Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 67

Thread: Sampling Rates

  1. #1
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    Sampling Rates

    How big of a difference does sampling rate make on a digital recording?
    I just got a few DVD-A's, and unfortunately I'm stuck listening to them in DD/DTS, which isn't altogether bad, but doesn't push the DVD-A format to its limit.
    Is the sampling rate the biggest advantage DVD-A has over CD audio?

  2. #2
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    How big of a difference does sampling rate make on a digital recording?
    I just got a few DVD-A's, and unfortunately I'm stuck listening to them in DD/DTS, which isn't altogether bad, but doesn't push the DVD-A format to its limit.
    Is the sampling rate the biggest advantage DVD-A has over CD audio?

    Sampling rate is way over hyped for the consumer market. CD is already well above most everyones hearing range. Can you hear 20kHz sound? Is there sufficient amount of 20kHz in music to begin with at a high enough level to be audible, well over 100dB threshold minimums?

    Don't worry about it. Later, when you need to upgrade the player, get one that is universal.
    mtrycrafts

  3. #3
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Sampling rate is way over hyped for the consumer market. CD is already well above most everyones hearing range. Can you hear 20kHz sound? Is there sufficient amount of 20kHz in music to begin with at a high enough level to be audible, well over 100dB threshold minimums?

    Don't worry about it. Later, when you need to upgrade the player, get one that is universal.
    Mtry,

    I fully understand you skeptisicm with regards to sampling rates, but it is unfounded. The sample rate defines the Nyquist frequency, or upper limit of the recording or playback of the digital audio. While the upper limit of the human hearing is 20khz(most cannot hear this high) you need a sample rate that goes beyond that frequency limit. With the current redbook sample rate of 44.1khz, the Nyquist frequency would be 22,050khz. In order to enforce that upper limit(and keep noise out of the digital system) steep brickwall filters are employed. These brickwall filters have audible effects such as time smearing that can be heard well within the range of human hearing(most time they they cause strings, cymbals and upper brass to sound harsh) If you were to measure the frequency response of a crash of cymbals, or the overtones of some string and brass instruments, you would find that significant energy can be registered as high as 40khz, so 44.1khz sampling rate is not enough to capture the FULL frequency response without some sort of aliasing gong on. Aliasing raises the noise level within the audible band of frequencies so it is desireable to have the cutoff frequency as high as it can be. This facilitates using filters with a long gradual roll off.

    24/96khz (as 24/192khz) raises the Nyquist frequency to 43khz which is more than a octave above CD redbook cutoff frequency(22,050khz) so no brickwall filters are necessary(and no time domain smearing which results in a more linear response of a wide banc of frequencies) and the audible problems they bring.

    Using a higher sampling rate insures that EVERY instrument within a orchestra will be recorded with harmonics and timbral textures intact. That is something the current redbook standard had a problem with from day one.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Mtry,

    I fully understand you skeptisicm with regards to sampling rates, but it is unfounded. The sample rate defines the Nyquist frequency, or upper limit of the recording or playback of the digital audio. While the upper limit of the human hearing is 20khz(most cannot hear this high) you need a sample rate that goes beyond that frequency limit. With the current redbook sample rate of 44.1khz, the Nyquist frequency would be 22,050khz. In order to enforce that upper limit(and keep noise out of the digital system) steep brickwall filters are employed. These brickwall filters have audible effects such as time smearing that can be heard well within the range of human hearing(most time they they cause strings, cymbals and upper brass to sound harsh) If you were to measure the frequency response of a crash of cymbals, or the overtones of some string and brass instruments, you would find that significant energy can be registered as high as 40khz, so 44.1khz sampling rate is not enough to capture the FULL frequency response without some sort of aliasing gong on. Aliasing raises the noise level within the audible band of frequencies so it is desireable to have the cutoff frequency as high as it can be. This facilitates using filters with a long gradual roll off.

    24/96khz (as 24/192khz) raises the Nyquist frequency to 43khz which is more than a octave above CD redbook cutoff frequency(22,050khz) so no brickwall filters are necessary(and no time domain smearing which results in a more linear response of a wide banc of frequencies) and the audible problems they bring.

    .

    No, no no, steep brick wall filter is not used for Red Book 44.1 sampling. That is a misnomer:

    http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf

    http://www.resolutionaudio.com/Up-Oversampling.pdf

    http://www.simaudio.com/upsampling.htm

    Using a higher sampling rate insures that EVERY instrument within a orchestra will be recorded with harmonics and timbral textures intact. That is something the current redbook standard had a problem with from day one

    Don't need it, don't miss it anything that is above 22.05khz. You just cannot hear it. Absolute nonsense that you can or it matters. Anything that is audible gets recorded.
    mtrycrafts

  5. #5
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    No, no no, steep brick wall filter is not used for Red Book 44.1 sampling. That is a misnomer:

    http://www.mlssa.com/pdf/Upsampling-theory-rev-2.pdf

    http://www.resolutionaudio.com/Up-Oversampling.pdf

    http://www.simaudio.com/upsampling.htm

    Using a higher sampling rate insures that EVERY instrument within a orchestra will be recorded with harmonics and timbral textures intact. That is something the current redbook standard had a problem with from day one

