IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

What's the point of higher sampling rates in audio?, Such as 96 and 192kHz.
stranhoROX
post Oct 16 2011, 18:03
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 23
Joined: 8-October 07
Member No.: 47696



Could someone explain to me why there are some recordings with sample rates as high as 192kHz? If most of us hear up to 20kHz, wouldn't 44.1kHz or even 48kHz be enough? Or is there other practical aspects besides boosting maximum frequency in higher sampling rates I am not aware of?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
2Bdecided
post Oct 17 2011, 10:07
Post #2


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5138
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



@benski,

...but if you're simply relying on the high sample rate to keep processing aliases out of the audible band, you need to go into the MHz for some operations. Or do them in a smarter way. I agree that keeping the base Nyquist limit a little higher when you're resampling through each of many different DSPs can help in an objective and measurable sense: it can mitigate some of the effects of careless processing and/or resampling in each DSP module. This can be audible is the processing is bad enough - e.g. really trashy resampling. But is the improvement enough to turn trash into perfection? No.

C.R.Helmrich's response is right IMO - people do it because they can, and they believe it sounds better. Despite an almost total lack of any corroborating evidence. Plus a few people will pay more for a recording at a higher sample rate, for the same reason.

EDIT Examples:
http://www.soundkeeperrecordings.com/purchase.htm
http://www.paulmccartney.com/bandontherun/gbp.html

I guess the question becomes: why wouldn't you do it? If it costs nothing, and sells one more copy, or lets you charge some people more, or gets you bragging rights in some circles, then it's "worth it" - even if the technical benefit is zero.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Oct 17 2011, 10:11
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
benski
post Oct 17 2011, 11:47
Post #3


Winamp Developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 670
Joined: 17-July 05
From: Brooklyn, NY
Member No.: 23375



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 17 2011, 05:07) *
@benski,

...but if you're simply relying on the high sample rate to keep processing aliases out of the audible band, you need to go into the MHz for some operations. Or do them in a smarter way. I agree that keeping the base Nyquist limit a little higher when you're resampling through each of many different DSPs can help in an objective and measurable sense: it can mitigate some of the effects of careless processing and/or resampling in each DSP module. This can be audible is the processing is bad enough - e.g. really trashy resampling. But is the improvement enough to turn trash into perfection? No.
David.


Sure, but for polynomial equations (or polynomial approximations of transcendental functions), the aliasing is predictable. Because multiplying two signals M and N will produce a sideband at M+N, each polynomial order will require an equivalent increase in sampling frequency. Certainly there are other aliasing-reducing techniques such as using an all-pass for fractional delays and minBLEP for waveform generation, but for resonant IIR filters, especially, the higher sample rate can really make a difference (and admittedly most plugins probably upsample/downsample internally)

Note that I'm not at all trying to imply that high sample rate in final, delivered, consumer audio is justified. I'm just pointing out that doing the mixing and production at high sample rate is worthwhile. And if you already have a 192kHz master, why not try to sell it for a few bucks more?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Northpack
post Oct 17 2011, 16:34
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 455
Joined: 16-December 01
Member No.: 664



QUOTE (benski @ Oct 17 2011, 10:47) *
And if you already have a 192kHz master, why not try to sell it for a few bucks more?

Because you don't want to make your money by fooling people?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 18 2011, 11:26
Post #5


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5138
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Northpack @ Oct 17 2011, 16:34) *
QUOTE (benski @ Oct 17 2011, 10:47) *
And if you already have a 192kHz master, why not try to sell it for a few bucks more?

Because you don't want to make your money by fooling people?
It's retailing. It's based on fooling people, and people want to be fooled. They want to believe expensive food tastes better, for example. They want to read about all the reasons it tastes wonderful. The sunshine in the fields. The beautiful maidens who picked each crop by hand. Reading about all those reasons will make the food taste better to them - even though none of those reasons changes the actual taste of the food at all.

