I came across this AES white paper on 96kHz, way back in 1994. We have totally missed the value of modern DAW and audio interface capability, while debating the value of hi-fidelity. Who can argue at this point that 96kHz will become the defacto standard as 5G wireless bandwidth ushers in instant downloads of multi-gigabyte data?

This leads me to the modern question; How have we missed immersive audio this time around? I won't link you, do your own research. Both Sony and Dolby have already developed the experience, it will come.

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

if a users computer can handle it, and if they care enough, go ahead and use 96kHz, who the fuck is stopping anyone aside from the computer lol...

that being said, I probably should've fucked with it after mixing my recent track, didn't come to mind...

 

Someone posted long time ago a tech scheme about the audio production chain, it was something like that:

A bunch of vintage expensive hardware, a bunch of modern expensive hardware, a bunch of high end digital hardware and software, digital storage, a phone and a pair of Chinese earbuds....

But yeah, 96khz can be done and used...

I'm afraid that the most benefit will go to storage sellers.

Edit: I found the original scheme:

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

No no no, we are talking about 360 degree immersive audio by Dolby and Sony here folks. Not the 96kHz debate. 96kHz has already been proven superior, independent of CPU and harddrive space!

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

What's this 'we'?

 

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, okay then, wasn't really clear tbh...

 

The 'we' is why you came to belong to music.

 

There may be a commercial interest as "Affiliations: Pioneer Electronic Corporation, "

90% of HR is upscaled. The point of it is that labels can just spend minimal effort & cost to upscale it, it will sound the same, and that's normal because we can't hear >20khz. It's mainly a profit making excercise.

Maybe. With surround, you actually need to spend a bit more effort & cost , upscaling , or especially when redoing it.

Ambisonics implementations & the myriad of companies that have been doing this since the 90s are also relevant.

As said, most people can't hear >20khz & there are detriments like increased resources use & artefacts.

OTOH, if you actually have speakers, properly done surround audio DOES sound better.

 

Exactly.

 

Every piece of tech we use was developed by a corporation. Post 1970 it was Sony/Pioneer. Unless you think we live in a controlled Matrix/Big Brother, you ought to come to realize that the R&D of the innovator of modern binary digital recording knows the specs... hence the white paper.

That being said... I'd love to see a more diverse climate. Just like I'd love to see a more diverse climate in Apple/Microsoft/Linux. Let's be real in the meantime.

Very True! We need to understand the Master Source of previous recordings before we accept a Hi-Res offering. I'd love to see Motown masters be released in Hi-Res... But I'm not holding my breath.

I'm pointing to current recording standards. Your music, my music, the other person's music. Why not 96kHz?

Hence, 360 Reality Audio by Sony and Dolby Atmos 360

As are the Quadrophonic recordings of the 60's and 70's.. but let's be real. Until they can pipe it into our Neurological activation system... we are just settling.

It's all about the rebound effect from the Nyquist principle. Any audio information beyond 20kHz in most DAW plugins get's an anti-alias filter which degrades the audio pre-20kHz. But this is due to poor programming on the part of the plugin (VST) designers, which will improve.

Trudat

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

not sure if I understand where you're heading, but this is how I see things:
1) samplerate above 44.1kHz is useful ONLY for digital processing, not final distribution - losless formats are way to go rather than having lossy MP3 at 96kHz
2) 5G networks are going to be built with IOT in mind, so I don't expect end users will be given that much faster "usable" internet
3) ambisonics and binaural stuff is ancient thingy indeed, it's really interesting to seek for answer why it didn't get fame much sooner than now, especially when it has literally nothing to do with 360°VR stuff
4) for easy broadcast, less channels are much more effective than broadcasting/streaming 60-channel Atmos, I'm pretty sure Atmos is bound to die fairly soon; binaural on the other hand can easily dominate audio market, when literally everyone owns smartphone with earbuds
5) 360°VR stuff requires content to be dynamically adjusted to 360°tracking, something like WavesNX in essence, to generate audio (and video ofc) content from object sources, not final mastered audio track - which still makes a big problem for both the networks and user devices - it may be cool but I doubt it will really mass-spread within next decade
6) speaking of standards, for ex. in video 1080p is barely standard nowadays....

 

that is literally exactly what every flat earther, anti-vaxxer and all other conspiracy nutjobs say... 'do your own research' basically is synonymous for 'i didnt do any research so i cant give you links'

 

google: "sony 360 reality audio"

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

Only because of the current streaming format 'normalizing' the audio. Recording masters in 96kHz or higher is of future-proofing benefit.

This is 1.16Gbps on a handheld in Chicago... and the speed tests keep getting faster (1.7Gbps on June 21st 2019)

Agreed

Broadcast channels are changing based on bandwidth (back again to 5G and fiber broadband). But binaural could 'own' in the near-to-mid term.

Sony's 360 format allows for a once-recorded fixed dimensionality that can then be moved around based on the VR experience.

Most tablet/phone screen display only outputs at human eye recognition of 1080p

 

Because nobody cares.
It's like 4K/UHD, 6K, 8K, 3D, VR.
Niche markets.
Never gonna be mass market.

The only reason why people massively switched to HD LCD screens in the 2000's is because their former CRT screens were huge, not because of HD. Nobody cares. They can't see the difference between SD and HD 90% of the time.

And they won't be able to spot the difference between atmos and GOF stereo.
And if they do, they probably will prefer their former setup, since they would have mis-positioned their fancy atmos speakers in a space not fit for the exercise.

Moral of the story : Every innovation that requires an extra skill from the consumer is doomed to niche market. Period.

 

96kHz pose no significant advantage over 48kHz in digital form (not accounting oversampling). Normalizing is a term used with volume/dynamic range, not frequency content.
There's no real future proofing in 96kHz.

Try running one of 2l.no 's 352kHz test files through analyzer, no useful audio data beyond 30kHz. 48/44.1kHz is a way to go.

What about upload speeds?

 

ambisonics and binaural stuff has EVERYTHING to do with 360°VR stuff since VR audio IS (based on) ambisonics & is rendered to binaural for headphones.

 

Actually I'd say there is a gap in the market (post tape-based recording). The era of 2005-current is littered with 'official' releases that are inferior to even the most primitive recordings from the 90's. Because of tape vs. DAW capture.

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

96kHz is important when you look at most 'modern' plugins. They have an anti-alias filter that rebounds the audio information into the 20kHz realm if it's recorded 48kHz or below.

This anti-aliasing feature is the basis of modern audio codecs (mp3/streaming). When you allow the stripping of audio information to enable a low bandwidth stream, you are subject to the 'left-overs' of the audio content. 96kHz does play a role in this, as the whole basis for the mp3 algorithm was 'what the human ear could hear', and if it 'couldn't hear it', let's strip it!

The more sonic information you can leave intact, the better. Start recording with hi-res mics (Sony https://www.amazon.com/Sony-C-100-Microphone-Elimination-Construction/dp/B07CHQNWWH)

I'd benefit greatly if you can provide a verifiable list of VST plugins that go beyond the nyquist principle and allow audio information to flourish above 48kHz without rebounding back into the audible (20kHz and below) spectrum.

 

Last edited: Jun 27, 2019

They will be symmetrical