[Don Hills]

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.

 

[dazzerfong]

   
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.

 

[bigshot]

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.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

  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.
 
 

   
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.
 

 
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.

 

[stv014]

Originally Posted by Thad-E-Ginathom /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
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.

 

[RRod]

  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.

 

[Thad-E-Ginathom]

   
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

)
 
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

 

[bigshot]

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).

 

[ShadowSkulkerer]

So...  Please don't mistake this as arguing.  I'm 21, quite ignorant on the matter and I'm really not up on science and physics and things.  I just recently got into mid-fi type stuff.  You can see my profile for my equipment.  I'm very happy with it btw.  But can someone explain to me why the 24bit/192khz Phil Collins album Face Value I bought on Pono Music sounds better than the songs I ripped from Phil Collins Greatest Hits CD.  I listened through my Fiio X3 and Headphones to the CD In the Air Tonight and the Pono version and I thought the Pono one was clearer and more detailed.  And I'm not saying various parts had more punch... 
 
  Allow me to explain. I've been listening to different things and reading these forums for a while.  Mostly over on MadLustEnvy's thread for gaming.  I've been collecting Genesis's albums from Duke onward, and from reading about sets and releases I discoverd most of the CDs were 1994 digital remasters and many thought them inferior.  They had volume raised on certain parts with an overall effect of brighter sound and loudness being mistaken for improved audio quality.  I sought out the original JVC or WEA corp CD releases and listened to them and was impressed.  They were more... natural.  And of course the sound that the band created not being altered was great.  I try to not be taken in by marketing... Anyway I thought the 24 bit Phil Collins songs sounded fantastic.  Could this be the source or something?

 

[spook76]

So...  Please don't mistake this as arguing.  I'm 21, quite ignorant on the matter and I'm really not up on science and physics and things.  I just recently got into mid-fi type stuff.  You can see my profile for my equipment.  I'm very happy with it btw.  But can someone explain to me why the 24bit/192khz Phil Collins album Face Value I bought on Pono Music sounds better than the songs I ripped from Phil Collins Greatest Hits CD.  I listened through my Fiio X3 and Headphones to the CD In the Air Tonight and the Pono version and I thought the Pono one was clearer and more detailed.  And I'm not saying various parts had more punch... 

  Allow me to explain. I've been listening to different things and reading these forums for a while.  Mostly over on MadLustEnvy's thread for gaming.  I've been collecting Genesis's albums from Duke onward, and from reading about sets and releases I discoverd most of the CDs were 1994 digital remasters and many thought them inferior.  They had volume raised on certain parts with an overall effect of brighter sound and loudness being mistaken for improved audio quality.  I sought out the original JVC or WEA corp CD releases and listened to them and was impressed.  They were more... natural.  And of course the sound that the band created not being altered was great.  I try to not be taken in by marketing... Anyway I thought the 24 bit Phil Collins songs sounded fantastic.  Could this be the source or something?

As a huge Genesis fan from ''Trespass' in 1970 to 'Wind and Wuthering'. That is quite easy to answer, IT IS THE MASTER/REMASTER. Take a listen to the Steven Wilson remixes of Jethro Tull, Yes, King Crimson and XTC and you will begin to understand with older recordings 16/44 lossless is just the beginning of the story. I have listened to at least 4 different masters of King Crimson or early Rush to find the least digitally compressed and best mix for my tastes.

People think they buy a 24/192 that they have the best recording and I laugh. A good example is from those charlatans at HDTracks. They have a 24/196 of 'The Yes Album' by Yes but it is not the glorious Steven Wilson remix based upon the track listing but an earlier remaster.

Bit debth is not the issue but the master or remaster is. Research the fan forums carefully and trust your ears to find the best remaster/remix.

As a general rule any remaster from the advent of the iPod until about 2012 is overly digitally compressed. At least with progressive rock I have noticed remasters/remixes after 2012 have stopped that trend but you have to cautious.

p.s. If you ever want to discover the true Genesis sound (with Gabriel and Hackett still as members) the best CDs of 'Trespass' to 'Selling England by the Pound' are the 2013 Japanese remasters.

 

[castleofargh]

  So...  Please don't mistake this as arguing.  I'm 21, quite ignorant on the matter and I'm really not up on science and physics and things.  I just recently got into mid-fi type stuff.  You can see my profile for my equipment.  I'm very happy with it btw.  But can someone explain to me why the 24bit/192khz Phil Collins album Face Value I bought on Pono Music sounds better than the songs I ripped from Phil Collins Greatest Hits CD.  I listened through my Fiio X3 and Headphones to the CD In the Air Tonight and the Pono version and I thought the Pono one was clearer and more detailed.  And I'm not saying various parts had more punch... 
 
  Allow me to explain. I've been listening to different things and reading these forums for a while.  Mostly over on MadLustEnvy's thread for gaming.  I've been collecting Genesis's albums from Duke onward, and from reading about sets and releases I discoverd most of the CDs were 1994 digital remasters and many thought them inferior.  They had volume raised on certain parts with an overall effect of brighter sound and loudness being mistaken for improved audio quality.  I sought out the original JVC or WEA corp CD releases and listened to them and was impressed.  They were more... natural.  And of course the sound that the band created not being altered was great.  I try to not be taken in by marketing... Anyway I thought the 24 bit Phil Collins songs sounded fantastic.  Could this be the source or something?

in those situation take the practical test, convert the highres to what the other one is and listen if they also sound different. it's a much better way to find out than to trust any of us ^_^.

 

[RRod]

  So...  Please don't mistake this as arguing.  I'm 21, quite ignorant on the matter and I'm really not up on science and physics and things.  I just recently got into mid-fi type stuff.  You can see my profile for my equipment.  I'm very happy with it btw.  But can someone explain to me why the 24bit/192khz Phil Collins album Face Value I bought on Pono Music sounds better than the songs I ripped from Phil Collins Greatest Hits CD.  I listened through my Fiio X3 and Headphones to the CD In the Air Tonight and the Pono version and I thought the Pono one was clearer and more detailed.  And I'm not saying various parts had more punch... 
 
  Allow me to explain. I've been listening to different things and reading these forums for a while.  Mostly over on MadLustEnvy's thread for gaming.  I've been collecting Genesis's albums from Duke onward, and from reading about sets and releases I discoverd most of the CDs were 1994 digital remasters and many thought them inferior.  They had volume raised on certain parts with an overall effect of brighter sound and loudness being mistaken for improved audio quality.  I sought out the original JVC or WEA corp CD releases and listened to them and was impressed.  They were more... natural.  And of course the sound that the band created not being altered was great.  I try to not be taken in by marketing... Anyway I thought the 24 bit Phil Collins songs sounded fantastic.  Could this be the source or something?

 
"Greatest Hits" compilations are notorious for falling prey to loudness-war-type mastering**. As argh suggested, you can make your own down-conversion of the Pono tracks and compare them at 16/44.1 to the greatest hit's track. Any difference are then due almost entirely to the mastering of the CD, not the format itself.
 
**One of my hopes for the Ponostore (which doesn't seem to be coming true) was the availability of such compilations in well-mastered versions, for those of us who aren't collectors of a particular group. 

 

[ShadowSkulkerer]

So the version on the CD was probably poor. Because I think the other albums I have on CD sound fantastic... I suppose I could convert the 24bit one but that may not be as good a test as finding the 1981 issue CD of Face Value, because it would be doing encoding a second time... Just a theory.

 

[C.C.S.]

If you're encoding lossless to lossless, then it shouldn't be any problem. You can convert it down to 16 bits without anything funky happening.

 

[interpolate]

edit