The biggest problem IMO is when there's only fooling, and real progress disappears where it might otherwise have been possible and beneficial. Also, where outright lies are told.

I don't mind a free market where several quality levels are offered; I can try them, and pay for the one I find acceptable.

I know certain people will claim that they hear differences I cannot. However, with all these quality levels available, I can set up rigorous ABX testing wink.gif


Anyway, back to reality: if you are making high quality recordings, and some of the people purchasing your high quality recordings want to pay you $10 extra for a 192kHz version, why on earth wouldn't you make one available? As long as it doesn't make the quality worse, and doesn't cost you more than the financial return, it's really not a problem if people want to pay more for no tangible benefit.

I think it should be quite clear to anyone here that it's of no audible benefit what-so-ever, but it may create an excuse (that the accountants will accept) to create better (re-)masters. Which will then be used for the 44.1kHz version that can now be bought for a bargain price. wink.gif Everyone's a winner.

Does this explain why parts of the industry are heading down this route? And those who should speak out, don't? Granted, it could be The Emperor's New Clothes all over again, but I suspect many people know exactly what they're doing.

The downside is that we don't get proper surround. Though some people are still quietly working on that too.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Dirk95100
post Oct 18 2011, 12:33
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 15-October 10
Member No.: 84639



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 18 2011, 12:26) *
Anyway, back to reality: if you are making high quality recordings, and some of the people purchasing your high quality recordings want to pay you $10 extra for a 192kHz version, why on earth wouldn't you make one available? As long as it doesn't make the quality worse, and doesn't cost you more than the financial return, it's really not a problem if people want to pay more for no tangible benefit.

I think it should be quite clear to anyone here that it's of no audible benefit what-so-ever, but it may create an excuse (that the accountants will accept) to create better (re-)masters. Which will then be used for the 44.1kHz version that can now be bought for a bargain price. wink.gif Everyone's a winner.


Not necessaraly so....

A general rule of measurements is that accuracy and measurement time are related. Low measuring times means low accuracy and high accuracy means long measuring times.
So there comes a time that while you think you increase the amount of information (increase sampling rates), you are actualy decreacing the amount of information. Again information theory explains this all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 18 2011, 14:46
Post #7


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5138
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 18 2011, 12:33) *
QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 18 2011, 12:26) *
Anyway, back to reality: if you are making high quality recordings, and some of the people purchasing your high quality recordings want to pay you $10 extra for a 192kHz version, why on earth wouldn't you make one available? As long as it doesn't make the quality worse, and doesn't cost you more than the financial return, it's really not a problem if people want to pay more for no tangible benefit.

I think it should be quite clear to anyone here that it's of no audible benefit what-so-ever, but it may create an excuse (that the accountants will accept) to create better (re-)masters. Which will then be used for the 44.1kHz version that can now be bought for a bargain price. wink.gif Everyone's a winner.


Not necessaraly so....

A general rule of measurements is that accuracy and measurement time are related. Low measuring times means low accuracy and high accuracy means long measuring times.
So there comes a time that while you think you increase the amount of information (increase sampling rates), you are actualy decreacing the amount of information. Again information theory explains this all.
There are two ways to realise this is misleading...

1) It's the RMS noise that typically increases as sampling frequency increases. The dB/Hz noise doesn't. So the noise level within the audio band remains roughly constant as sample rate is increased. When we didn't have enough bits to out-do the real world, the in-band noise fell as the sample rate increased.

