c'mon, guys ) all the major labels releases and sells 44100 16-bit tracks, no matter mp3/wav/flac ) whats that all noise about? any questions after all?

PS
CD is 44100 16-bit. why pay more?

PPS
Marketing

 

We talk about production format, not consumer format.

 

1) First, calculate the bit rate using the formula sampling frequency * bit depth * No. of channels.

Assumption: 2-channel stereo audio

• 44.1kHz/16-bit: 44,100 x 16 x 2 = 1,411,200 bits per second (1.4Mbps)
• 192kHz/24bit: 192,000 X 24 X 2 = 9,216,000 bits per second (9.2Mbps)

2) Using the bit rate calculated, we multiply it by the length of the recording in seconds.

Divide megabit (Mb) by 8 to get megabyte(MB)

• 44.1kHz/16-bit: 1.4Mbps * 300s = 420Mb (52.5MB)
• 192kHz/24bit: 9.2MBps * 300s = 2760Mb (345MB)

Audio recorded in 192kHz/24-bit will take up 6.5x more file space than one sampled at 44.1kHz/16-bit.

So when do you need to record in 192kHz/24-bit?

It’s all down to what you want to do with the audio recording. Do you want to manipulate the recording and do you have unlimited memory storage? Then 192kHz/24-bit should be a no-brainer. But if you are intending to stream your music to your listeners, 192kHz/24-bit will suck up your listener’s bandwidth and rack up their internet bill.

Does 192kHz/24bit Ensure a Superior Listening Experience?
Not really.

Chris Montgomery, a professional audio engineer and the founder of the Xiph.Org foundation, provides an in-depth and technical explanation on why sampling in 192kHz/24bit doesn’t necessarily result in a superior listening experience.

He uses a combination of signal processing and how we humans perceive audio to help explain why sampling in 192kHZ/24bit makes no sense, while also giving readers an idea on how to conduct their own listening tests at home to try and verify things on their own.

The point is enjoying the music, right? Modern playback fidelity is incomprehensibly better than the already excellent analog systems available a generation ago. Is the logical extreme any more than just another first world problem? Perhaps, but bad mixes and encodings do bother me; they distract me from the music, and I’m probably not alone.

Why push back against 24/192? Because it’s a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, a business model based on willful ignorance and scamming people. The more that pseudoscience goes unchecked in the world at large, the harder it is for truth to overcome truthiness… even if this is a small and relatively insignificant example.

You can check out the article by Chris.

Our opinion is that the law of diminishing returns applies to sample rate/bit depth. Once you hit a certain threshold, the marginal improvement in sound quality becomes smaller and smaller until it becomes negligible.

 

That would be true if filters had one property, but they don't remove frequencies by magic, and there's quite a lot more to them beyond the freqency response ;) // not to mention that if it was only about freq response, filters would need to be infinitely steep

 

Last edited: May 25, 2022

I didn't read the thread. if you mainly use in the box plugins then no it is definitely not just marketing, yes even when it ends up as an mp3 in the end, it will still sound better. If your ears can't hear it they cant hear it. I dont go by any numbers just my ears, I've done a blind test myself enough times and picked out the 192 100% of the time even after it was converted to [email protected]. The test project was all plugins with a bit of exaggerated reverb. I only tested 48 96 192. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

EDIT*

This was my experience, and my computer is only strong enough to run 48k, I wish I never did the test because I do know what I'm missing. I performed the test on my friend and he could not hear a difference, but I forced him to make a pick and he chose the 192, 2 times in a row and then he didnt want to play anymore because critical listening is hard.

 

Last edited: May 25, 2022

In my humble opinion:


Yes.

 

I don't know about 192khz but I can definitely notice a difference between 48khz and 96khz.

 

Should't be able to hear any difference from 44.1 --> 96. If you do, then that's usually an indicator of poor converter quality. e.g. Compare a Mytek ADDA (any model) @ 44.1 and 96; you won't hear any difference.

 

This conversation reminds me of the switch to digital radio, which I believe is a relatively low bitrate whereas FM has a wide bandwidth and sounds better but is less convenient. Although in the best scenario analogue is always better than sampled, whether our ears can hear the difference or not, one day we'll probably have bionic hearring and will wish they'd used 192khz back in the day. Of course, by then storage won't be an issue.

It's funny, producers do their best to disguise and hide studio noise, breathing, cable movement etc., and audiophiles aren't satisfied until they can hear these things.

 

I once tried recording at 192khz and my computer said, "Check that out, is that a UFO," ,and when I looked up it kicked me right in the balls. I'm not going there again.

 

If your just listening to a single track you probably won't be able to tell the difference, but when you sum up say 24 tracks, you can tell the difference. It's not like day and night, but it's there. For converters, I'm using a Allen & Heath SQ7 and those have some amazing converters.

I think a good test would be livestream. Livestream a multitrack mix on 48khz and 96khz and tell me if you can't notice the difference.

 

Last edited: May 26, 2022

It's always the same with these topics. Consumer and production formats are mixed up in the conversation and in the end the result is just shit.

No, as a consumer you don't benefit from 192kHz. Maybe - just maybe - 96kHz brings you a small benefit, but only if you listen to classical organ music, I don't know. If you consume music, then 44.1kHz and 16bit is perfectly sufficient, even for classical music. And omnidirectional speakers don't make the recording any more spatial.

For sound engineers and music creators, especially sound designers, a high sample rate is a blessing. The higher the better. It doesn't matter what it's converted to in the end. It depends on what you are working with.

 

I do all in 48kHz / 24bit! (an anonymous couch producer)

 

Last edited: May 26, 2022

Latency drops with a higher samplerate

 

True. And noise increases.

It's always a trade-off.

Do I really need 120dB DR and accept 4.3 ms RTL and a filter that intervenes in the audible signal range?
Or do I need a higher sample rate and shorter RTL with 2.8ms and I sacrifice 25-30dB in DR for that?
What is more important in situation XY?

 

192 is only for recording and editing, once those two things are achieved, they are dummed down to 44 unless as already stated, the computers involved are limitless with space and memory. Time strech, or any other kind of detail work requires higher rates to retain the audio info during manipulation.

There are MACs that boast a TB of memory on them, theyre in the $50k range though.

 

Hmm...
I work the other way around.
I record at 96kHz (or 192kHz if I want to stretch or pitch it later). But I will always mix at the highest possible sample rate.
So in my current case at 192kHz, because my interface does not support higher sample rates.
Actually, there is no need for a quantum computer. Even the Ryzen 5 3600 in my home office has never been fully utilized.

 

I concur but at the same time, when you dont want to be met with any kind of hiccups down the road, the more power the better...the lot depends on the density of tracks in a mix and number of plugs being used.