#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My point however is that standard had nothing to do with perceived audio quality. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com Taylor 710 sunburst Epiphone ef-500m ...a few electrics Last edited by Psalad; 12-20-2015 at 12:15 PM. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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."
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 Last edited by KevWind; 12-20-2015 at 04:30 PM. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I kinda hate this subject because alot of it is grounded in engineering principles but I'm not an engineer, I don't build AD/DA converters and I don't have to think about relaxing the requirement of an anti aliasing filter. I don't have to deal with the problems of high speed signal transmission, and frankly, I don't have the training to talk about it with any authority, so I won't.
As someone who just records music, the most direct problems associated with doubling sampling rate are: 1) your recordings use up twice as much RAM and hard drive space. 2) plugin signal processing has twice the cpu load (although doubling sampling rate does halve ASIO latency so there is that). I did record at 96khz for a while until it became really impractical to do so. Now I record and mix at 44.1khz. Alot of the stuff I do is mainly electronic so its a mix of analogue synthesizers, computer software and sometimes guitar. Sometimes, I end up recording something into a DAW project that is already pushing high cpu load and high ASIO sample buffers (higher latency). The only practical way to get unplayable latency down without shooting cpu load and memory/disk usage up is to freeze channels I don't need immediately and run the lowest buffer size possible at 44.1khz. Some plugins like U-He ACE are just unthinkable @96khz. This is a very good modular synthesizer that has annoyingly become indispensable to me. This plugin is a big cpu hog at 44.1khz, even when you turn off oversampling. Its one of those things you just have to work around if you want to use it. When musicians talk about sound quality, it often means something totally different to what engineers mean. At the upper extremity of human hearing there is nothing but sibilance but when you talk to working musicians, alot of the real problems are to do with just poor performance, recording technique, poor recording environment, bad mixing etc. When I produce, at no point have I ever thought a 96khz recording of a badly played guitar in a cluttered bedroom would ever sound better than a 44.1khz recording of same. They will both sound bad because the craft isn't there and if I'm not happy with it, its usually because I know I should do better with the tools I have. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
http://www.mixonline.com/news/profil...ng-rate/365968 Quote:
What would be an interesting exercise is to evaluate some of the early CD players vs. the current converter technology. Even at 44.1, I'd imagine we would hear the poorly designed filters and lack of oversampling... but the technology has gotten so good, I doubt it makes a difference today. But I'm not one who says things are necessarily "settled" scientifically because things never really are. For now the evidence sure seems to be pointing to there being no difference (or a difference that somehow doesn't show up in double blind testing but shows up in other evaluations). Anyway, for me, it's 44.1, but today's world means for many with newer computers and tons of CPU, I guess it might not be a big deal to hedge your bets with 88.2. (BTW my ears are old at 52, so YMMV.. maybe the young guys can pick it out).
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com Taylor 710 sunburst Epiphone ef-500m ...a few electrics |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Where I come from (R.R.1, Over the Hill) at 52 you're still one of the young guys! |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
But for me simple logic would suggest that one of reasons it is not settled is that much of so called " evidence" suffer's from significant problems in its methodology . For example the test sighted in the above link your referring to. Is to my mind indicative of much of "evidence" that often has basic problems of method from the get go, in terms of the difference between what people may perceive or expect the tests may be demonstrating, and what the tests are objectively showing. For example: While the author of article states. It was designed to show whether real people, with good ears, can hear any differences between “high-resolution” audio and the 44.1kHz/16-bit CD standard. I would suggest that considering the actual method used in the test he is sighting, that making that general of statement about this particular test, is arguably little more than expectation bias. Unfortunately the test sighted as actually conducted, does not really show that, because of the method used, and logically that type of method for testing can not demonstrate that particular "stated design goal" per se . The simple basic logical error in the method used in that test, is of course starting with a single file recorded in higher resolution , and then dithering that high res. file down to 44.1. for playback and testing. So in reality the only thing that test actually demonstrates is that when you take a file already recorded in higher res. and play it back in both higher res and 44.1, that people practiced in critical listening were only able to detect which was which, 52% of the time. That could in fact logically be stated to simply be demonstrating that recording in higher res. is actually beneficial when the file is later dithered down or compressed. Unfortunately that method of testing (starting with a hi res file) does nothing to demonstrate the much more real world situation of both recording and playing back, in different sample rates, to see if people can hear the difference. Which would mean using a single performance that is split and simultaneously recorded in both 44.1 and say 88 or 96. and then played back in 44.1 and 88 or 96. respectively and then perhaps another test played back again in only a single reduced resolution. It seems logical to me that the only way would be taking the signal from the same front end pre amp outputs and splitting it: Send it to two of the same brand and model of AD/DA converter (as I don't think one unit can handle two different sample rates at the same time) One at 44 and one at say 88. and into two sessions ( one in 44 and one in 88 ) in the same brand DAW, on two of the exact same brand and config. of computers. Then take the outputs from the computers back to the two AD/DA's and back through the same playback system. Then see if people can determine which is which. I have yet to actually read about a test with this type of methodology.
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 Last edited by KevWind; 12-21-2015 at 10:05 AM. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Taking music recorded and post processed at 88,200 (or higher perhaps), and then resampling the finished product down to 44,100, and then comparing the two sample rates in a listening test does not say much about the effects of initially recording and post processing at 44,100.
__________________
Derek Coombs Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love To be that we hold so dear A voice from heavens above |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev... KevWind at Soundcloud KevWind at YouYube https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...EZxkPKyieOTgRD System : Studio system Avid Carbon interface , PT Ultimate 2023.12 -Mid 2020 iMac 27" 3.8GHz 8-core i7 10th Gen ,, Ventura 13.2.1 Mobile MBP M1 Pro , PT Ultimate 2023.12 Sonoma 14.4 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Please don't take the mix article as an attempt at proof, that wasn't my intention. It is just one example of the many that have failed.
The burden of proof is on those who believe there is a difference. In many years of having high sample rates, I'm aware of no scientific study where someone demonstrates success picking out the higher sample rate more consistently than a coin flip. For now the issue IS pretty much settled IMO, at least for the time being. That's not to say new evidence can't come out of course. The beauty is we can all test this ourselves. I have done a variety of tests myself and could not successfully pick out the higher sample rate file any more successfully than a coin flip.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com Taylor 710 sunburst Epiphone ef-500m ...a few electrics |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Music: Spotify, Bandcamp Videos: You Tube Channel Books: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), Christmas Carols for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), A DADGAD Christmas, Alternate Tunings book Online Course: Alternate Tunings for Fingerstyle Guitar |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
At what bit depth and sample rate do you usually record at, and if greater than 16 bit and 44,100 hertz, why?
__________________
Derek Coombs Youtube -> Website -> Music -> Tabs Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs "Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Woods hands pick by eye and ear
Made to one with pride and love To be that we hold so dear A voice from heavens above |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
This quote sums up my original question perfectly. Although I'm not as much of a newbie as I was when I first started asking questions here on the AGF Recording Forum my experience is still limited. So while I readily acknowledge that room treatment, mic placement, instrument quality, playing ability and a host of others factors are important, issues like sample rate/bit depth and gain staging need to be understood and considered as well. Who better to ask than people whose recorded sound is worth emulating?
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
It depends. I've usually used 96Khz, for no reason I can justify. Your 88.2 makes more sense, I should switch back to that (I recorded my first CD at 88.2). My last few projects I just did at 44.1. I have played around with 192, mostly just to verify that my interface would do it. I don't hear any actual differences, but if you're going to record something these days and aren't limited by CD restrictions, it seems fine to record at a higher sample rate just to do it - maybe some audiofiles will appreciate it. But I don't believe it's the cure for bad recording, or adds air, or anything.
__________________
Music: Spotify, Bandcamp Videos: You Tube Channel Books: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), Christmas Carols for Fingerstyle Guitar (std tuning), A DADGAD Christmas, Alternate Tunings book Online Course: Alternate Tunings for Fingerstyle Guitar |
|
Tags |
acoustic guitar, logic pro x, sample rate |
|