2) No ADCs or DACs run at 44.1kHz natively. They run at a higher rate internally. The 96kHz output is no less accurate than the 48kHz output - both are usually derived from the same higher rate version internally. The 96kHz version can't be worse than the 48kHz version.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- stranhoROX   What's the point of higher sampling rates in audio?   Oct 16 2011, 18:03
- - C.R.Helmrich   Good question! My answer: People record with 9...   Oct 16 2011, 18:18
|- - punkrockdude   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Oct 16 2011, 19:18)...   Oct 18 2011, 21:13
- - Brand   Yeah, this has been discussed a lot on HA. But in...   Oct 16 2011, 18:29
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (Brand @ Oct 16 2011, 13:29) Howeve...   Oct 16 2011, 21:32
- - benski   There are some advantages to recording, mixing and...   Oct 16 2011, 20:38
- - Canar   Trivial case where higher-sampling rates can becom...   Oct 16 2011, 21:50
|- - Notat   +1 to saratoga Canar's scenario is applicable...   Oct 16 2011, 22:48
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Notat @ Oct 16 2011, 17:48) There ...   Oct 17 2011, 03:57
- - Juha   Still there are plenty of audiointerfaces which wo...   Oct 17 2011, 04:14
- - 2Bdecided   @benski, ...but if you're simply relying on t...   Oct 17 2011, 10:07
|- - benski   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 17 2011, 05:07) @b...   Oct 17 2011, 11:47
|- - Northpack   QUOTE (benski @ Oct 17 2011, 10:47) And i...   Oct 17 2011, 16:34
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Northpack @ Oct 17 2011, 16:34) QU...   Oct 18 2011, 11:26
||- - Dirk95100   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 18 2011, 12:26) An...   Oct 18 2011, 12:33
|||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 18 2011, 12:33) QU...   Oct 18 2011, 14:46
|||- - Dirk95100   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 18 2011, 15:46) QU...   Oct 19 2011, 05:35
||||- - saratoga   QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 19 2011, 00:35) ht...   Oct 19 2011, 05:51
|||||- - Dirk95100   QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 19 2011, 06:51) QUO...   Oct 19 2011, 08:42
|||||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 19 2011, 09:42) An...   Oct 19 2011, 09:38
||||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 19 2011, 05:35) ht...   Oct 19 2011, 11:01
||||- - Dirk95100   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 19 2011, 12:01) QU...   Oct 19 2011, 12:50
||||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 19 2011, 13:50) Wh...   Oct 19 2011, 13:52
||||- - pdq   QUOTE (Dirk95100 @ Oct 19 2011, 07:50) Wh...   Oct 19 2011, 14:00
|||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 18 2011, 06:46) 1)...   Oct 19 2011, 07:45
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 18 2011, 06:26) Th...   Oct 18 2011, 23:10
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 18 2011, 23:10) QU...   Oct 19 2011, 10:50
|- - dhromed   QUOTE (benski @ Oct 17 2011, 12:47) And i...   Oct 17 2011, 17:05
|- - knutinh   QUOTE (benski @ Oct 17 2011, 12:47) I...   Oct 17 2011, 18:34
|- - Dirk95100   QUOTE (knutinh @ Oct 17 2011, 19:34) QUOT...   Oct 18 2011, 05:06
- - Wombat   QUOTE (dhromed @ Oct 17 2011, 18:05) QUOT...   Oct 17 2011, 18:45
- - HTS   Do microphones have to be good enough to take adva...   Oct 18 2011, 03:45
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (HTS @ Oct 17 2011, 22:45) Otherwis...   Oct 18 2011, 03:47
- - FreaqyFrequency   There are, in fact, at least two omni capsules out...   Oct 18 2011, 04:12
- - hellokeith   Seems like a worthwhile experiment would be to run...   Oct 18 2011, 07:14
- - unekdoud   QUOTE (stranhoROX @ Oct 17 2011, 01:03) C...   Oct 18 2011, 08:01
- - Cavaille   Guys, you all disappoint me. The point of higher s...   Oct 18 2011, 13:34
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Cavaille @ Oct 18 2011, 13:34) Guy...   Oct 18 2011, 14:55
|- - saratoga   QUOTE (Cavaille @ Oct 18 2011, 08:34) Guy...   Oct 18 2011, 17:41
|- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (Cavaille @ Oct 18 2011, 14:34) It ...   Oct 18 2011, 22:42
||- - hellokeith   QUOTE (C.R.Helmrich @ Oct 18 2011, 16:42)...   Oct 19 2011, 05:30
||- - C.R.Helmrich   QUOTE (hellokeith @ Oct 19 2011, 06:30) Q...   Oct 19 2011, 15:50
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Cavaille @ Oct 18 2011, 08:34) Guy...   Oct 18 2011, 23:26
|- - Slipstreem   QUOTE (Cavaille @ Oct 18 2011, 12:34) Thi...   Nov 8 2011, 02:01
- - Wombat   I love the steps forward high resolution movies co...   Oct 18 2011, 19:48
- - [JAZ]   And are you 100% sure that the plugin is samplerat...   Oct 18 2011, 22:09
|- - punkrockdude   QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Oct 18 2011, 23:09...   Nov 1 2011, 16:55
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE ([JAZ] @ Oct 18 2011, 17:09...   Nov 1 2011, 21:44
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 1 2011, 21...   Nov 2 2011, 12:32
||- - benski   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 2 2011, 07:32) A s...   Nov 2 2011, 15:40
|- - HTS   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 1 2011, 15...   Mar 20 2012, 03:35
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (HTS @ Mar 19 2012, 19:35) Aren...   Apr 7 2012, 05:41
|- - knutinh   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Apr 7 2012, 06:41) H...   Apr 9 2012, 12:20
- - Juha   I bet most of these 16/44.1 fanatics rips/ripped t...   Oct 19 2011, 04:33
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Juha @ Oct 18 2011, 23:33) I bet m...   Nov 15 2011, 17:29
|- - mjb2006   QUOTE (krabapple @ Nov 15 2011, 10:29) [2...   Nov 15 2011, 22:12
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (mjb2006 @ Nov 15 2011, 17:12) QUOT...   Nov 15 2011, 22:45
- - greynol   It has little to do with editing. People record a...   Oct 19 2011, 16:34
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 19 2011, 11:34) It h...   Nov 1 2011, 15:08
- - greynol   That's great, Arny, though I don't know th...   Nov 1 2011, 16:48
|- - Arnold B. Krueger   QUOTE (greynol @ Nov 1 2011, 11:48) That...   Nov 1 2011, 21:27
|- - greynol   QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Nov 1 2011, 13...   Nov 1 2011, 22:16
- - 2Bdecided   Yes, I agree. Sorry, that's what I was implyin...   Nov 2 2011, 16:18
- - astroidmist   I don't know if this has been posted or addres...   Nov 7 2011, 07:00
- - Roseval   Nyquist in reverse One should sample at the doubl...   Nov 8 2011, 00:01
- - Wombat   QUOTE (Roseval @ Nov 8 2011, 01:01) One s...   Nov 8 2011, 02:14
- - pappaapa   Question: Shouldn't the rest of the worlds ac...   Nov 8 2011, 15:38
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 15:38) To m...   Nov 8 2011, 18:00
||- - pappaapa   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 8 2011, 18:00) Any...   Nov 9 2011, 00:10
||- - Soap   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 19:10) But ...   Nov 9 2011, 00:48
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 9 2011, 00:10) But ...   Nov 16 2011, 13:38
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 10:38) Ques...   Nov 8 2011, 18:04
- - Wombat   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 16:38) Ques...   Nov 8 2011, 15:55
- - Wombat   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 8 2011, 19:00) Far...   Nov 8 2011, 19:31
- - pappaapa   First: Thanks for your replies! And just to t...   Nov 8 2011, 21:20
|- - drewfx   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 15:20) Firs...   Nov 8 2011, 22:42
||- - pappaapa   QUOTE (drewfx @ Nov 8 2011, 22:42) My und...   Nov 8 2011, 23:50
||- - drewfx   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 17:50) QUOT...   Nov 9 2011, 03:58
|- - Soap   QUOTE (pappaapa @ Nov 8 2011, 16:20) So u...   Nov 8 2011, 23:24
- - Roseval   Having digitized some vinyl I know for sure I won’...   Nov 15 2011, 22:49


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th September 2014 - 20:42