 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Music techology
Subject: 192 khz
Viewing all 10 messages - View by pages of 10: 1
Original Message 1/10 02-Dec-06 @ 11:35 AM - 192 khz
Ok, this will probably be the least useful thread I have ever started, but anyway...
I have been very happy with the quality of the music I make with plain old 44 Khz. I know a bit about digital signal processing so I can understand the due to the fact that it is very expensive to make a good (analog) low-pass filter for the D2A conversion using a higher sample rate acually makes sense. Lets say, 48 khz WOULD BE a better option if that would be the fs for the "standard" medium, but its not.
I can even understand if a pro studio goes 96 khz (not because I believe in the myth of one can somehow "feel" stuff over 20khz, but because I guess they think if its worth doing then it worth overdoing and they've got the dough for that...)
Now these days I continously see lunatics using 192 khz, and I don't see the point.
I have been very happy with the quality of the music I make with plain old 44 Khz. I know a bit about digital signal processing so I can understand the due to the fact that it is very expensive to make a good (analog) low-pass filter for the D2A conversion using a higher sample rate acually makes sense. Lets say, 48 khz WOULD BE a better option if that would be the fs for the "standard" medium, but its not.
I can even understand if a pro studio goes 96 khz (not because I believe in the myth of one can somehow "feel" stuff over 20khz, but because I guess they think if its worth doing then it worth overdoing and they've got the dough for that...)
Now these days I continously see lunatics using 192 khz, and I don't see the point.
Message 2/10 03-Dec-06 @ 12:56 PM - RE: 192 khz
Actually ,my friend,the sampling rate has nothing to do with the ability of human ear to hear nothing above 20khz!
the samplin rate defines how many samples of a sound are taken from a digital recorder to capture the sound!
This means that a sound 1kHz will have 44.1 samples taken of each of it's waveform as its oscillating at 10,000 waveforms a second. 100Hz will have 441 samples taken of each of its waveforms. But 10kHz will have 4.41 samples taken of each of it's waveforms. Imagine how inaccurate 4.41 samples are of a complex waveform. That is why digital high frequencies sound harsh!! The industry has constantly denied this factor and even gone to the extent of saying the ear can't distinguish between a square wave and a sine wave above 7kHz.
At a sampling rate of 96kHz you get 9.6 samples of a 10kHz wave and some say you can still hear the difference!
In an article by Rupert Neve, I read recently, he said that we should aim for 24bit resolution and 192kHz sampling rate if we want to equal the quality of high quality analogue recording. We will get there. DVD is already up to 24 bit 96kHz sampling so we are on the way. But if your 16bit, 44.1kHz CD sounds bright, consider what makes it bright and you will see that it's a false bright created by the high frequencies sounding like square waves!!
If you want my opinion,i m satisfied with the 44.1khz sampling rate,but i can clearly see why ppl choose to record in higher sampling rates-especially if we are talkin about recording real instruments which go really up in the frequency range!
the samplin rate defines how many samples of a sound are taken from a digital recorder to capture the sound!
This means that a sound 1kHz will have 44.1 samples taken of each of it's waveform as its oscillating at 10,000 waveforms a second. 100Hz will have 441 samples taken of each of its waveforms. But 10kHz will have 4.41 samples taken of each of it's waveforms. Imagine how inaccurate 4.41 samples are of a complex waveform. That is why digital high frequencies sound harsh!! The industry has constantly denied this factor and even gone to the extent of saying the ear can't distinguish between a square wave and a sine wave above 7kHz.
At a sampling rate of 96kHz you get 9.6 samples of a 10kHz wave and some say you can still hear the difference!
In an article by Rupert Neve, I read recently, he said that we should aim for 24bit resolution and 192kHz sampling rate if we want to equal the quality of high quality analogue recording. We will get there. DVD is already up to 24 bit 96kHz sampling so we are on the way. But if your 16bit, 44.1kHz CD sounds bright, consider what makes it bright and you will see that it's a false bright created by the high frequencies sounding like square waves!!
If you want my opinion,i m satisfied with the 44.1khz sampling rate,but i can clearly see why ppl choose to record in higher sampling rates-especially if we are talkin about recording real instruments which go really up in the frequency range!
Message 3/10 03-Dec-06 @ 05:02 PM Edit: 03-Dec-06 | 05:07 PM - RE: 192 khz
Yep, but when you convert back that "staircase" into analog, you apply a lowpass filter with fs/2 as cutoff, and then - if you'd have a perfect infinite steep lowpass filter - you would actually get back the original waveform. This is matematically proven.
Now I can understand that - because you don't have that kinf of lowpass filter in reality - it is worth to go a bit higher with the sampling frequency (so that a less perfect lowpass can do the job), but then 96 khz??? And 1 9 2 ????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
Anyways, using 44 or 48 khz is pretty fine for me too, I just can't stop thinking if this "my fs is bigger than your fs" thing brings any advantage (better internal precision for DSP calculations...??? , FM???) or its just plain stupidity/marketing/ignorance.
Now I can understand that - because you don't have that kinf of lowpass filter in reality - it is worth to go a bit higher with the sampling frequency (so that a less perfect lowpass can do the job), but then 96 khz??? And 1 9 2 ????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem
Anyways, using 44 or 48 khz is pretty fine for me too, I just can't stop thinking if this "my fs is bigger than your fs" thing brings any advantage (better internal precision for DSP calculations...??? , FM???) or its just plain stupidity/marketing/ignorance.
Message 4/10 03-Dec-06 @ 11:14 PM - RE: 192 khz
Wow,thats quite a theory,a very interesting article i must say BUT as i do know my math I had some trouble understanding the equations and thats mainly because they lack some elements and some logical explanation!
Maths are not that mambo jumbo as some ppl think them to be!
Anyway,it is in fact an interesting theory which implies that if you record sounds low pass filtered at lets say 20khz (which is pretty much the human ears frequency response higher limit) then with just a bit more than the double sample frequency rate so lets say our own 44.1khz then the produced sound is identical to the original one!I might say however that the maths on that article didnt quite prove the theory!!!!
But on the subject of whether this is of any importance or not,I ve reasons to believe my friend that all of this "my fs is bigger than yourz" is quite like a childish statement of "i m better than you"
I really find hard to believe that all those ppl who actually record at 192 khz can really spot the difference in the sound-if there is any as the theory itself suggests!
So i guess,i agree with you to the point where you ask if all this is just stupidity/marketing/ignorance and i would add arrogance (if i spell that right-pardon my english)
Maths are not that mambo jumbo as some ppl think them to be!
Anyway,it is in fact an interesting theory which implies that if you record sounds low pass filtered at lets say 20khz (which is pretty much the human ears frequency response higher limit) then with just a bit more than the double sample frequency rate so lets say our own 44.1khz then the produced sound is identical to the original one!I might say however that the maths on that article didnt quite prove the theory!!!!
But on the subject of whether this is of any importance or not,I ve reasons to believe my friend that all of this "my fs is bigger than yourz" is quite like a childish statement of "i m better than you"
I really find hard to believe that all those ppl who actually record at 192 khz can really spot the difference in the sound-if there is any as the theory itself suggests!
So i guess,i agree with you to the point where you ask if all this is just stupidity/marketing/ignorance and i would add arrogance (if i spell that right-pardon my english)
Message 5/10 04-Dec-06 @ 06:13 AM - RE: 192 khz
There is theory ad-nauseum out there regarding the matter of high sample rates. The science will state that anything above 44.1 is unnecessary, and in many cases the science holds true. A/B tests from actual engineers however seems to be about 50/50 regarding the matter. Personally, I don't hear a dramatic enough difference to warrant the horsepower hit on a native audio system. At my studio, we're using PTHD, and getting 80 tracks with a full mix at 24/96 off of a single firewire drive is no issue. At home I wouldn't dream of such a thing. If you're native, go 44.1 and don't lose any sleep over it.
The real difference to me is in the plugins. Plug EQ's sound much sweeter at 96k. And I will say that really large projects with many acoustic source tracks sound more open at 96k. But if your sources are mostly softsynths? I don't think the difference would warrant the DSP hit.
192k? Only freaks and classical guys running max 6 tracks worry about that. MAYBE drop your mix to 192 if you have the means but that's just getting silly, imo.
The real difference to me is in the plugins. Plug EQ's sound much sweeter at 96k. And I will say that really large projects with many acoustic source tracks sound more open at 96k. But if your sources are mostly softsynths? I don't think the difference would warrant the DSP hit.
