Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music. - Page 29

post #421 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzerfong View Post  ...What if the conductor had moved his baton a little faster in 1951? Would we have a slightly higher sample rate on the CD? It is entirely possible! ...

 

 

No, the sample rate was fixed at 44.1 (originally 44.056) KHz for a different technical reason. They would have had to develop new tape machines, and it was one step too far. Instead, they used modified video recorders. The sample rate was determined by how many samples they could fit on a video scan line.

post #422 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills View Post
 

 

No, the sample rate was fixed at 44.1 (originally 44.056) KHz for a different technical reason. They would have had to develop new tape machines, and it was one step too far. Instead, they used modified video recorders. The sample rate was determined by how many samples they could fit on a video scan line.

Ah yes, I stand corrected on that. Thanks for pointing that out.

post #423 of 428

I worked for the sound mixer who recorded the first television program recorded digitally... Barry Manilow's Copacabana special. My boss retired his Nagra and recorded on those old two part Sony Beta PCM machines. He had his shipped from Japan. He was one of the first professionals working in digital.

post #424 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyyyeman View Post
 

Check out the lucid article on sampling rate by John Siau, Chief Engineer at Benchmark Media Systems, Inc., maker of audiophile and pro audio digital equipment (including the Benchmark DAC2):

 

http://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/news/14949325-high-resolution-audio-sample-rate?utm_source=Application+Notes&utm_campaign=72152862aa-

 

I skim-read, but he seems to be happy to settle for 88KHz.

 

If I remember rightly, digital pioneer JJ suggests that around 60Khz would be best. Again, IIRC, Lavry also talks of an optimum, and so does Monty. It is not that higher sample rates is bad. Or good. But that there is an optimum, beyond which, for various reasons, more is no better, and may be worse.

 

Neither the music industry nor the hifi audio industry (obviously both have to world together, not only in the name of music for fun and profit, but also so we can actually play the music) has taken any notice of optimum. A nice, trendy-looks-digital sequence of 48, 96, 192 and so on, looks much better to the marketing guys. 96 looks better than 48; 49 doesn't, whether it is or not.

 

Because of the numbers game, music/audio faces the worst period in its history: huge investment in manufacturing and huge costs to customers. It suits the marketing guys. The real engineers, rather than those who are on the leashes of their marketing men, must be truly sick.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RRod View Post
 

 

He puts an awful lot of stock in the audibility of frequencies above 20kHz, ignoring the fact that most people have to amp things WAY up to hear anything up there. If there are arguments to be made for these high frequencies, they probably need to look beyond the ear.

 

I don't see why 44.1 should be set in stone. I hear that I don't hear over 20kHz (in fact, being a bit old and a bit more deaf, I personally hardly make it into double figures) but I also hear that there are, or may be,  engineering benefits that arise from higher (but not ever-increasing) sample rates. If it is easier for the engineers to bring us 20Hz-20kHz at sample rates of 48, 60, or even 96, then let it be so, but lets stick to the technical and engineering realities, not the night-and-day differences that are caused by spending money ...or that might actually be there, but be caused because the DAC doesn't treat the sample rates equally.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzerfong View Post
 


I'll settle for the guys mixing the stereo up properly: please, my ears bleed when I hear stereo, and with mono, it sounds stale.

 

... ... ..

 

 

And I'll settle for properly-mastered music, an end to "loudness-wars" compression ...and proper research into whatever the next generation of better music recording/reproduction might be.

post #425 of 428
Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom View Post

 

I don't see why 44.1 should be set in stone. I hear that I don't hear over 20kHz (in fact, being a bit old and a bit more deaf, I personally hardly make it into double figures) but I also hear that there are, or may be,  engineering benefits that arise from higher (but not ever-increasing) sample rates. If it is easier for the engineers to bring us 20Hz-20kHz at sample rates of 48, 60, or even 96, then let it be so, but lets stick to the technical and engineering realities, not the night-and-day differences that are caused by spending money ...or that might actually be there, but be caused because the DAC doesn't treat the sample rates equally.

 

The digital filters in modern DACs can cleanly reconstruct 0 to 20 kHz at 44.1 kHz sample rate without much difficulty. Roll-off and imaging can be limited to the 20-24 kHz range with a ~2 ms impulse response length.

post #426 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom View Post
 

I don't see why 44.1 should be set in stone. I hear that I don't hear over 20kHz (in fact, being a bit old and a bit more deaf, I personally hardly make it into double figures) but I also hear that there are, or may be,  engineering benefits that arise from higher (but not ever-increasing) sample rates. If it is easier for the engineers to bring us 20Hz-20kHz at sample rates of 48, 60, or even 96, then let it be so, but lets stick to the technical and engineering realities, not the night-and-day differences that are caused by spending money ...or that might actually be there, but be caused because the DAC doesn't treat the sample rates equally.

 

Engineering benefits are all good and fine, and few of us have any issue with recording at 24/192 or whatever. The issue is telling people they need, on the user end, more than 16/44.1 to get a "realistic" musical experience. What people are missing for that experience are good speaker setups, not lower noise floors or higher frequencies. Even then, their attempts can be thwarted by bad mastering, which can happen at all sample specs.


Edited by RRod - 3/25/15 at 6:04am
post #427 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRod View Post
 

 

Engineering benefits are all good and fine, and few of us have any issue with recording at 24/192 or whatever. The issue is telling people they need, on the user end, more than 16/44.1 to get a "realistic" musical experience. What people are missing for that experience are good speaker setups, not lower noise floors or higher frequencies. Even then, their attempts can be thwarted by bad mastering, which can happen at all sample specs.

 

I don't object to 16/44.1, either!

 

I do worry about those "lower noise floors" that people "hear." I can turn everything up to full, and, whether on speakers or on headphones, I hear silence. If I didn't, I would be looking for the fault. I did not have to pay $-thousands for that, either: my source is PC/ODAC.

 

(oh... yes: I have tried playing a file of silence. I'd hate to think that my low noise floor was just the result of an inactive device :wink_face: )

 

So, whether it's cables or bit depths, I don't really believe in these perceived lowered noise floors unless there was something wrong before. Or, at least, as I retain a certain unwillingness to tell people that they are lying about their experience ;), I treat their association of cause and effect with due suspicion, and I consider that the "cables inside their heads" might be coming into play. Needless to say, I apply the same suspicions to my own perceptions


Edited by Thad-E-Ginathom - 3/25/15 at 6:41am
post #428 of 428

Recordings have noise floors too. Put a mike in a recording booth and turn on the air conditioning on a hot day, and you have a noise floor. It's very low, but it is there above the noise floor of the digital file. People who report hearing the noise floor of 16 bit are actually hearing the room tone in the recording studio, or the noise floor of the master tape (if it is an analogue recording).

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why 24 bit audio and anything over 48k is not only worthless, but bad for music.