this thread started with, 44.1Khz is fine

after 1hour. - 48 is definitely better
next day. - maybe 96khz?

 

I will quote Jack Joseph Puig:
"to my ears 48 and 96 kHz sounds very harsh, I work at those sample rates only when I am in a project where I am not involved since the start, then I am obliged. But if I can choose, I go for 44,100 or 88,200 depending on the budget"

I do the same [after I heard him telling this in a workshop]

edit: oh ok, someone else quoted him already, just wanted to add my vote ehehehe

 

192 kHz / 32-bit, nothing else. NASA computer

 

German / English

Sinn und Unsinn hoher Samplingraten
https://digital-audio-systems.com/sinn-und-unsinn-von-hohen-sampleraten/

Sense and nonsense of high sampling rates
https://translate.google.com/transl...-und-unsinn-hoher-samplingraten-prox/?lang=en

 

Samplerates, the higher the better, right?

 

44.1 is perfectly fine for frequencies between 1hz and 22.05khz.

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2021

From wiki:
"In blind listening tests conducted by Bob Katz in 1996, recounted in his book Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science, subjects using the same high-sample-rate reproduction equipment could not discern any audible difference between program material identically filtered to remove frequencies above 20 kHz versus 40 kHz. This demonstrates that presence or absence of ultrasonic content does not explain aural variation between sample rates. He posits that variation is due largely to performance of the band-limiting filters in converters. These results suggest that the main benefit to using higher sample rates is that it pushes consequential phase distortion from the band-limiting filters out of the audible range and that, under ideal conditions, higher sample rates may not be necessary.[24] Dunn (1998) examined the performance of digital converters to see if these differences in performance could be explained by the band-limiting filters used in converters and looking for the artifacts they introduce."

After, have some fun with a pair of good earphones:
How well can you hear audio quality?

Some reading a bit off topic (off range actually):
Why 24-bit/192kHz music files make no sense - and may be bad for you!

I was really happy when digital appeared, in my hundreds vinyls maybe 1 on 10 are good quality, mostly from Decca, Philips, and the like.
The rest are noisy, bumpy, rumbly, crackly, hissy, and they were mostly sealed new.
If that's warmer...
So I guess it's just a mania. To me, given due respect to the old tech, digital forever.

We can discuss it. See here from 3:30 about.

See also the post by:
@relexted : Samplerates, the higher the better, right?

At the end, anyone can use the highest quantization and bith depth and it won't harm (unless you read the above article, paragraph "192kHz considered harmful") but at these high setting it's more or less like shooting mosquitos with a 30mm Gatling Avenger.

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2021

I also have a record collection that is totally scratched. I have downloaded my entire record collection again, Digitized virtually for free. I have more space now that the record player is gone. My stereo system runs on a PC. With a fiber optic cable. A miracle of technology ... You don't even need to turn records around anymore. And the annoying crackling no longer exists thanks to digital technology. You can configure your own folders and playlists.

 

Not bad, but not better than R8Brain, Ableton Live 10, Acon Digital Acoustica 7.3... Many software does it really well these days. Check that https://src.infinitewave.ca website, it's really useful. Here's a comparison of SRC between FinalCD 0.17 and R8Brain 2:

Also check NI Kontakt's SRC... your jaw will drop. So bad.

 

in theory, the higher the better, since you never know beforehand which formats you want to master to in the end.

so if you need a 44 khz master but an 48 khz master, too, it would not make much sense to record in 44.

of course if you really only need to record for CD and mpeg, you could as well use 44.1 and eventually even have a little bit more high frequencies (especially from software synthesizers) compared to 48 khz converted to 44, because conversion requires lowpassfiltering.

and if you really only need 44 at the end and you are looking for a higher rate for processing, you are normally better adviced to 88 or 96, simply because the difference to 44 is a bit bigger. (why bother for 10% more?)

 

when i first saw that infintewave site i was lmao about weiss saracon - the quasi standard for mastering studios from 2000 would do some unexplainable weird shit at the upper end due to a custom method.

i guess in 2020 with our fast processors and all, one is well advised to always go over the least common multiple instead of silly interpolation methods, and make good use of the steepness of certain filter combinations.

 

there are units or softwares where they use different methods for 1:2 which yield to a better result than the ones for arbitrary relations. (96 to 44.1 is a relation of 320:147)

simply put, when halvening the rate you only have to take the average of two samples and then take every other.

so it might simply be his personal experience that "88 makes more sense", and it might be correct that it is more safe.

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2021

weird idea. since the different is so small, why use 48? ;)

correct.

another example: you first create sounds with computer programs, and later you decide to pitch it down 10 octaves.
guess what will happen with 44.1 compared to 384 kHz.

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2021

->

 

For real Serious stuff I would choose between 88.2 and 96Khz, just for matters of Preservation,
knowing it will more cleanly convert to 44.1 or 48Khz respectively..