    Don't need it, don't miss it anything that is above 22.05khz. You just cannot hear it. Absolute nonsense that you can or it matters. Anything that is audible gets recorded.
    Mtry,

    Hit yourself on the head, it may clear the fog. We are not talking OVERSAMPLING, that is done at the DAC stage. We are talking about recording at a high sampling rate. BIG difference bud. Secondly, there is not an engineer on this planet that would not agree with me that recording at a 96khz sampling rate sounds noticeable better than at 44.1khz.(and 192khz sounds better than 96khz)

    While you cannot hear above 20khz directly, transient information in some instruments is located above 20khz. If you limit the response of a signal or sharp attack at 20khz(or even 22,050khz), the transient information will sound blurred. With a 44.1khz sampling rate, a brickwall filter MUST be used because high frequency information has to be removed at 22,050khz(which is the Nyquist frequency for 44.1khz) or aliasing will occur out of band, and within the band of human hearing. If you are recording audio from 20-20khz, that filter has got to be brickwall because the signal level must drop below between -60 and -90db at 22,050khz so as not to be heard. This filter must do this at 20khz(and be at -60 to -90 at 22,050khz). I would say that is pretty brickwall Mtry. So it is not a misnomer at all as you stated. If no brickwall filter is used, then you would have to lower the cutoff point of the audio well into the range of hearing to eliminate any signals above 22,050khz

    http://psbg.emusician.com/ar/emusic_...digital_audio/

    http://grassomusic.de/english/frames...sh/digital.htm

    Here is a challenge to you. If you don't think the sampling rate is important record the sound of a cymbal crash(or trumpet, glock, chimes) at 96khz sampling rate, listen, then downconvert it to 44.1khz and listen to it again. Since I have done this before I know what you'll hear ;>
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  6. #6
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Mtry,

    Hit yourself on the head, it may clear the fog. We are not talking OVERSAMPLING, that is done at the DAC stage. We are talking about recording at a high sampling rate. BIG difference bud. Secondly, there is not an engineer on this planet that would not agree with me that recording at a 96khz sampling rate sounds noticeable better than at 44.1khz.(and 192khz sounds better than 96khz)

    While you cannot hear above 20khz directly, transient information in some instruments is located above 20khz. If you limit the response of a signal or sharp attack at 20khz(or even 22,050khz), the transient information will sound blurred. With a 44.1khz sampling rate, a brickwall filter MUST be used because high frequency information has to be removed at 22,050khz(which is the Nyquist frequency for 44.1khz) or aliasing will occur out of band, and within the band of human hearing. If you are recording audio from 20-20khz, that filter has got to be brickwall because the signal level must drop below between -60 and -90db at 22,050khz so as not to be heard. This filter must do this at 20khz(and be at -60 to -90 at 22,050khz). I would say that is pretty brickwall Mtry. So it is not a misnomer at all as you stated. If no brickwall filter is used, then you would have to lower the cutoff point of the audio well into the range of hearing to eliminate any signals above 22,050khz

    http://psbg.emusician.com/ar/emusic_...digital_audio/

    http://grassomusic.de/english/frames...sh/digital.htm

    Here is a challenge to you. If you don't think the sampling rate is important record the sound of a cymbal crash(or trumpet, glock, chimes) at 96khz sampling rate, listen, then downconvert it to 44.1khz and listen to it again. Since I have done this before I know what you'll hear ;>
    Thanks for articute the issue so well. The biggest misconception most people have
    is that all CD players sound the same.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    On recording, increasing sampling rate above 44.1K will not improve the recording. There is no reason to oversample on recording to capture sound which cannot be heard by human beings. However, on playback, there are a couple of advantages to oversampling. First, by sampling the same signal more times, the number of samples with errors as a percentage of the total number of samples may be reduced. Secondly, by oversampling and generating a signal which is the same as the 44.1K but repeated 4 times or 8 times as though it were recorded at a much higher sampling rate, the analog filter can be pushed out to a much higher frequency where it no longer affects the audible spectrum. By 1989, the best 20 bit players had approached the theoretical ideal and with newer 1 bit oversampled players, most others have come a long way towards matching or slightly bettering them. Fiddling with the analog frequency response to change the tonal balance of cd players slightly is hailed as a major improvement by some audiophiles but in reality, it offers no tangable benefits at all which cannot be achieved with proper use of an equalizer at far lower cost.

  8. #8
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    On recording, increasing sampling rate above 44.1K will not improve the recording. There is no reason to oversample on recording to capture sound which cannot be heard by human beings. However, on playback, there are a couple of advantages to oversampling. First, by sampling the same signal more times, the number of samples with errors as a percentage of the total number of samples may be reduced. Secondly, by oversampling and generating a signal which is the same as the 44.1K but repeated 4 times or 8 times as though it were recorded at a much higher sampling rate, the analog filter can be pushed out to a much higher frequency where it no longer affects the audible spectrum. By 1989, the best 20 bit players had approached the theoretical ideal and with newer 1 bit oversampled players, most others have come a long way towards matching or slightly bettering them. Fiddling with the analog frequency response to change the tonal balance of cd players slightly is hailed as a major improvement by some audiophiles but in reality, it offers no tangable benefits at all which cannot be achieved with proper use of an equalizer at far lower cost.
    Sir,

    You are not just in left field on this one, you are in the wrong stadim, in the wrong city, and in the wrong country, and the wrong planet!!!! You don't oversample at the recording stage anyway, you sample. Oversampling is strictly a playback function. The same benefits you mention for oversampling apply to higher sampling, but higher sampling is more predictable, and reliable for best results. Higher sampling allows you to design filters that roll off gradually, as opposed to a brickwall fashion of filters currently in use for 44.1khz CD

    First, using a sampling rate above 44.1khz DOES improve recording. Every engineer on this planet is in agreement with that. That is why both DVD-A, and SACD are EXTREMELY popular among audio engineers. Almost every recording done these days is both mixed, mastered, and archived at 24/96khz. Once again, it doesn't matter that you cannot hear it directly, most of the benefits of sampling at 96khz happen right in the audible range of hearing(sharper transients, more air in the mix, and more open sound)

    Secondly, an EQ CANNOT do what sampling at a higher rate can do. If you try and do this, not only will you screw up the phase of the high frequencies, but you are like to burn out your tweeter in the process. Not to mention you just be introducing alot more noise to the mix.

    I do not know where you got your information, but you need to give it back. It is wrong, and it will surely damage ones speakers if implemented.

    DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!!!
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Hit yourself on the head, it may clear the fog. We are not talking OVERSAMPLING, that is done at the DAC stage. We are talking about recording at a high sampling rate. BIG difference bud. Secondly, there is not an engineer on this planet that would not agree with me that recording at a 96khz sampling rate sounds noticeable better than at 44.1khz.(and 192khz sounds better than 96khz)



    Hogwash. Please site som of the DBT to support his nonsense, thanks.

    While you cannot hear above 20khz directly, transient information in some instruments is located above 20khz. If you limit the response of a signal or sharp attack at 20khz(or even 22,050khz), the transient information will sound blurred. With a 44.1khz sampling rate, a brickwall filter MUST be used because high frequency information has to be removed at 22,050khz(which is the Nyquist frequency for 44.1khz) or aliasing will occur out of band, and within the band of human hearing. If you are recording audio from 20-20khz, that filter has got to be brickwall because the signal level must drop below between -60 and -90db at 22,050khz so as not to be heard. This filter must do this at 20khz(and be at -60 to -90 at 22,050khz). I would say that is pretty brickwall Mtry. So it is not a misnomer at all as you stated. If no brickwall filter is used, then you would have to lower the cutoff point of the audio well into the range of hearing to eliminate any signals above 22,050khz


    More unalderated hogwash, garbage. Brick wall filtering is not used exactely because of the oversampling.

    And Ultrasonic information is not neede. THAT has been demonstrated and published.
    Please consult AES on that. Or, if you require, I will site it for you.

    You cannot hear it!!!.
    mtrycrafts

  10. #10
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy2
    Thanks for articute the issue so well. The biggest misconception most people have
    is that all CD players sound the same.

    Not ALL sound the same, most do in fact under bias controlled listeing. That is the critical issue being biased or not when listening and comparing them.
    mtrycrafts

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible
    Sir,

    You are not just in left field on this one, you are in the wrong stadim, in the wrong city, and in the wrong country, and the wrong planet!!!! You don't oversample at the recording stage anyway, you sample. Oversampling is strictly a playback function. The same benefits you mention for oversampling apply to higher sampling, but higher sampling is more predictable, and reliable for best results. Higher sampling allows you to design filters that roll off gradually, as opposed to a brickwall fashion of filters currently in use for 44.1khz CD

    First, using a sampling rate above 44.1khz DOES improve recording. Every engineer on this planet is in agreement with that. That is why both DVD-A, and SACD are EXTREMELY popular among audio engineers. Almost every recording done these days is both mixed, mastered, and archived at 24/96khz. Once again, it doesn't matter that you cannot hear it directly, most of the benefits of sampling at 96khz happen right in the audible range of hearing(sharper transients, more air in the mix, and more open sound)

    Secondly, an EQ CANNOT do what sampling at a higher rate can do. If you try and do this, not only will you screw up the phase of the high frequencies, but you are like to burn out your tweeter in the process. Not to mention you just be introducing alot more noise to the mix.

    I do not know where you got your information, but you need to give it back. It is wrong, and it will surely damage ones speakers if implemented.

    DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME!!!

    Oh, Terrance, brick wall filters haven't been used for a long time, very long time. Oversampling is the reason.
    Please, check it out.
    mtrycrafts

  12. #12
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    In one regard, you are correct, oversampling means sampling the playback at a higher rate than the recording was made at. This is a small technical point. However, increasing the recording sampling rate to extend the captured analog frequency bandwidth will not improve the regenerated analog signal in the audible spectrum in comparison to a recording made at the lower sampling rate and oversampled at the same higher rate. I don't think there is much point in discussion of frequencies beyond the audible spectrum. Some audiophiles will never concede what scientists and engineers already know and that is that their inclusion adds nothing perceptable in terms of accuracy to humans and at worst can actually detract from accurate reproduction by introducing all kinds of new distorton. It is also pointless to argue what mathematicians, engineers and scientists already know and that is that 44.1Khz sampling on recording is sufficient to accurately capture the entire 20Khz audible analog frequency spectrum that humans can hear (if their hearing isn't imparied.)