192k? Only freaks and classical guys running max 6 tracks worry about that. MAYBE drop your mix to 192 if you have the means but that's just getting silly, imo.
Message 6/10 04-Dec-06 @ 06:35 AM - RE: 192 khz
quote
"I had some trouble understanding the equations and thats mainly because they lack some elements and some logical explanation!"
"I had some trouble understanding the equations and thats mainly because they lack some elements and some logical explanation!"
Yeah, thing is I've learnt some DSP theory in college (shit, we have even designed IIR and FIR filters) so I haven't really checked all the math to se if it's all logical, maybe its not...
I've seen a guy on one board who had trouble running 11 stereo channels of 24/192 on his 2.5 GHz pentium and asked for help (10 channels was ok though...) and he insisted on that it really makes a difference. Now I am willing to accept that 96k does make a little difference (even though it is not scientifically proven), because technically it moves all those possible aliasing problems into a much higher frequency range but...
quote
". A/B tests from actual engineers however seems to be about 50/50 regarding the matter. "
yeah, this alone points out how controversial this issue is. ". A/B tests from actual engineers however seems to be about 50/50 regarding the matter. "
Also, in the home-studio environment, I doubt that one can get (for a reasonable amount of money) such high quality converters and analog equipment to utilise any kind of advantage provided by the 192 khz sampling... (probably this guy is recording uncorrelated digital noise over 30 kHz on his emu1212m...)
Anyways, thanks for sharing your views on this.
Message 7/10 04-Dec-06 @ 07:10 AM - RE: 192 khz
quote
Rags .aka. Welder wrote:
I doubt that one can get (for a reasonable amount of money) such high quality converters and analog equipment to utilise any kind of advantage provided by the 192 khz sampling... (probably this guy is recording uncorrelated digital noise over 30 kHz on his emu1212m...)
Anyways, thanks for sharing your views on this.
Rags .aka. Welder wrote:
I doubt that one can get (for a reasonable amount of money) such high quality converters and analog equipment to utilise any kind of advantage provided by the 192 khz sampling... (probably this guy is recording uncorrelated digital noise over 30 kHz on his emu1212m...)
Anyways, thanks for sharing your views on this.
That's the other thing. 96k really only is worth its salt if you pay a bunch of money for your converters. On the low-end stuff, 96k is thrown in "because they can do it". The hardware doesn't really take advantage of the format though. The really expensive converters use a lot of the same digital parts as the "cheap stuff"... there's just a much better analog side of things, which makes even more of a difference than high sample rates. Converters that cost, say, more than $100 a channel may sound better at 44.1 than "cheap" converters at 96k.
as usual it comes down to using your ears.
Message 8/10 05-Dec-06 @ 04:30 PM - RE: 192 khz
I think you've nailed it
Theoretically of course, a higher bandwidth will give a more accurate recording as the waveforms replicate on and on etc blah blah, but who's got the equipment to detect the difference?
Theoretically of course, a higher bandwidth will give a more accurate recording as the waveforms replicate on and on etc blah blah, but who's got the equipment to detect the difference?
Message 9/10 06-Dec-06 @ 05:27 PM Edit: 06-Dec-06 | 05:32 PM - RE: 192 khz
I m more than glad to see there are still people not infected by this "your technology sucks,mine is better" syndrome,
quote:as usual it comes down to using your ears
......couldnt agree more!!!!!
ummmm:excuse me for spammin but could you please check out my question on vst category on z3ta+ synth,I m only doing this cause it seems like nobody ever watches those categories,its got no views since the day i post the damn thing,lol
thanx in advance!!!
quote:as usual it comes down to using your ears
......couldnt agree more!!!!!
ummmm:excuse me for spammin but could you please check out my question on vst category on z3ta+ synth,I m only doing this cause it seems like nobody ever watches those categories,its got no views since the day i post the damn thing,lol
thanx in advance!!!
Message 10/10 07-Dec-06 @ 02:17 AM - RE: 192 khz
pict
Posts: 1005
Link?: No link
File?: No file
People are already nostalgic for gritty 12 bit digital there are even plugins to emulate reduced bit rate harshness .The outer limits of hi fidelity will always be the domain of the wealthy the rest of us will probably lumber around in the sonic sludge of the latest free codec..
Viewing all 10 messages - View by pages of 10: 1
There are 10 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
