[coli]

[size=20.007px]Tests done at the 139th AES Convention by ImmersAV Technology suggest there is no increase in quality with dynamic range beyond 85dB or bandwidth beyond 20kHz.[/size]

 

http://www.cepro.com/article/subjective_tests_conducted_by_immersav_technology_conclude_hi_res_audio_off

 
Well, I learned it the hard way by losing money
 
Edit: with that said, I wish the industry would standardize on 48khz for everything.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

Thanks for the link. Now what is Neil Young going to do with all those Pono players and the Pono Music store?

 

[coli]

  Thanks for the link. Now what is Neil Young going to do with all those Pono players and the Pono Music store?

Making a lot more money than otherwise.

 

[RRod]

 

Edit: with that said, I wish the industry would standardize on 48khz for everything.

 
Actually Opus (which is now an IETF standard) stores everything at 48kHz and plays back natively at that rate. So maybe there's hope!

 

[upstateguy]

 

 

Edit: with that said, I wish the industry would standardize on 48khz for everything.

 
Actually Opus (which is now an IETF standard) stores everything at 48kHz and plays back natively at that rate. So maybe there's hope!

 
What's the big deal about 48kHz?

 

[coli]

   
What's the big deal about 48kHz?

So there will be no resampling between CD and Video releases. Resampling is audible and best avoided. (Unless they record to both formats but I doubt many do it). Plus, you now only have 1 clock instead of 2 clocks, or try to do a compromised common clock...
 
Every time a video release sounds better than the CD release I die a little inside.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

  So there will be no resampling between CD and Video releases. Resampling is audible and best avoided. (Unless they record to both formats but I doubt many do it). Plus, you now only have 1 clock instead of 2 clocks, or try to do a compromised common clock...
 
Every time a video release sounds better than the CD release I die a little inside.

The video releases sounding better than the corresponding CD releases has nothing to do with slight difference in sampling rates (48kHz for DVD vs. 44.1kHz for CD) and everything to do with the different master used for each release. Chances are that the DVD release has much less dynamic range compression for starters. Of course all of this assumes that the DVD contains a PCM soundtrack in addition to the dolby or DTS soundtrack.
 
And resampling is not audible when done with the right software.

 

[coli]

 
The video releases sounding better than the corresponding CD releases has nothing to do with slight difference in sampling rates (48kHz for DVD vs. 44.1kHz for CD) and everything to do with the different master used for each release. Chances are that the DVD release has much less dynamic range compression for starters. Of course all of this assumes that the DVD contains a PCM soundtrack in addition to the dolby or DTS soundtrack.
 
And resampling is not audible when done with the right software.

Resampling is audible, even the Grammy agrees. See http://www2.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf This is the bible. If your system is not able to let you hear resampling, count your blessings and whatever you do, do not upgrade. I used to have a "setup" that I can resample all I want and they all sound the same.
 
I can tell you they ****ed up the resample, it doesn't happen often, but every once in awhile, oh god. Its usually the small timer that makes that mistake. And I agree that there are better resample algos (eg: especially the NOS like one from Windows). But the best is no resample and just have the industry standardize on one clock.
 
Also, generally the movie guys makes the best recordings, better than the music guys, how ironic...

 

[BiggerHead]

  Resampling is audible, even the Grammy agrees. See http://www2.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf This is the bible. If your system is not able to let you hear resampling, count your blessings and whatever you do, do not upgrade. I used to have a "setup" that I can resample all I want and they all sound the same.
 
I can tell you they ****ed up the resample, it doesn't happen often, but every once in awhile, oh god. Its usually the small timer that makes that mistake. And I agree that there are better resample algos (eg: especially the NOS like one from Windows). But the best is no resample and just have the industry standardize on one clock.
 
Also, generally the movie guys makes the best recordings, better than the music guys, how ironic...

 
Which brings the question... if sample rates are high enough to represent perceptually lossless information, then how can transforming from one lossless format to another degrade the sound? Both formats (high or higher bitrare) are capable of representing 100% of what we can hear, perfectly, right?  So either there is something wrong with that statement or something wrong with how that information is extracted and encoded in practice, which makes the statement effectively wrong (but maybe not always for good enough resampling algorithms).
 
There are obviously some dumb ways to resample, but the question is are there any smart enough ones in use?  Resampling is just a processes of first doing the analog conversion, and then sampling.  So if there are no smart resampling algorithms, then is the reverse, the original recording sampling and following analog conversion for listening done well enough?  Nyquist says the information is there (with some important assumptions).  It doesn't say we extract it properly.

 

[BiggerHead]

Of course part of the catch to this is proper rendering of said perfect information, but part is that said perfect information a la Nyquist requires infinite bit depth.  nothing about Nyquist guarantees that 40 khz sampling at 16 bit guarantees 16 bit depth precision of 19 khz sounds.  In fact I'm pretty sure it does not (although it's not even a well defined statement as said).  What Nyquist says is perfect (infinite bit depth) sampling at 40khz gives perfect information at 19 (or 19.999) khz.  Resampling even perfectly will probably increase rounding error and lose another half a bit which may translate to even more effectively at some frequencies but I doubt this is even the worst of the issues.

 

[gregorio]

  Resampling is audible, even the Grammy agrees.

 
That may have been true back when that article was written but things have changed considerably since then. Nowadays, sample rate conversions occur all over the place and multiple times throughout the recording/production/mixing of making a recording. Many dozens of sample rate conversions is not at all uncommon in modern recordings. Today, sample rate conversions are pretty much a non-issue.
 

  Also, generally the movie guys makes the best recordings, better than the music guys, how ironic...

 
Of course, it depends on exactly what you mean by; making a recording. As a general rule though, the opposite is in fact the case.
 

  Of course part of the catch to this is proper rendering of said perfect information, but part is that said perfect information a la Nyquist requires infinite bit depth.  nothing about Nyquist guarantees that 40 khz sampling at 16 bit guarantees 16 bit depth precision of 19 khz sounds.

 
This is not only incorrect but pretty much the exact opposite of what the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem states! The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem does not mention bit depth because bit depth is irrelevant, the Theorem states that ALL information is retained and perfect reconstruction is possible provided the signal is bandlimited to at least half the sample rate. This is true at ANY bit depth, even with just 1 bit and the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem does not mention, imply and definitely does not require infinite bit depth! In other words, the whole point of the Nyquist-Shannon Theorem is to guarantee that perfect reconstruction is possible of a 19kHz signal with a 40kHz sampling rate (using 16 or any other number of bits)!
 
G

 

[dprimary]

  Resampling is audible, even the Grammy agrees. See http://www2.grammy.com/pdfs/recording_academy/producers_and_engineers/5_1_rec.pdf This is the bible. If your system is not able to let you hear resampling, count your blessings and whatever you do, do not upgrade. I used to have a "setup" that I can resample all I want and they all sound the same.
 
I can tell you they ****ed up the resample, it doesn't happen often, but every once in awhile, oh god. Its usually the small timer that makes that mistake. And I agree that there are better resample algos (eg: especially the NOS like one from Windows). But the best is no resample and just have the industry standardize on one clock.
 
Also, generally the movie guys makes the best recordings, better than the music guys, how ironic...

Ok i'm shocked something useful came out of the Grammy's. It is pretty much a condensed versions of other documents much of it is from ITU papers. They did a good job with graphics. It does put it all one place and in non-technical language. I wish it had a bibliography it find the sources it was derived from. 

 

[dprimary]

  So there will be no resampling between CD and Video releases. Resampling is audible and best avoided. (Unless they record to both formats but I doubt many do it). Plus, you now only have 1 clock instead of 2 clocks, or try to do a compromised common clock...
 
Every time a video release sounds better than the CD release I die a little inside.

Except music is almost never recorded at 48k, the only time I know of it happening is someone made a mistake. Even when I know the music will end up in a movie I record it at music sampling rates. I prefer to give up quality from resampling in the movie mix where it is unlikely to be noticed.

 

[dprimary]

   
That may have been true back when that article was written but things have changed considerably since then. Nowadays, sample rate conversions occur all over the place and multiple times throughout the recording/production/mixing of making a recording. Many dozens of sample rate conversions is not at all uncommon in modern recordings. Today, sample rate conversions are pretty much a non-issue.
 
 
 

Current resampling is extremely good, but I'm not ready to say it inaudible I have not seem any current papers on the subject or tested it myself. I see no reason to need multiple sample rate conversions if people are paying attention to what they doing. On they other hand with so much work being do in project studios the level of technical knowledge used in productions is at a all time low. The old analog and tape based digital studios required a large amount of technical knowledge and skills to even keep the equipment running for more then a few days, let alone get any kind of fidelity out of them. Today you fire a the laptop off and off you go no setup, no calibration, and little knowledge. The current sample rates and bit depth are so high you can completely screw everything up throw out half the fidelity and someone can still make something useful out of it. Though a few albums over the last few years proves with a enough effort anything can be completely screwed up and unlistenable yet somehow they end up being huge sellers. There is an old saying in recording "if it is a good song it doesn't matter what it sounds like people will buy it" It seems that is more true now then ever. 

 

[gregorio]

  I see no reason to need multiple sample rate conversions if people are paying attention to what they doing.

 
It's got relatively little to do with paying attention to what one is doing. Many plugin processors available today up-sample, process and then down-sample again. Some plugins provide a selectable option to maintain the sample rate or up/re-sample, most do not. In many cases, exactly what's going on "under the hood" of a plugin is a trade secret and there's simply no way of knowing if resampling is taking place or not.
 
G