Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad
This has been a good conversation.
So anything is possible. It is true that science hasn't proven there is no audible difference when it comes to higher sampling rate and audio above 20k, but that's not the job of science. The job of science is not to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those who think there is a difference.
The only reason to record at higher sampling rates is because there might possibly be a difference that science hasn't yet shown. The arguments against it include doubling of more of file sizes, increased CPU, no proven difference, the fact that your mics and preamps might not operate linearly at higher frequencies (or even pass them), etc. Dan Lavry has a write up on this I've linked below.
I certainly have my POV but my POV is very fluid, if evidence is shown that there is an audible difference in practice. BTW the AES did a long test of many people years ago and nobody could pick out the high sample rate file in blind testing.
As others have said you may choose to hedge your bet, but do so only after reading the Lavry paper, as it bring up an issue that many people including me had never thought of. Here is a link: http://lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lav...ing-theory.pdf
Finally, if there IS a differece, the difference clearly pales in comparison to the importance of a microphone, the quality of an instrument or voice, the placement of the mic in the room, the quality of the room, and the talent /skills of the engineer to process the audio. |
First I would completely agree with your last statement. The reality is what we are hearing posted here and anywhere, is in fact a result of the total cumulative effect of the entire performance, recording, mixing, and output chain, and the skill of the people involved .
I would tend to agree also about "higher" sample rates being less important than the above factors .
However the OP was basically questioning if rates higher than 44.1 were more optimal. Particularly in terms of "open airy" quality.
And first it seems maybe we should probably make a distinction and clarify the term "higher sample rates" because there is "higher" and then there is "much higher". And in fact Lavry makes this distinction also. Lavry proposes that 60k is the optimal sample rate and also proposes that below that is not optimal and you may not actually be getting all possible high end information available, at as flat a level as might be possible. And above that is essentially overkill to varying degrees and that the possible negative effects of the 192k arguably outweigh any possible positive effects.
So I tend to agree with Lavry's conclusion in his paper about "optimal sample" rates.
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs...lity_audio.pdf
And interestingly enough it is Lavry himself (see below) that is suggesting that there may in fact be a roll off of the high end data with 44.1 and thus it could well be that 44.1 does not have as much of the "airy" quality that the OP was referring to.
Excerpt :
"Good conversion requires attention to capturing and reproducing the range we hear while filtering and keeping out energy in the frequency range outside of our hearing. At 44.1 KHz sampling the flatness response may be an issue. If each of the elements (microphone, AD, DA and speaker) limit the audio
bandwidth to 20 KHz (each causing a 3dB loss at 20 KHz), the combined impact is -12dB at 20 KHz..
At 60 KHz sampling rate, the contribution of AD and DA to any attenuation in the audible range is negligible.
Although 60 KHz would be closer to the ideal; given the existing standards, 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz are closest to the optimal sample rate. At 96 KHz sampling rate the theoretical bandwidth is 48 KHz. In designing a realworld converter operating at 96 KHz, one ends up with a bandwidth of approximately 40 KHz."