John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:06:29
(permalink)
wintaper
Frequencies above the audible range affect frequencies we can hear. The problem of missing overtones in high frequency content like cymbals caused a lot of the "harshness" associated with early A/D converters (due to poor low-pass filters before the conversion process). Modern over-sampling has pretty much solved this problem - as pointed out in an earlier post. But those frequencies do matter.
Thats one explanation but not the right one. The harness if it was there, and I am not sure it was, could be due to any number of other things including poor pre amps. Don't forget that when digital audio was in its infancy high quality analog was also very expensive. Add the cost of the digital converters plus all the needed other things needed to have a digital audio stream and it is highly likely that the analog end was neglected. But I suspect that you hit it inadvertently by talking about the filters; but not understanding that filter technology was not anywhere near what it is today. That alone could be the reason that some early devices did not sound as good as we have today. There is more to it then any one component being poor or inadequate. Cost played a big part in what could be had at that time.
|
AudioDef
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 96
- Joined: 2005/06/12 10:43:12
- Location: Maryland
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:07:51
(permalink)
Well, I think I'd rather sound good than be right, so whatever works is right! 
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:08:28
(permalink)
wintaper
I fully understand digital audio and nyquist. You're missing my point - no one is arguing the math (well not me anyway) . There's is a lot more to digital audio than just nyquist.
a higher sample rate (and bit depth) can produce a more accurate waveform - by reducing the margin of error. Whether this is audible - or worth it - is a completely different matter.
Lets use a digital photocopier as an analogy. A copy made at 16.7 million colors will be more precise than one made at 65,535 colors which in turn is more precise than one made at 16 colors. (this is really more related to bit depth, but the concept of 'more data' remains)
Obviously in both cases we reach a point of diminishing returns, but the theory is solid.
Actually I agree with your analogy here, but you missed the most important point: if the picture you're copying only has 16 colors (i.e. all its frequencies are below Nyquist), the extra colors in the more "precise" photocopier add nothing of value. drewfx
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:12:04
(permalink)
I DO believe frequencies outside the audible range affect what we hear, so it would be nice to sample at a high enough frequency to capture this. That being said - at the moment I do not hear a large enough difference to balance the negative aspects of 96kHz - for MY studio. This is a straw dog and is brought up when all the other issues have been addressed. There is no way to prove this or demonstrate it. Many high quality amps and pre amps have filters at 20 kHz to prevent them from having to power inaudible audio or send it to speaker transducers so they don't burn out for no good reason. This is a non argument and has no impact on the issues at hand.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:12:44
(permalink)
wintaper
Frequencies above the audible range affect frequencies we can hear. The problem of missing overtones in high frequency content like cymbals caused a lot of the "harshness" associated with early A/D converters (due to poor low-pass filters before the conversion process). Modern over-sampling has pretty much solved this problem - as pointed out in an earlier post. But those frequencies do matter.
It is the other way round. It wasn't lack of overtones. It was that those overtones were not filtered out and aliased back down into the audible frequency range. That sounds horrible because they are inharmonic and are not any more directly related to the original sound. They are not overtones any more. UnderTow
|
wintaper
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 464
- Joined: 2007/12/11 22:52:07
- Location: New Jersey
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:19:09
(permalink)
if there was a way to disprove it - would be gone.
Anyways, starting tomorrow, anyone I see recording at 96kHz or higher I will send a link to this thread. Because based on what I read here - they're wasting their time. And surely everyone here knows better than those silly professionals out there. I don't know how everyone could be so wrong, but I'm feeling mighty enlightened now. To quote Jose ... Thank You!
-Dan
Intel i7 @ 3.60GHz, 12GB DDR3 1600MHz, Win7 / OSX 10.6.6, Sonar 8.53 / Pro Tools 9.0.1, RME RayDAT, UAD2-Quad, Focusrite OctoPre (x4), Euphonix MC Mix, Tascam US2400, Monette Ajna (x2), 15' Macbook Pro
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 17:43:13
(permalink)
MatsonMusicBox
well - now you are into the argument that I acknowledged has a lot of controversy around it. `
Not really. See my previous post.
Many reasonable people say this is nuts - Many reasonable people agree with you. I have not made up my mind on it personally.