    "Secondly, an EQ CANNOT do what sampling at a higher rate can do."

    I never said it could. What I said was that many so called high end cd players merely fiddle with the analog frequency response after D/A and call the altered sound a "breakthrough." On direct comparison, it will obviously sound different but the difference is easily obtained far more cheaply than the hundreds and even thousands of dollars extra they normally charge for these players. Once the analog signal is perfectly regenerated which is not merely possible but now virtually universal with 1 bit oversampling players, NO FURTHER IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROCESS IS NECESSARY OR POSSIBLE. That is one reason why SACD audio is doomed unless it is just as cheap, totally compatable, and gradually replaces RBCD. There is simply no technical reason for it but electronics companies are always looking for new classes of products to trick audiophiles into thinking they need something better than the fully developed offerings already cheaply available on the market.

  13. #13
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Hit yourself on the head, it may clear the fog. We are not talking OVERSAMPLING, that is done at the DAC stage. We are talking about recording at a high sampling rate. BIG difference bud. Secondly, there is not an engineer on this planet that would not agree with me that recording at a 96khz sampling rate sounds noticeable better than at 44.1khz.(and 192khz sounds better than 96khz)



    Hogwash. Please site som of the DBT to support his nonsense, thanks.

    While you cannot hear above 20khz directly, transient information in some instruments is located above 20khz. If you limit the response of a signal or sharp attack at 20khz(or even 22,050khz), the transient information will sound blurred. With a 44.1khz sampling rate, a brickwall filter MUST be used because high frequency information has to be removed at 22,050khz(which is the Nyquist frequency for 44.1khz) or aliasing will occur out of band, and within the band of human hearing. If you are recording audio from 20-20khz, that filter has got to be brickwall because the signal level must drop below between -60 and -90db at 22,050khz so as not to be heard. This filter must do this at 20khz(and be at -60 to -90 at 22,050khz). I would say that is pretty brickwall Mtry. So it is not a misnomer at all as you stated. If no brickwall filter is used, then you would have to lower the cutoff point of the audio well into the range of hearing to eliminate any signals above 22,050khz


    More unalderated hogwash, garbage. Brick wall filtering is not used exactely because of the oversampling.

    And Ultrasonic information is not neede. THAT has been demonstrated and published.
    Please consult AES on that. Or, if you require, I will site it for you.

    You cannot hear it!!!.
    Mtry,

    You know me better than that. I sit in, and participate in many conferences every year with people who know digital audio in and out. You sit behind a computer demanding DBT, and have absolutely no experience in audio. You dismiss all information that does not square with your "totally unbiased" opinion{sarcasm off} I have done this before with you, but have no desire to do this again. You don't know what you are talking about or else you would demand something other than a DBT(that is your usual fall back when you don't have any information to support your arguement) . If a high sampling rate for recording is useless, the oversampling is EXTREMELY useless based on your arguement. So you lack of knowledge makes you arguement inconsistant. Would you like a DBT on that too?? You may be able to intimidate people in the cable forums , and amplifier forums also, but try the DBT crap on someone else, you bore me to tears with it.
    Last edited by Sir Terrence the Terrible; 02-02-2004 at 04:54 PM.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Irregardless of you being bored, CD players have been oversampling for a very long time now and grick wall filters are ancient history, if ever used.

    And the need for ultrasonics is just plain silly, regardless where you sit day in and day out. Research has shown otherwise, regardless of the content of instruments above 20kHz as it is well below the threshold of detection, for one.

    You would do well to read some of the research on ultrasonics, what effect it has or doesn't in heariong and perception, Boyk not withstanding as he has zero evidence for audibility by anyone. Maybe you can contact J. Stewar of Meridian, or Homlinson closer to home. Or, the ASE paper on audibility of ultrasonics.
    mtrycrafts

  15. #15
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    Irregardless of you being bored, CD players have been oversampling for a very long time now and grick wall filters are ancient history, if ever used.

    And the need for ultrasonics is just plain silly, regardless where you sit day in and day out. Research has shown otherwise, regardless of the content of instruments above 20kHz as it is well below the threshold of detection, for one.

    You would do well to read some of the research on ultrasonics, what effect it has or doesn't in heariong and perception, Boyk not withstanding as he has zero evidence for audibility by anyone. Maybe you can contact J. Stewar of Meridian, or Homlinson closer to home. Or, the ASE paper on audibility of ultrasonics.
    As I have stated earlier, higher sampling is used so NO steep filters are needed. This improves the sound within the frequencies we DO hear. I never said that we could hear above 20khz. The benefit of the 96khz(and higher) allows for four samples for each wave in the upper limit of human hearing, and six to twelve samples for waves in the 8-6KHz frequency range, where most of the music we hear is. That is the benefit, and I stated so in my earlier post.

    You are trying to argue when there is no reason. The same reasoning for oversampling applies to higher sampling. Once again(and you are guilty of this so often) you are majoring in minors.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    As I have stated earlier, higher sampling is used so NO steep filters are needed.

    It is not needed today in 44.1 due to the oversampling.



    This improves the sound within the frequencies we DO hear.

    Yes, it would if steep filter was used but it is not used because it is oversampled.




    I never said that we could hear above 20khz.

    Then I misunderstood your post on this, sorry.



    The benefit of the 96khz(and higher) allows for four samples for each wave in the upper limit of human hearing, and six to twelve samples for waves in the 8-6KHz frequency range, where most of the music we hear is. That is the benefit, and I stated so in my earlier post.


    But it is not needed. Forier is just fine on this, 2 sample is sufficient. One only needs to see the spectrum at 20khz and below how good it is.

    The same reasoning for oversampling applies to higher sampling. Once again(and you are guilty of this so often) you are majoring in minors.

    Then why use the higher sample to begin with? Just an audio hype. It is fine for the studios and archiving and mixing, not needed in consumer land. Marketing.
    mtrycrafts

  17. #17
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And after more than twenty years, the market has voted with its dollars. I have so many wonderful cds and so many awful vinyls, I can't imaging the world going backwards. I also have 78 RPM shellac records too and players for them but I can't even remember the last time I heard one. Awful sound. (There's even a black and white television set in my basement but I'll bet the last time it was turned on was at least 20 years ago. I wonder why I don't just throw it out.) If cds sound as bad as some audiophiles say they are, they never would have amounted to anything. Maybe it's the music they listen to. They are hearing it for what it really is for the first time and they don't like it. Or maybe it's the rest of that audiophile overhyped junk they listen to it on. Those 8" 2 way little boxes they paid $1500 for that have no bass and shrill treble or those puny class A tube amps that can only put out a few watts. There's the culprit.

    I want to thank all you audiophiles out there who sell your unwanted cds to the second hand stores; keep 'em comin'. When I can buy DG, Phillips, London, Sony/Columbia, RCA cds for a few bucks that sound as good as new, it's all I can do to stop myself while there's any money left in my bank account. I'd rather buy great recordings than chase electronic rainbows. BTW, when are you trading in your new equipment. It's already obsolete.

  18. #18
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Skeptic is like a cold shower for me

    Everytime I start to get sucked into the vinyl is better than CD mystic, he washes away that illusion.

  19. #19
    M.P.S.E /AES/SMPTE member Sir Terrence the Terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    6,826
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrycraft
    As I have stated earlier, higher sampling is used so NO steep filters are needed.

    It is not needed today in 44.1 due to the oversampling.



    This improves the sound within the frequencies we DO hear.

    Yes, it would if steep filter was used but it is not used because it is oversampled.




    I never said that we could hear above 20khz.

    Then I misunderstood your post on this, sorry.



    The benefit of the 96khz(and higher) allows for four samples for each wave in the upper limit of human hearing, and six to twelve samples for waves in the 8-6KHz frequency range, where most of the music we hear is. That is the benefit, and I stated so in my earlier post.


    But it is not needed. Forier is just fine on this, 2 sample is sufficient. One only needs to see the spectrum at 20khz and below how good it is.

    The same reasoning for oversampling applies to higher sampling. Once again(and you are guilty of this so often) you are majoring in minors.

    Then why use the higher sample to begin with? Just an audio hype. It is fine for the studios and archiving and mixing, not needed in consumer land. Marketing.
    So Mtry, if we were to use photography as an example, you are saying a 1megapixal camera is good enough, and a 5 mega pixel camera is not needed? In other words 2 sampled snapshots of the analog waveform is better than 6-12? Bull****, bull****!!!
    The more samples of the analog waveform you get, the closer you get to reproducing it transparently. The more samples, the better the audio. Thats an indusputable fact.

    Another reason that 96khz and higher sample rate is desireable lies in the white papers presented to AES by Julian Dunn. He sites measurements on the several high end CD players shows the anti alias, and anti image filters do not achieve full rejections of signals above the nyquist frequency. He found VERY non linear behavior in the electronic and electromechanical stages following the signal path of the DAC. This causes the non rejected signals(above the passband) to interact with signal below the passband(what we can hear) and this interaction can be heard by even inexperienced listeners. This is even with oversampling applied(which one can concluded that oversampling at the output stage CAN be of limited benefit if the filters are not well designed) These results are from some VERY expensive CD players, can you imagine what happen in CD players that imploy cheap DAC to meet a price point? Oversampling works great for 44.1khz in theory, but because of limitations in the electronic parts imployed in CD players it has been proven this is not always the most effective solution.

    96khz and higher sample rate isn't chosen for its extended high frequency behavior(as I have stated previously). That is just a benefit and allows low pass filters with more gentle slopes. But the higher sampling is used to get MORE samples within the audible frequencies. Yes 2 samples is a MINIMUM point, but more samples leads to higher resolution, cleaner audio, and better imaging.
    Recent research suggests that the human brain can discern a difference in a sound's arrival time between the two ears of better than 15 microseconds – around the time between samples at 96 kHz sampling – and some people can even discern a 5µS difference! So while super-high sample rates are probably unnecessary for frequency response, they may be justified for stereo and surround imaging accuracy.