For regular, less transcendental stuff, 44/48Khz will be Enough..


-As others said the target medium will dictate,
for Video/TV 48khz is standard (NTSC), and also 96khz from the DVD era..

For CD, mp3/flac sharing, or Streaming, 44.1 is good enough.


-I agree oversampling can help with Aliasing,
and in that sense 48Khz might also be a little cleaner having a higher Nyquist limit..

But again in absolute FR listening terms 44.1 is enough,
I personally cannot hear a thing beyond 17.2Khz, and there's a progressive sensitivity loss in the 15-17K region.

But what about Speed and Cleanness?


-You can play a video game at 60fps with a 60hz monitor and think it's perfectly good,
heck even 30fps is more than good enough for playing..

But then they go an make 120hz monitors, and suddenly everything feels/looks more fluid and Natural..
(the difference can be so drastic some ppl don't like it,
just as it was a bit odd to watch 60fps youtube in the beginning..)

So couldn't that be also a factor to consider?

44.khz is = 44.100 24/32bit captures per second.. 88khz is twice that.

So wouldn't a higher sample rate be helpful in order to assure maximum fluidity/naturality over time delta,
on the capture of the ever-changing, uber Complex/rich frequencies being emmited by an acoustic instrument?

What about an entire Orchestra, with 50-100+ of the finest instruments in town,
and the Super Complex/Rich variation of frequencies, Dynamics, and Unthinkable level of minute Details emmited at every nanosecond by every instrument/player?

Ofc humans cannot hear beyond 20khz.. Yes.

But reality happens with an almost Infinitely precise/detailed clock,
much less granular than say a "mere" 44.100 times per second..


I know the theory says I'm wrong,
but thinkin about it, and in Philosophical terms..

It kinda makes sense to me to use a higher sample rate like 88.2/96Khz,
just to Capture, work on and Preserve really important and delicate acoustic/timbric material/information.


Wouldn't the Captures, the Mixes and Processing,
be more natural and true to the source with all that minute extra information added?
(again I see it more as a matter of Time, rather than just freqs)

And that could apply to pretty much anything made with Real Acoustic instruments/microphones,
be it a single instrument, a little acoustic band, or a full fledged Orchestra with all the elements.

(I know the Theory, I'm just philosophizing here..
but hey, maybe that's why 96/192Khz has also become somewhat the standard in modern material afterall)


-And since we're at it..
Why aren't we seeing more 32bit, or 64bit capable audio interfaces?

Bith Depth has definitely a big impact on audio quality,
so wouldn't it make sense to go for 64bit FP and get done with it?

(I know DSD one-bit Mhz stuff exists, but I guess that's another topic..)

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2021

Bit depth Max. Amplitude values dynamic range
8 bit 28 = 256 ------------------->48 dB
16 bit 216 = 65,536 ------------->96 dB
24 bit 224 = 16,777,216 ------->144 dB
32 bit 232 = 4,294,967,296---> 192 dB

It should be noted at this point that regardless of the values in the table, the effective dynamic range for each word depth can be expanded by dithering and noise shaping. This makes it z. B. possible to extend the effective dynamic range of 16Bit recordings to approx. 100 - 120dB. Conversely, it should also be mentioned that real 24-bit or more can hardly be achieved with today's technologies. The reason for this lies in the thermal noise of the electronic components used, in particular the resistors, at room temperature, which occurs slightly above -140 dB.

 

As a practical example (or not..),
take this video for instance:

We don't know what's the original Sample Rate and Bit Depth used to capture it, right..

But whatever it was,
if you take his Fastest runs, and Slow them the fuck down, the notes are kinda blurred away,
even with the modern Elastique algorithm they cannot be made to be as clean as desirable..

(assuming the guitar/strings are also Physically capable of doing it ofc..)

So it's like he kinda plays Faster than what 44khz/16 can capture?


Imagine now the Overwhelming amount of micro Details and Depth a Full Orchestra could have,
and how important it is to ensure enough headroom to capture all that Timbrical detail as pfectly as possible, and in all senses..

Fidelity and depth of quality,
but also Speed/precision and Timbrical depth/extension (overtones..)

So perhaps it makes sense to use ever higher Sample Rates and Bit Depths, in really serious/important,
and Rich material that's worth Preserving.. and also to be able to work on/Process it more cleanly.

 

Last edited: Sep 5, 2021

Right, also the Dynamic Range of human hearing is said to be about 120db,
so 64bit will be very well beyond our capabilities..

But yeah, in absolute physical and philosophical terms, I think the more the better..
At least until you get to the tradeoff point, where a higher sample rate/bit depth introduces more issues than benefits..

 

Sure. Your possible explanation makes sense, but that's not what he said.

 

I don't know about the other software you mentioned, but I did listening comparisons of Final CD command 0.29 with r8brain PRO 2.9 (downsampling from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz) and there is certainly a difference, and I think CD command 0.29 renders more detail and clarity.