[estreeter]

Quote:

[size=10pt]And that's all that matters to me-  I'm the one who buys gear and recorded music for me, and if I can't hear the difference between redbook and 24/96 recordings, well then I see no need for me to spend my hard-earned cash on exotic DACs or hard-to-find 24/96 recordings. [/size]

I don't believe I'm quoting you out of context in grabbing your final couple of sentences - apologies if that is the case but this thread is a monster already. I agree with you 100% - good enough is most definitely good enough. If folk want to collect the remaining hi-rez discs and pay for downloads, all power to them, but most of us seem to have survived with nothing more than Redbook CDs for many years. I;d be happier if the recordings themselves were better in many cases, but I have absolutely no control over that. Inebitably, there will be people out there who claim they can tell the difference between Redbook and 24/96, but I'm not one of them. Choice is good, but that has to go both ways - religious wars rarely allow for that kind of leeway. 
 

 

[joe_cool]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaud /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 

And here's another pretty picture demonstrating an increase in the bit depth:
 

 

 
This is a misrepresentation of the differences in bit-depth as it relates to digital audio. The extra bits are not equally spread over the visible wave-form, they are centered around the zero-crossing area and are therefore practically invisible as well as inaudible. This sort of cognitive error along with common but misleading terms like "snapshots" lead to misunderstanding.

 

[xnor]

Quote:

The extra bits are not equally spread over the visible wave-form, they are centered around the zero-crossing area and are therefore practically invisible as well as inaudible.

Huh?

 

[ILikeMusic]

Quote:

This is a misrepresentation of the differences in bit-depth as it relates to digital audio. The extra bits are not equally spread over the visible wave-form, they are centered around the zero-crossing area and are therefore practically invisible as well as inaudible. This sort of cognitive error along with common but misleading terms like "snapshots" lead to misunderstanding.

Quote:

Huh?

 
And there is the crux of almost all 192/24 vs. 44/16 threads... 

 

 

[Kees]

Quote:

 
And there is the crux of almost all 192/24 vs. 44/16 threads... 

 

Yes,this. 

.
Only very few people here know what they are talking about.
 

 

[firev1]

Quote:

 
Here's a pretty picture to illustrate what I'm talking about in regards to increasing the sample rate:
 

 

 
Since the noise question has been already been beaten to the death MULTIPLE times, I shall not go there. But it seems the sample rate one has yet "die" enough times so I shall go .
 
Going by the sample rate impulse graph shown, 192khz seems like a terrible choice for a recording format. 24/96 combines the best of 2 worlds, DSD is good and all but its noise characteristics by heavy noise shaping makes it sucky for recording but great for playback or format delivery(mastering). 192khz though it reaches close to the impulse response of the analog sound, there is significant "spread" or ringing which to me, may be more audible than the maximum amplitude of the impulse response. 

 

 

[stv014]

Quote:

Originally Posted by firev1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
192khz though it reaches close to the impulse response of the analog sound, there is significant "spread" or ringing which to me, may be more audible than the maximum amplitude of the impulse response.

The ringing is at 96 kHz, though, so I do not think it is audible. Also, by implementing a smooth roll-off already below the maximum frequency (e.g. from 24 kHz to 96 kHz), the ringing can be made much shorter (its length is inversely proportional to the bandwidth of the lowpass filter).
 

 

[firev1]

I see, but fact still remains that with the extremely high sample rates, we lose some accuracy, simply put, I don't think impulse response tell the whole picture.

 

[stv014]

In theory, no accuracy is lost with a higher sample rate. It just allows you to reproduce a wider frequency range, but it is up to you how the extra bandwidth is used. Here are some impulse and frequency response graphs for comparison:
 
48 kHz with fast roll-off:
   
48 kHz with slow roll-off above 20 kHz:
   
96 kHz with slow roll-off above 24 kHz:
   
 
The 96 kHz version has ruler flat frequency response (and also phase response as it is linear phase) up to 24 kHz, so nothing is lost there compared to the 48 kHz sample rate. Due to the increased bandwidth of the lowpass filter, it has far less ringing.
A higher sample rate is technically better (assuming that it does not introduce problems related to non-ideal hardware), but of course it may not actually make an audible difference compared to 48 or even 44.1 kHz, so the extra bandwidth is still likely to be a waste of space in practice.
 

 

[jcx]

the fact is that with Analog Signals we are starting with limited "bits" - all real world signals have limited bandwidth, a noise floor (Johnson "thermal" noise and often other types)
 
EarthWorks makes much in their marketing of their products super bandwidth - the fastest mic they sell for recording use has a 50 kHz 2nd order roll off, and due to its small size it has higher noise floor
 
most mics used in recording studios have 20-25 kHz or less bandwidth
 
plug the numbers into Shannon-Hartley Channel Capacity Theorem and good 20 bit (enob) 96/192 k ADC aren't missing much
 
 
any idea of the best ever delivered by any analog mass market consumer music recording media - hard numbers?

 

[firev1]

My comment on accuracy mainly goes for 192khz sample rate, with 96khz there is almost no problem(at least for A/DC). Unless I misinterpret Lavry's paper incorrectly? 

 

[stv014]

Quote:

My comment on accuracy mainly goes for 192khz sample rate, with 96khz there is almost no problem(at least for A/DC). Unless I misinterpret Lavry's paper incorrectly? 

There is nothing inherently (i.e. not related to its current implementations) wrong with the 192 kHz sample rate either, although for music storage/distribution there is not much point using it.
 

 

[skibum]

Does anyone know where I can get a test track that is in 192KHz / 16 bit, 44.1KHz / 24 bit and 192kHz / 24 bit?
 
I realize I can do this myself with dBpoweramp, but my understanding is that most software out there just truncates the extra bits off.  The process requires dithering and needs to be done properly for a fair comparison.
 
I would like to play these tracks myself and see what I can actually hear.
 
?
 
 

 

[stv014]

If you have a link to a good 192/24 or 96/24 test file that can be freely used, I can create a blind test thread for the comparisons, including files that go through actual D/A-A/D conversion if that is relevant.
 

 

[khaos974]

-