    Why 96khz and higher from a recording perspective.

    It is clear and widely recognized that most of us can ’t hear much above 18 kHz(there no argument here), but that does not mean that there isn’t anything up there that we need to record – and here's another reason for higher sampling rates. Plenty of acoustic instruments produce usable output up to around the 30 kHz mark(harmonics which make up timbre, and transient attacks) – something that would be picked up in some form by a decent 30 in/s half-inch analog recording. A string section, for example, could well produce some significant ultrasonic energy.(its been measured out to 40khz)

    The ultrasonic content of all those instruments blends together to produce audible beat frequencies which contribute to the overall timbre of the sound. If you record your string section at a distance with a stereo pair, for example, all those interactions will have taken place in the air before your microphones ever capture the sound.You can record such a signal with 44.1 kHz sampling and never worry about losing anything –as long as your filters are of good quality(not always the case as previously mentioned) and you have enough bits.

    If, however, you recorded a string section with a couple of 48-track digital machines(which is the most common practice), mic on each instrument feeding its own track so that you can mix it all later, your close-mic technique does not pick up any interactions.The only time they can happen is when you mix, by which time the ultrasonic stuff has all been knocked off by your 48 kHz multitrack recorders, so that will never happen. It would thus seem that high sampling rates allow the flexibility of using different mic techniques with better results.

    Think of higher sample rates and longer word lengths as a kind of “headroom.” We need higher resolution in the studio than consumers so we can start with a higher level of quality in case some gets lost on the way which might well happen.

    And what happens when you modify a digital signal in the digital domain, say by EQing it, or fading it out? You create more bits – more data.You ought to have spare bits so you have room to work.You can always lose resolution, but you can’t easily get it back again.

    In the end to say higher sampling rates are just a marketing ploy shows an extreme case of ignorance. Theory only works well if all else is perfect. Nothing is perfect though. Oversampling only works if the low pass, and digital filters operate perfectly. It has been shown they don't. Alot of your assumption and believes are based in a perfect world scenario. We don't live that way, or in that world.

    Skeptic, with a 44.1khz sample rate, a analog signal cannot be perfectly regenerated. That is basic digital audio. There are not enough samples for PERFECT regeneration. It would take a sample rate in the neightborhood of 192khz plus for that. Your assertions a just plain false, and I could find nothing to support your arguement. Not in my experience, or the many white papers I have read on digital audio. A bit of skeptisicm is healthy, too much can make you just plain ignorant.
    Sir Terrence

    Titan Reference 3D 1080p projector
    200" SI Black Diamond II screen
    Oppo BDP-103D
    Datastat RS20I audio/video processor 12.4 audio setup
    9 Onkyo M-5099 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-510 power amp
    9 Onkyo M-508 power amp
    6 custom CAL amps for subs
    3 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid monitors
    18 custom 3 way horn DSP hybrid surround/ceiling speakers
    2 custom 15" sealed FFEC servo subs
    4 custom 15" H-PAS FFEC servo subs
    THX Style Baffle wall

  20. #20
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    I want to believe that higher sampling rates produce higher resolotion and better sound.
    I shudder to think that Sony, in its cheapness, would spend millions of dollars investing into R&D to deveolp a higher resolution format based on a physical property that didn't improve sound at all. It scares me even more to think that after the failure to improve sound, Sony expects its already critical market to be fooled into thinking they actually do hear a noticeable difference in sound quality.
    Such is what skeptic seems to be implying so far. I'm also afraid that if skeptic's view holds true, pure audio perfection has already been accomplished, and a new format cannot improve sound quality over what we have now.

    I believe that Princess Di is still alive.
    I believe that JFK was killed by the CIA.
    I believe that Micheal Jackson is innocent and that OJ will one day find the real killers.

    I can't believe that Sony is clever enough to fool millions of people who test audio equipment long before they buy that their newest format is superior to its predecessor when in fact it is not.

    And yet I can offer no evidence that I truly do hear a noticeable difference in sound quality other than I do. I attribute this to bit-rate on SACD's, and a combination of bit-rate and word length on DVD-A's...

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I want to thank all you audiophiles out there who sell your unwanted cds to the second hand stores; keep 'em comin'. When I can buy DG, Phillips, London, Sony/Columbia, RCA cds for a few bucks that sound as good as new, it's all I can do to stop myself while there's any money left in my bank account. I'd rather buy great recordings than chase electronic rainbows. BTW, when are you trading in your new equipment. It's already obsolete.
    Now that's just plain funny

  21. #21
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    No, it's the multichannel capability; that said ...

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    ... Is the sampling rate the biggest advantage DVD-A has over CD audio?
    ... I'll never really understand the sampling rate issue despite many explainations.

    No doubt the theory is sound that you can perfectly record a sound a sample rating rate of twice its frequency, e.g. 20KHz, (the human limit of audibility), can perfectly reproduced a rate of 40KHz.

