ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine
I recorded some tracks at 192 on down to 44.1 last year and I heard a BIG difference.

Hi BF!

How's the ticker?

Said a prayer for you.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Hi BF!

How's the ticker?

Said a prayer for you.

Thanks, Steve. I don't know if your prayers were a factor, but I am doing fine. Back on my exercise program and rode my bicycle again yesterday. But I am still using "recuperation" as an excuse to avoid real work and stay in my studio instead!

ORIGINAL: bitflipper
This was a study done in Japan by some major audio manufacturer (like Sony or somebody) where an MRI was used to determine whether or not people could actually hear ultrasonic frequencies. Subjects were asked to A/B music with and without ultrasonics and to subjectively rate them. Subjects could NOT tell the difference, and there was no statistical correlation between their subjective ratings and ultrasonic content. However, the presence of ultrasonic components did cause a measurable effect in the MRI. Their conclusion was that we may be able to subliminally detect them, but that detection does not permeate our consciousness at all.

ORIGINAL: mosspa

ORIGINAL: bitflipper
This was a study done in Japan by some major audio manufacturer (like Sony or somebody) where an MRI was used to determine whether or not people could actually hear ultrasonic frequencies. Subjects were asked to A/B music with and without ultrasonics and to subjectively rate them. Subjects could NOT tell the difference, and there was no statistical correlation between their subjective ratings and ultrasonic content. However, the presence of ultrasonic components did cause a measurable effect in the MRI. Their conclusion was that we may be able to subliminally detect them, but that detection does not permeate our consciousness at all.

Actually, bitflipper, I'm surprised you remembered this. However, that isn't exactly how the experiment went down. It was a Japanese study. What was compared was music from LPs and "identical" music from CDs. The actual measuring device was a quantitative EEG (electroencephalograph... recording brain electrical response). Using a frequency analyzer, the experimenters determined that there was significant power in the frequency spectrum from the LPs that extended about 2 octaves from 20K. The CD, of course, produced no energy above 22K. What was interesting about the results, was not that they found that the brain could respond to the inaudable frequencies, but that the response was not immediate. That is, it took a number of minutes for the brain to recognize a difference in the signal and respond to it.

It has been extensively debated in auditory neuroscience circles what this means. One significant question was raised by a group of neuroscientsts (of which I was one). The question we asked was one of perceptual familiarity. In the study (which was conducted in the mid 80s), the subject pool were relatively older (i.e., not students). These people had all "grown up" on listening to music played from LPs. In the test, the LP was compared to CDs for music that they were familiar with (this was to control novelty effect). However, our criticism was in the control of the novelty efect, they were inducing a unique novelty effect, as the main variable (i.e., LP vs CD). There is a lot more than frequency difference that differentiates CDs and LPs. LPs have clicks, pops, and rumble (most people didn't listen to virgin vinyl on an audiophile turntable). The brain could simply have been responding to the absense of this "additional" audible content.

In the mid 90s when I was on sabbitical, i atempted to conduct several experiments that actually possed the familiarity question. By the mid-90s most people of College age had presumably had most of their music listening experiences in the post-CD era. That is, the CD would be the format they were "used" to. Unfortunately, we never came up with a way to test this hypothesis. 192K sampling wasn't very feasible at the time, so there would be no way to preserve the frequency content of an LP while also removing the artifacts of the LP (clicks, pops, rumble, etc). Without being able to remove the audible artifacts, you couldn't do the study correctly, so we passed, and did a study demonstrating that MP3s and CDs did not differ in appreciated quality in a non-A/B test. But, that's another story.

Actual;ly, this study would be really easy to replicate today. Unfortunately I'm retired from science now.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Found this beauty:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm

That link really was a good find. I knew that ultrasonic components in a cymbal were significant, but I never would have guessed they would account for 40%!

You learn something new every day. I thought Gamelon was Godzilla's nemesis. Now I know better.


Edit: just finished reading the whole thing. The author seems to just accept the claim that you can greatly improve the playback of 16/44.1 Redbook CDs by resampling at 24/192. I'd have to be convinced.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

ORIGINAL: SteveD


Hi again John,

Actually, importing a 44.1k file into an 88.2k project would have no ultra-sonics at all. None.

That would be the opposite of the test I posted. You are to record at 88.2k and export to 44.1k to REMOVE the ultra-sonics. Then import that back into the 88.2K project. It will get converted on import to 88.2K but without the ultra-sonics because no AD converter was used to produce this file. You now have one mix with the ultra-sonics and one mix without them in the same 88.2k project. Flip the phase on the imported mix and everything between the two mixes that is identical nulls out assuming you don't change anything... leaving just the ultra-sonics which you say you can hear. The meters show they are there.

Try it. Do you hear anything in the audible range?

OK, I didn't read that post I basically skimmed through it (and I appologize to you AND myself for missing it) because there are soo many in here.. but I had come across a few while skimming that were talking about upsampling and I couldn't see the point. Please correct me if I am wrong but if you record at 44.1 and upsample to 88.2 and work in an 88.2 environment isn't that stupid to put it blunty? I don't see the logic, please point it out to me if I am missing something.

I never claimed I heard anything... I haven't done the test so how could I. Interesting test though. I wouldn't have ever thought of it, I don't think I would have anyway but who knows, I have messed with phase cancelization so I could learn and understand it better in a real world environment. (BTW I am a machinist both manual and CNC programming so I completly understand the theory world and then the practical world and how there are differences). I honestly don't think anyone is claiming to have dog ears, hehe but the time I have spent looking into this stuff I don't think anyone ever claims to be able to actually hear it where they can put a finger on it. It's more they feel affected by it.

Another question here... Is everyone that truly understands this claiming that sampling at 192 as opposed to 44.1 produces no truer waveform reproduction/replication? all other things being equal!! You guys keep refering to it as the only difference is the frequency response. When I hear the difference between the two it don't sound at all like it's just the repsonse. There is more there then that.. I swear it. I do not delude myself, I am very methodical when I ask and try to answer questions to myself.
And please people, I am asking for info on this from someone who knows, who is educated in this area NOT for opinions or from someone who just thinks they know cause they want to agree with other members cause they want to be "in" the "in" crowd. I don't care about that crap I am trying to make music here and trying to help others as best I can.

ORIGINAL: Junski

ORIGINAL: mosspa

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Found this beauty:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm

That link really was a good find. I knew that ultrasonic components in a cymbal were significant, but I never would have guessed they would account for 40%!

...

This is much more convincing study. I will have to find it. Thank's bitflipper. As to the article you linked, the are a lot of questions I'd ask. The author appears to be the kind of individual who would find audio improvement in using a $1500 power cord

Hmm.. you maybe get some lightning by reading the original paper w/ measures (links given in posts #135 & #140).
There were mentioned also that "keys jangling" has 68% of energy left >20kHz (I have checked this w/ a recording made using 24/96 'resolution' ... by the spectral data got from Audition 2 and Sonogram SG-1 (screenshot)) it looks valid statement.

Junski

ORIGINAL: SteveD

And you have speakers that can reproduce the "energy" >20k?

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

Thankyou Steve,
Ok I already understood most of that the way you put it. BUT...

Another question though: So if you own "cheap" converters you would technically gain by tracking at higher samples rates but if you coughed up a wad for real expensive converters it's not going to make enough of a difference to matter in a real world sense to compensate for the added grief of trackin/converting and the work that goes into taking the extra steps. I am sure we all agree there are MANY times when the extra steps taken in ANY process are what separates the novice from the pro.

And since you obviously have a good grasp on this I'd like to ask you blunty. Do you think the converters in the E-mu 1820m (they are supposed to be the same ones that digidesign uses in their protools, the real pro tools for pros) are good ones where I should put my time into other things rather then take the extra work it takes to track higher and SRC?

ORIGINAL: SteveD

I believe what you have stated regarding the converters in the E-mu 1820m is true. Don't know if they are the same converters as the ones used in the highly acclaimed Pro Tools 192 converters (they go up to 192k, but most engineers don't use 'em that way ), but they should be doing a very good job for you... even at 44.1khz.

Hope this helps.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

I was at about excelent demo quality close to broadcast depending on the song and from the sound of my new stuff I should be able to hit some film/tv soon!!! Wish me luck, or pray or whatever it is you do hehe.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine
Hey I clicked on your link... I am interested in your multi-track mastering. Do you take plain audio tracks and then mix them? I have noticed at times I lose alot of zest for a song before I complete it from listening to it over and over again... then there are times I let the mix get away from me.. if you know what I mean. I'd like to hear some work if possible. Don't worry if the musicians suck. I can tell the good mix when I hear it, even if the music blows.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

ORIGINAL: SteveD

I believe what you have stated regarding the converters in the E-mu 1820m is true. Don't know if they are the same converters as the ones used in the highly acclaimed Pro Tools 192 converters (they go up to 192k, but most engineers don't use 'em that way ), but they should be doing a very good job for you... even at 44.1khz.

Hope this helps.

Yea, I talked to E-mu and they said they are the only other company other then pro tools that has the "rights" to use them. $500 and I got em... it was that or take out a loan for the pro tools and give up sonar.. I decided it wasn't worth it and bought some other new stuff. Like NI komplete 4, ANOTHER les paul but a new studio one. It has a newer tone I really wanted. A really nice tube mic from ADK, among a few other things. I hope my recordings start showing a massive improvment. I was at about excelent demo quality close to broadcast depending on the song and from the sound of my new stuff I should be able to hit some film/tv soon!!! Wish me luck, or pray or whatever it is you do hehe.

Hey I clicked on your link... I am interested in your multi-track mastering. Do you take plain audio tracks and then mix them? I have noticed at times I lose alot of zest for a song before I complete it from listening to it over and over again... then there are times I let the mix get away from me.. if you know what I mean. I'd like to hear some work if possible. Don't worry if the musicians suck. I can tell the good mix when I hear it, even if the music blows.