If you are referring to the argument of some that ultra-sonics can affect the audible range (and not the aliasing issue that caused problems in older ADCs) then that is also a mute argument. Ultra-sonics can only interfere with audible frequencies due to non-linearity. One example could be non-linearity in air. There is even speaker technology that uses this property to position sound at specific spots. The important thing to realise is that air is only non-linear at very high SPL. The speaker technology for instance uses drivers that produce ultra-sonic signals at 160 dB SPL and above. When we record music we are not recording sounds at levels that would cause non-linear behaviour in air. It is again one of those arguments presented by people that are not (yet) aware of all the aspects governing sound. As we are at it we might as well deal with the other argument that gets presented: Timing accuracy (or phase accuracy) or sometimes more specifically inter-channel time accuracy. This is another fallacious argument: The argument goes that we are sensitive to sound arrival time differences between the ears of 5 microseconds. As 44.1 Khz only has a sample every 22.7 microseconds (1/44100th of a second), it is not sufficient to fully cater for our ability to decode spacial cues. This again comes from a misunderstanding of how sampling works. The actual timing (or phase) accuracy is also dependant of the bit depth of the sampling. The timing resolution is 1/(44100 * 2^16 * 2 * pi) of a second. That is in the pico second range. UnderTow
|
j boy
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2729
- Joined: 2005/03/24 19:46:28
- Location: Sunny Southern California
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:01:20
(permalink)
bitflipper
The more information I collect in a given time period, the more information I will have to re-create the original, therefore (in general terms) the higher the accuracy. This is as true for 48K vs 96K as it was for 33rpm vs 45rpm, 7ips vs 15ips, 24fps vs 72fps.
This misconception is at the very heart of many, many digital audio misconceptions and myths. You can't "get" how sampling works until you manage to get past this erroneous mental model. And that's not easy, because the "more dots" analogy seems to make so much intuitive sense.
Dave, wouldn't you say it's easier to conceptualize digital music if one has a basic understanding of how radio works. Pulse code modulation - amplitude modulation -frequency modulation... correlary concepts.
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:01:53
(permalink)
wintaper
if there was a way to disprove it - would be gone.
Anyways, starting tomorrow, anyone I see recording at 96kHz or higher I will send a link to this thread. Because based on what I read here - they're wasting their time. And surely everyone here knows better than those silly professionals out there. I don't know how everyone could be so wrong, but I'm feeling mighty enlightened now. To quote Jose ... Thank You!
-Dan
There are valid reasons to record at higher sampling rates and some have been mentioned in this thread. I am just trying to address some of the misconceptions about sampling. Here are some reasons I can think of off the top of my head to work at higher sampling rates: - Some (cheaper or older) converters sound better at higher rates. - Reduced aliasing in non-linear digital processing. (Dynamics, distortion, saturation, clipping etc) - Reduced latency with the same audio buffer size. (At a CPU increase cost) - Impress the chicks. UnderTow
|
Jonbouy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 22562
- Joined: 2008/04/14 13:47:39
- Location: England's Sunshine South Coast
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:08:48
(permalink)
I dunno what is funniest, somebody saying theirs goes to 11 or the 10 pages of explanation of why it can't...  My favourite part in the whole thing is when Freddy got asked what sound-card he used back on Page 1 and he instead circumnavigated a straight answer and quoted straight from the E-Mu sales copy to answer the A/D converters part of the question. the same A/D converters used in Digidesign's flagship Pro Tools HD 192 I/O interface Not that there is anything wrong with an E-Mu card but it was the seeming reluctance to divulge here the 'Soundblaster' brand that caused the most mirth... There's no place like the Sonar forum fer sure. My life would sure be dull without it. Sadly, whatever gets the most funky chicks on the dance floor is the only thing of validity I can think of bringing to the debate.
post edited by Jonbouy - 2009/11/05 18:18:31
"We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to console ourselves" - Banksy
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:20:25
(permalink)
Jonbouy
My favourite part in the whole thing is when Freddy got asked what sound-card he used back on Page 1 and he instead circumnavigated a straight answer and quoted straight from the E-Mu sales copy to answer the A/D converters part of the question.
the same A/D converters used in Digidesign's flagship Pro Tools HD 192 I/O interface
Not that there is anything wrong with an E-Mu card but it was the seeming reluctance to divulge here the 'Soundblaster' brand that caused the most mirth...
Not to mention that that marketing is misleading. They are not the same converters. They just use the same chips. (As do many other converters). For converters to sound good the designers need to do more than just pick the right chip. They also need good clocks, good power supplies, good analogue stages, good circuit design, good shielding etc. Also, the Digidesign converters are not considered high-end... UnderTow
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:28:38
(permalink)
Jonbouy
I dunno what is funniest, somebody saying theirs goes to 11 or the 10 pages of explanation of why it can't...
For me, and I think some others, the problems started not when someone said: "I hear a difference when I use 96kHz." It's when someone said: "96kHz sounds better because..." and followed it with explanations that can be proven to be factually wrong. Unfortunately, we often lose the distinction between the (sometimes narrow) technical arguments, and the broader questions about whether or not 96kHz has any merit in general. drewfx
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:42:41
(permalink)
I would absolutely be able to tell difference between a square wave and a sine wave. Anyone who actually studied digital music in conservatory would.
The square wave would have additional overtones - the first coming at 1 octave above (20Khz) the second a fitfh above, then another octave (40kHz) above that. So your 10kHz square wave sounds quite different than a 10kHz sine wave.
Nyquist deals only with frequency response. Frequency is an expression of the length of a given wave cycle over time...It says nothing about harmonic distortion (the shape of the wave) which is just as big of an issue.
If I record a sine wave at 10kHz and it plays back sounding like a square wave - thats just a big of a problem. Or worse - a sawtooth wave that plays back like a sine wave - with all of its upper harmonics stripped away. Its still a 10kHz tone - so by nyquist standards it is a perfect representation - but it doesn't sound right. Higher sampling rates can reduce harmonic distortion.
Frequencies above the audible range affect frequencies we can hear
Not everything you read on the internet is true, we all accept that. I have inadvertently contributed one or two untruths myself over the years. And I'm not even counting all the mere opinions passed off as absolute truth. So I am usually reluctant to throw stones. But Dan, you deserve some kind of award for the most inaccuracies posted in a single thread! The reason I posed the 10kHz sine versus square wave question is this: you cannot hear the difference. Nobody can. As you know, a square wave consists of a fundamental frequency plus an infinite number of odd harmonics. That means the first overtone in a 10KHz square wave is 30KHz (not 20KHz, although that would be true for a sawtooth wave). The next significant frequency would be the 5th harmonic at 50KHz. In short, none of the frequencies that make a 10KHz square wave square are audible. Even if you used a laboratory signal generator that could actually generate a real 10KHz square wave and played it back through a sound system that included ultrasonic transducers capable of very high frequencies (and no digital technology at all), you still couldn't distinguish a 10KHz sine wave from a 10KHz square wave! Nyquist does indeed deal with frequency response, as you said. But to suggest that this has nothing to do with wave shape is incorrect. It is the constituent frequencies that determine a wave's shape. You can demonstrate this yourself with a recorded square wave and an equalizer - start rolling highs off and watch the wave change shape. Start with a square wave (try it with something lower than 10KHz, though) and add a low-pass filter whose knee is about twice the fundamental frequency. Bounce it and see what you get.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
bysbox1
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 53
- Joined: 2006/06/03 11:42:51
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 18:59:14
(permalink)
Ah yes . . . It's the dreaded Sample Rate discussion that comes up here every 2 months. I am not going to get into quoting a lot of heavy details from Dan Lavry or Bob Katz, or searching the net for a lot of details about sample rates. The bottom line is your ear. The few live projects I have done I do not hear a difference in the live recordings. But where I do hear a difference (at least in my studio) is in software synths. Software Synths sound a LOT better at the higher sample rates. The Arturia stuff sounds like night and day running at 96K then at 48K. U-he and Sylenth sound much better as well. It may be the soundcard, it could be programming, it could be how the algorithims used for antialias or how they upsample. But almost all Soft Synths sound better at a higher sample rate. If I was recording live stuff most of the time then this discussion would be moot. I would use 44.1 or 48 and not look back. But I do a lot almost all IDM/Electronica, and when it comes to mixing with soft synths in the box. They simply sound better. I have used 96K for the past year and a half. The CPU and hard drive hit has been minimal, and for my ears, I definitely hear it in the final product.
post edited by bysbox1 - 2009/11/05 19:00:54
Byron Thomas X-1/Velocity/Curve Recordings Altitude Studios
www.altitudegrooves.com
2 Computers, 2 Intel Core2Quads, 8 UAD Cards . . . What more can one ask for?
|
Tom F
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2749
- Joined: 2007/07/08 05:56:12
- Location: Vienna (the one in Europe)
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 19:50:02
(permalink)
bysbox1
Ah yes . . . It's the dreaded Sample Rate discussion that comes up here every 2 months.
I am not going to get into quoting a lot of heavy details from Dan Lavry or Bob Katz, or searching the net for a lot of details about sample rates. The bottom line is your ear.
The few live projects I have done I do not hear a difference in the live recordings. But where I do hear a difference (at least in my studio) is in software synths. Software Synths sound a LOT better at the higher sample rates. The Arturia stuff sounds like night and day running at 96K then at 48K. U-he and Sylenth sound much better as well. It may be the soundcard, it could be programming, it could be how the algorithims used for antialias or how they upsample. But almost all Soft Synths sound better at a higher sample rate.
If I was recording live stuff most of the time then this discussion would be moot. I would use 44.1 or 48 and not look back. But I do a lot almost all IDM/Electronica, and when it comes to mixing with soft synths in the box. They simply sound better. I have used 96K for the past year and a half. The CPU and hard drive hit has been minimal, and for my ears, I definitely hear it in the final product.
if you had read the stuff posted before ( ok its quite siome posts ;-) ) , you would have seen that actually no one (i guess) doubts the vsti thing - but its a different story ;-)
...trying to be polite... quick temper...trying to be...
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 20:19:04
(permalink)
bitflipper
If I played you a 10KHz sine wave followed by a 10KHz square wave, would you be able to tell me which was which? If so, why? How do they differ?
I believe I could hear the difference because the 10kHz portion of the square wave would have a lower amplitude than the (otherwise identical) sine wave. Now what do I win?  drewfx
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 20:37:54
(permalink)
drewfx1
bitflipper
If I played you a 10KHz sine wave followed by a 10KHz square wave, would you be able to tell me which was which? If so, why? How do they differ?
I believe I could hear the difference because the 10kHz portion of the square wave would have a lower amplitude than the (otherwise identical) sine wave.
Now what do I win?
drewfx
You don't win anything because UnderTow had already made that distinction already :-)
Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz 8 GB of RAM @ 800 Mhz ATI Radeon HD 3650 Windows 7 Professional (SP1) x64 Cubase 6.03 x64 Sonar PE 8.5.3 x64 RME FireFace 400 Frontier Design Alpha Track Studio Logic VMK-188 Plus http://www.youtube.com/user/SonarHD
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 20:56:05
(permalink)
I believe I could hear the difference because the 10kHz portion of the square wave would have a lower amplitude than the (otherwise identical) sine wave. Sorry, no teddy bear. You see, I would have followed proper A/B testing procedure and made sure that the final RMS value of each test tone was equal.
post edited by bitflipper - 2009/11/05 20:59:29
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
drewfx1
Max Output Level: -9.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6585
- Joined: 2008/08/04 16:19:11
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 21:17:37
(permalink)
bitflipper
I believe I could hear the difference because the 10kHz portion of the square wave would have a lower amplitude than the (otherwise identical) sine wave.
Sorry, no teddy bear. You see, I would have followed proper A/B testing procedure and made sure that the final RMS value of each test tone was equal.
Ah, but what if your RMS meter goes to 30kHz? I see a teddy bear in my future!!!
|
yorolpal
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13829
- Joined: 2003/11/20 11:50:37
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 21:19:48
(permalink)
More like a "Freddie" bear.
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 21:58:20
(permalink)
I should say that Wintaper and DrewFX both have conducted themselves with grace here. That goes a long way in my book.
|
Sound Advice
Max Output Level: -87 dBFS
- Total Posts : 178
- Joined: 2009/03/03 20:28:08
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 22:14:56
(permalink)
don't you needorse samplerate at some point in the music creation process, and doesn't that cause either pink noise from dithering, or distortion?
i'm not sure i understand whhy you'd work in a higher bit rate or sample rate then your final product will be unless it's like for working with digital images, where you never lose anything from downgrading the the resolution.
i'm still a hardcore newb so forgive me if i'm missing something, but i think i read something like that.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 23:24:40
(permalink)
Sample rate conversions can cause distortion, which is one traditional argument for recording at the same rate as your final product, so that SRC can be avoided. However, SONAR's SRC is very good, and I wouldn't be concerned about having to convert to 44.1 from 48 or 96. The only real objection to higher sample rates is the strain on computer resources.
All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
yorolpal
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13829
- Joined: 2003/11/20 11:50:37
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/05 23:48:58
(permalink)
Say goodnight Grace...er...Gracie. Sleep tight...don't let the bedbugs bite.
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/06 03:31:25
(permalink)
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/06 03:50:07
(permalink)
wintaper
For starters, Nyquist deals only with frequency response. Frequency is an expression of the length of a given wave cycle over time.
It says nothing about harmonic distortion (the shape of the wave) which is just as big of an issue. If I record a sine wave at 10kHz and it plays back sounding like a square wave -
Exactly! That is what I was trying to say here: ************************************************ I think some of you are on wrong track here! =)
Nyquist frequency, theory has never state that 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz sounds better then 98 kHz or 192 kHz. It doesn't say that. A Correct curve doesn't always mean = it sounds great or better? [link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_frequency%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E]http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ncy%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E[/link]
What do Freddie mean by that? I will explain and you all will understand that WE all are actually right! We can all agree that Nyquist frequency, theory is 100% right. It is, we don't need to argue about that. That mean that in = 48.kHz the sinus curve is 100% accurate for its sampling frequency of 48 kHz. In 96 kHz it isn't 100% right anymore, let just say its just 98% right (just to add some numbers in this example). This is because of the overall high clock speed of the 96 kHz frequency /seconds is so high. This gives you more “data”/ “space” = still more data can be capture then 44.1 kHz even if all its data can be filled up to a level of 100 %. This is because only over the overall high clock speed of the 96 kHz frequency /seconds is high not that it don't capture all data correctly. Still all data that are captures in 96 kHz is 100% correct even if there are more room to capture even more data. This is what we call sampling frequency “quality” of a sound! That means = the lower sampling frequency get, then 48kHZ de better accurate the curve will be performed of its sampling frequency. Did you all follow me? Lower = Better or same result as 44.1 kHz =100 % accurate for its sampling frequency. So in a sampling frequency of---> 22kHZ the curve waveform is 100 % accurate for its sampling frequency too. Same with--> 11 kHz, 100% accurate for it own sampling frequency. Does it mean that it sound good or better then 98kHz because it accurate: Answer NO! 
Do you all see now? 48 kHz or higher you get more---> “headroom” more “data” will exist that you can capture data in = better “quality” of sampling. It can't fill it up all headroom data bits to--> 100 %, = “100 % correct” that you all have been arguing about, but still all data that has been capture is still more then 44.1 kHz and 100 % correct of its sampling frequency, and that is what Nyquist frequency theory is all about. Even Nyquist frequency theory means and also in “real life” and theoretically: Higher frequency /seconds = Better quality of sampling = de better it will sound even if its not fill up all data in higher sampling frequency. In fact, a sinus audio curve in 48 kHz “sounds” exactly the same as in 96 kHz. Same exact data = same sound! Also Cambridge University say this in there article. http://books.google.com/books?id=L9ENNEPbZ8IC&pg=PA24&dq=intitle:digital+intitle:signal+intitle:processing+bandwidth+nyquist-frequency&lr=&as_brr=0&ei=8MmWR8DJF6CQtwOu4_znBA&sig=JFC3km12VpmWY6RyusmB594ZTQQ#v=onepage&q=intitle%3Adigital%20intitle%3Asignal%20intitle%3Aprocessing%20bandwidth%20nyquist-frequency&f=false Music and sounds in real life is not simple sinus curves like Nyquist frequency theory. That means that higher sampling frequency benefits and still capture more data then lower sampling frequency. Conclusions: Even Nyquist frequency theory means: Higher sampling frequency /seconds = Better quality of sampling = de better it will sound Can I please get my Nobel Prize now? Best Regards Freddie
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/06 04:04:06
(permalink)
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/06 04:13:30
(permalink)
Dude
If it does, then your hardware isn't doing what it should. But if you're stuck with that hardware, then by all means use the settings that give you the best sound.
Yes ... again to keep this on topic. It is possible that Freddie is hearing an improvement, due to HIS hardware. Even the lavry article points out that different converters are optimized for different sample rates. So in Freddie's case, his converters might be adding less distortion at 96k.
Dude
Perhaps who knows? I will perform a blind test today in the studio 96 kHz VS 48 kHz. see what I make out of it. I know already that 44.1 kHz suck big time.. VS 48 kHz so no need to try out that. I'm think that I will not here the different so much in CLEAN "Audio-file", but I will hear the different playing on Software's that I use like, Omnisphere, Stylus RMX. Actually that's is what I hear the performance difference right now. Also I notice that Reverbs, Delay and so on fit much better in the mix in 96 kHz compare to 48 kHz. Regards Freddie
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
Freddie H
Max Output Level: -39 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3617
- Joined: 2007/09/21 06:07:40
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/06 04:30:36
(permalink)
-Highly developed spirits often encounter resistance from mediocre minds. -It really matters!
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
Re:96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size ROCK!! I will never switch back!!!
2009/11/06 04:31:06
(permalink)
bitflipper
As you know, a square wave consists of a fundamental frequency plus an infinite number of odd harmonics. That means the first overtone in a 10KHz square wave is 30KHz (not 20KHz, although that would be true for a sawtooth wave). The next significant frequency would be the 5th harmonic at 50KHz.
Oops. You are right, Odd harmonics. UnderTow
|