    There are couple problems in the real world:
    1) If you're sampling at 40KHz and a 25KHz sound comes along, any attempt to record it will cause errors, that is, distortion, called "aliasing", below the 20KHz, hence audible. I don't understand why this is the case, but you should understand that sampling sounds above 20KHz must be avoided.
    2) Since for each sample recorded, there is a given number of bits representing the amplitude of the sound, an actual sound level might be slightly higher or lower than can be represented by the available bits. This need to round causes "quantization error". For some reason I don't clearly understand, this distortion is correlated to the overall sound level, hence is not random, (like clicks & pops on vinyl), and sounds very objectionable. Stuff must be done to conceal quantization error, usually by added ramdon "noise".

    Higher sampling rates and more bits per sample can help to remove these problems "at source" so to speak. But it isn't the higher frequencies that can be recorded that matter make higher rez better -- because we can't hear these frequencies.

    Another problem that afflicts digital recording is "jitter", that is, the effect of no taking the sound sample, and/or not reproducing the sampled sound, at exactly the right moment in time. It seems small amounts of jitter can sound quite unpleasant. I don't know whether higher sampling rates inherently help solver the jitter problem, but maybe not!!

    OK you experts, go to town.

  22. #22
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    So Mtry, if we were to use photography as an example, you are saying a 1megapixal camera is good enough, and a 5 mega pixel camera is not needed? In other words 2 sampled snapshots of the analog waveform is better than 6-12? Bull****, bull****!!!
    The more samples of the analog waveform you get, the closer you get to reproducing it transparently. The more samples, the better the audio. Thats an indusputable fact.



    Photography is not audio and even in photography there is a limit at how many pixels you can differentiate. Simple.
    Check out Nyquist and what can be demonstrated with two samples. Rather simple.

    Another reason that 96khz and higher sample rate is desireable lies in the white papers presented to AES by Julian Dunn. He sites measurements on the several high end CD players shows the anti alias, and anti image filters do not achieve full rejections of signals above the nyquist frequency. He found VERY non linear behavior in the electronic and electromechanical stages following the signal path of the DAC. This causes the non rejected signals(above the passband) to interact with signal below the passband(what we can hear) and this interaction can be heard by even inexperienced listeners. This is even with oversampling applied(which one can concluded that oversampling at the output stage CAN be of limited benefit if the filters are not well designed) These results are from some VERY expensive CD players, can you imagine what happen in CD players that imploy cheap DAC to meet a price point? Oversampling works great for 44.1khz in theory, but because of limitations in the electronic parts imployed in CD players it has been proven this is not always the most effective solution.


    I guess someone needs better recording engineers then who can do it properly.



    96khz and higher sample rate isn't chosen for its extended high frequency behavior(as I have stated previously).

    Glad you don't think this, my misunderstanding, but many don't think this at all.



    That is just a benefit and allows low pass filters with more gentle slopes. But the higher sampling is used to get MORE samples within the audible frequencies. Yes 2 samples is a MINIMUM point, but more samples leads to higher resolution, cleaner audio, and better imaging.

    Here is the debate then. I need better convincing evidence of this.



    Recent research suggests that the human brain can discern a difference in a sound's arrival time between the two ears of better than 15 microseconds –around the time between samples at 96 kHz sampling – and some people can even discern a 5µS difference! So while super-high sample rates are probably unnecessary for frequency response, they may be justified for stereo and surround imaging accuracy.


    OK. But you are confusing timing for localizing with the two ears and how stereo is used on a disc to create soundstage. Totally different concept and events. Sampling has nothing to do with this. Varying the levels and amounts of signal in each speaker does, not sampling rates.

    It is clear and widely recognized that most of us can ’t hear much above 18 kHz(there no argument here), but that does not mean that there isn’t anything up there that we need to record – and here's another reason for higher sampling rates. Plenty of acoustic instruments produce usable output up to around the 30 kHz mark(harmonics which make up timbre, and transient attacks) – something that would be picked up in some form by a decent 30 in/s half-inch analog recording. A string section, for example, could well produce some significant ultrasonic energy.(its been measured out to 40khz)


    Useable to whom, for what? You can measure until the cows come home. It is useless information just as the masked info that is discarded in perceptual coding. Actually, it is more useless as you will never know its existancce, period. And, it doesn't affect anything in the audible bands. If there are interactions that happens to be audible, then the mic will recordid it and you will hear it with the 44.1 sampling just as well as higher sampling.

    That is exactely what the research has shown.

    Boyk has measured harmonics to 100kHz. So what. If he had better measuring gear he may have measured it to 200kHz. Meaningless to us. Again, just because it was measured doesn't mean we hear it, it affects anything that we hear.

    The ultrasonic content of all those instruments blends together to produce audible beat frequencies which contribute to the overall timbre of the sound.

    Fine. IF the instrument produces ultrasonic harmonics that creates audible byproducts which we hear before recording, the audible frequency will be recorded by the recorder and it will be on the CD at 44.1 sampling just as well as it is with 96k sampling.

    Now, on the otherhand, if you claim this to happen after the recording takes place, in the electronics, it can only be as an IM byproduct, that is distortion, and not part of the music which needs to be discarded as any distortion.



    If you record your string section at a distance with a stereo pair,

    Unfortunately, ultrasonic frequency disperses very rapidly, much more so that ones we hear. Hence, your premise is not sound as nothing will happen.




    If, however, you recorded a string section with a couple of 48-track digital machines(which is the most common practice), mic on each instrument feeding its own track so that you can mix it all later, your close-mic technique does not pick up any interactions.The only time they can happen is when you mix,

    When you mix, you are hoping for Inter modulation to take place? That is distortion. And why would your premis only happen at ultrasonic frequencies? It will happen at all frequencies, down to the lowest recorded frequency. Is that what you want? IM distortion? Hardly. Your premise is false. It doesn't happen. If it happens, it is IM distortion, an undesired byproduct.



    Think of higher sample rates and longer word lengths as a kind of “headroom.”We need higher resolution in the studio than consumers so we can start with a higher level of quality in case some gets lost on the way which might well happen.

    You need higher quality in the recording so you can master them properly in th edigital domain, all the algorythins, additions and subtractions, averaging, etc will not diminish the final quality, nothing more. The consumer has no need for that in the final product.

    And what happens when you modify a digital signal in the digital domain, say by EQing it, or fading it out? You create more bits – more data.You ought to have spare bits so you have room to work.You can always lose resolution, but you can’t easily get it back again.

    This is why you need it in recording, so the gear can do all the mathematical applications, rounding off, etc, so you don't end up below what is audible, not because we can detect 96kHz samoling and 20+ bit word length. We just cannot hear it. Finite hearing ability by the end user.
    No qualms for using this in th emastering and mixing stage. That is where it is needed, not on playback at home. That is all marketing.

    In the end to say higher sampling rates are just a marketing ploy shows an extreme case of ignorance.


    Not at all. I didn't say you have no need for that in the studio for mixing, nuimber crunching as that is what happnes. You have no need in the home for playback. You cannot hear it.


    Theory only works well if all else is perfect. Nothing is perfect though. Oversampling only works if the low pass, and digital filters operate perfectly. It has been shown they don't. Alot of your assumption and believes are based in a perfect world scenario. We don't live that way, or in that world.


    Are you telling me that the 96k sampling is not further oversampled? That 96 is enough? If so, that is only 2X oversampling, a fraction more. CD players have been doing at least 4X and much more for a very long time. That woul de 192k and 384k.

    Skeptic, with a 44.1khz sample rate, a analog signal cannot be perfectly regenerated.

    Nyquist works. Recording and playback is a bit more complicated to accomlish, hence the oversampling and fanal playback at 44.1.
    mtrycrafts

  23. #23
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    123

    Interesting thread science Vs science, maths Vs maths...

    On the left Sir Terenese champion of the higher sampling rates. On the right Mtry - champsion of the CD world.

    In the middle - the rest of us - basically non the wiser and more confused with each post.

    Might I suggest we let our ears make the decisions? Skeptic likes the sound of CD - it works for him and he gains from the CD's others almost throw away at presumably bargain prices.

    Others do not like the sound of CD and prefer vinyl. They too gain (usually) from the low price of the media - people like me, who buy classical recordings for a couple of bucks a piece and love them to death.

    Others find the sound of SACD or DVDa more palatable. They pay higher prices but hell - there is an industry to support that employs a good number of people.

    Basically we are in a win win situation. We have a choice and we exercise it. How we justify that choice is up to each individual - me? I go with my ears - unreliable as they might be, they seem to be consistent in their choices.

    Of course there are still others that listen to MP3 and other digital formats - in itself a growing global enterprise that seems to have found away to make it pay. Clever old Apple I say and good luck to them. MP3 may be frowned upon by those who claim its audio quality is not up to acceptable levels, but when I am in the office and have only my computer speakers to listen to, they do nicely, certainly on a par with FM transmissions IMO.

  24. #24
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "Basically we are in a win win situation. We have a choice and we exercise it."

    Actually there really isn't much choice. People who want to buy vinyl phonograph records have to hunt them down, usually on the used market and take what they can get. Everything ever released on vinyl and even shellac is finding its way onto cd. What's more, the worlds fixed supply of vinly is not only dwindling but detriorating. In 50 years, vinyl phonograph records will be more of an antique curiousity than a viable alternative to whatever recording method is in vogue. CDs on the other hand will probably always be around because they can be reproduced indefinitely with no deterioration for almost no cost at all and you can buy a player for as little as five dollars. (Twenty years ago they were a thousand to fifteen hundred and those were more expensive dollars. Too bad for vinyl lovers. That can't be much fun. Shopping for them is more like a treasure hunt than building a library of music you want.

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720

    Terrence

    Let me invite you to post your propositions about sampling rates, the need for such high rates, the need for ultra high rates to be most accurate for reproduction, and, your premises about the ultrasonics and how they interact in the air to produce harmonics, or intermodulate in the components to make a difference in what we hear.

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...audio.high-end

    There are a number of posteres there with a hell of a lot more knowledge in digital audio and acoustics, especially Richard Pierce, who would be most interested to enlighten a poster on these.

    It really matters not what I say or don't say, if I am right or wrong. I have no pull, nothing in this field.
    mtrycrafts

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Linear PCM audio...what the heck is it ?
    By Tarheel_ in forum Home Theater/Video
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-03-2013, 01:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •