44.1 k is right for your ideas, go that way!.
Old 15th April 2013
  #166
Gear Head
 

[Post deleted]
Old 15th April 2013 | Show parent
  #167
Lives for gear
 
Mr. Lau's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kan Kaban View Post
Right. Random content came with hardware synthesis, with some little random behaviours feeding the reverb, as we did. My last post was mistaken, sorry. 192k is not "better" than any SR. Some DA/AD´s performs better at 192k, that´s all.

HEY LAU!. Como vas?.
Voy bien, Gino

Now don't change your mind, if you tell people 192K is not better, you won't sell your RME Fireface lol
Old 2nd June 2013 | Show parent
  #168
Here for the gear
 

?????

I set up a demo for a friend and thought i was going to make a point!

I had a mp3 on a iPod to a set of monitors
I split it into a 1990's sound craft board that cost in the $100,000.00 range ( great sound) then patched a super sounding tube pre in, the sound was amazing

Now I am 58 years old he is 22, he is a very good musician and has a studio.
he had no idea what i had hooked up , he chose the mp3 junk over the great tube sound. So I ask him why and he liked it , he said "the other sounds OLD"

the point is maybe it's all subjective
Old 2nd June 2013 | Show parent
  #169
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacsail View Post
I set up a demo for a friend and thought i was going to make a point!

I had a mp3 on a iPod to a set of monitors
I split it into a 1990's sound craft board that cost in the $100,000.00 range ( great sound) then patched a super sounding tube pre in, the sound was amazing

Now I am 58 years old he is 22, he is a very good musician and has a studio.
he had no idea what i had hooked up , he chose the mp3 junk over the great tube sound. So I ask him why and he liked it , he said "the other sounds OLD"

the point is maybe it's all subjective
Are you sure the tube pre wasn't broken ?!?
Old 7th June 2013
  #170
Gear Head
 

I don't really prefer the "tube sound" either. It can help to round off some edges with poorer recordings, but that isn't fidelity per se.
Darren

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e 2
Old 7th June 2013
  #171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmacsail View Post
I set up a demo for a friend and thought i was going to make a point!

I had a mp3 on a iPod to a set of monitors
I split it into a 1990's sound craft board that cost in the $100,000.00 range ( great sound) then patched a super sounding tube pre in, the sound was amazing

Now I am 58 years old he is 22, he is a very good musician and has a studio.
he had no idea what i had hooked up , he chose the mp3 junk over the great tube sound. So I ask him why and he liked it , he said "the other sounds OLD"

the point is maybe it's all subjective
So you played him the "mp3 junk" first clean and then through the tube Pre? So both times the source was "mp3 junk"? What point were you trying to prove exactly?
Old 7th June 2013 | Show parent
  #172
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Famous Yard View Post
So you played him the "mp3 junk" first clean and then through the tube Pre? So both times the source was "mp3 junk"? What point were you trying to prove exactly?

that even an mp3 sounds better with the shortest possible signal path? heh
Old 8th June 2013
  #173
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
The better conversion I get in my listening system, the more deplorable mp3...yet the less difference between 44 and double and triple rate PCM (though DSD still consistently "wins". That said, not specifically in defense of 192khz, but to the above comment about implementation.

It's ALL there IS.

Theory is illusion. It doesn't exist. Implementation IS reality.
Old 8th June 2013 | Show parent
  #174
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
Theory is illusion. It doesn't exist. Implementation IS reality.
Implementation is reality, but perception is often not.
Old 8th June 2013 | Show parent
  #175
Lives for gear
 
Mr. Lau's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Famous Yard View Post
So you played him the "mp3 junk" first clean and then through the tube Pre? So both times the source was "mp3 junk"? What point were you trying to prove exactly?
That you can't polish a mp3 turd?
Old 15th December 2013 | Show parent
  #176
Gear Maniac
 
Kan Kaban's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lau View Post
Voy bien, Gino

Now don't change your mind, if you tell people 192K is not better, you won't sell your RME Fireface lol
Didn´t noticed this post Lau, till now. This FF800 is still on, working as summing mixer! . Saludos hermano.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 63 views: 7204
Avatar for RME Support
RME Support 17th July 2006
replies: 6195 views: 923968
Avatar for augustusarnone
augustusarnone 1 week ago
replies: 295 views: 61364
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 158885
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
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…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump