ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Don, I think everyone is overthinking this issue.

The reason for that is modern converters are oversampled, meaning we're actually sampling at much higher frequencies than 44.1 or 48 or even 192. It's more like 5.6MHz! That relaxes the filter requirements such that its knee is WAY beyond audible frequencies. It's only AFTER that step that we decimate down to 44.1/48/88.2/96/192 by basically tossing out all the extraneous samples. At this point we have a DIGITAL signal that can be DIGITALLY band-limited to 20KHz without artifacts.

If you can hear a difference, it's due to inadequacies of your hardware. There should be no difference. To insist that there is a difference is to argue against Nyquist himself, whose theorem unequivocally states that any audible wave can be accurately reproduced -- not approximated, but accurately reproduced -- as long as the sample rate is slightly higher than double the highest frequency you need to record.

Well now I'm slighty confused (actually quite a bit) but from this last bit of insight.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the example earlier about cymbals make reference to
it sound "40%" relys on contributions of frequencies up 102kz ?

Or an I just confusing the relationship between ferequencies and Sample Rates?

This is Great information for such a simple mind such as mine. But keep in mind I'm recording this info in my brain at 8 bit 11k :-)

Hear's a Thread that can assist in the "102kz" arena...

-D

Well now I'm slighty confused (actually quite a bit) but from this last bit of insight.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the example earlier about cymbals make reference to
it sound "40%" relys on contributions of frequencies up 102kz ?

Or an I just confusing the relationship between ferequencies and Sample Rates?

This is Great information for such a simple mind such as mine. But keep in mind I'm recording this info in my brain at 8 bit 11k :-)

Funny how that works, every time you dig into something new you go through five distinct phases:
1. Total confusion
2. Hit-and-miss comprehension
3. Cocky confidence
4. Lucid breakthrough
5. Total confusion

At phase 4 you have learned enough to fully grasp the depths of your own ignorance. Only then do you qualify as an expert, when you accept that you will never quite understand it all.

Of course, that doesn't stop all of us 2's and 3's from spouting our opinions!

Of course, that doesn't stop all of us 2's and 3's from spouting our opinions!

lol I know. What you say does make sense bitflipper. Actually, let me recap to confirm I did understand everything. Basically, when you record with good low jitter converters what you sample during the A/D process is way beyond the capabilities of the converters themselves (more acurately, 5.6MHz). Then, sometime before DAC the converters toss away those inaudible frequencies depending on the sampling rate you chose (i.e at 44.1 KHz the filters will cut off at ~22 KHz). So you're really capturing all those harmonics that resonate at higher frequencies and interact with lower pitched sounds even though you end up with a lower cut off point of ~22 KHz. If this is true then indeed there would be no audible difference or benefit in recording at higher sampling rates unless you plan to deliver to a higher sampling medium like DVD-A or SACD for example. Am I correct or am I way off here? Thanks!

Yeh, that's the gist of it, Jose. You've distilled the whole mess into the one main point: "there would be no audible difference or benefit in recording at higher sampling rates".

ORIGINAL: juicerocks

...

But my point being would I benefit recording my acoustic stuff at 88. nor 96 and the rest at 44.1?
Or should I recordd the acoustic at higher rates first and convert it by itself and then reimpliment it back into the tracks?

...

IMO, A/D converter or samplerate (native vs duplicated) are not playing as big role as your other equipment in that chain. Even long enough, reeled (is this the right form?) instrument cable maybe produces more sonic difference than what doubling samplerate or using different A/D converters (if not taken from both ends of quality line) ... least this is the case with speaker cables because of "coil effect" which reeling the cable brings with.


Junski

OK I think I have reached Phase 2.

Well if 5.6 Mhz is the actual converting process. Why even have selectable sample rates if everything get's knocked off at 22k on finalization.

I want so bad to reach phase 3. :-)

ORIGINAL: juicerocks

OK I think I have reached Phase 2.

Well if 5.6 Mhz is the actual converting process. Why even have selectable sample rates if everything get's knocked off at 22k on finalization.

I want so bad to reach phase 3. :-)

Because of various standards ... CD Audio (16/44.1) - DVD-Audio (up to 24/192). I suppose the next standard is 32f-bit/384kHz or something ?


Junski

Yeh, that's the gist of it, Jose. You've distilled the whole mess into the one main point: "there would be no audible difference or benefit in recording at higher sampling rates".

Thanks for confirming. I now feel like I have partial understanding on the subject.

Why even have selectable sample rates if everything get's knocked off at 22k on finalization.

I hope you don't assume this with all sampling rates. The higher the sampling rate the higher the cut off point of the converter's filters (about half of the sampling rate).

Because of various standards ... CD Audio (16/44.1) - DVD-Audio (up to 24/192).

Junski

Now, this is what confuses me. Why have a higher quality format if there is indeed no audible difference?

Now, this is what confuses me. Why have a higher quality format if there is indeed no audible difference?

That is an excellent question!

I wish I had an answer.

Although I can objectively make the case that there is no difference, DVD audio often does sound better to me. I remember the first time I watched a DVD movie on a nice home theater setup - it was the movie Twister, which won an Oscar for sound effects. I went out and bought my first DVD player the next day, mainly for the sound.

So why does it sound better? Don't know. In fact, quite often it does NOT sound better, but I think that's due to a lack of audio standards for DVD (compared to theater presentations). When it sounds "better" is it an illusion, maybe due to hyped frequency response and/or high compression ratios? Don't know.

As for SACD, I think that's pure marketing hype. But that doesn't explain why higher sample rates are even used on DVDs, a practice that limits the number of audio channels you can include on the disk.