The Optimal Sample Rate for Quality Audio

[esldude]

Thank you for posting this. If only people will read it and understand it then a world of good may come from it.

[esldude]

I would agree that technically 96Khz is plenty. But if the technology is here, affordable, and allows higher res, then go for it. We have bandwidth to burn.

 

Cheers,

JR

 

Yeah, helluva reason to do it huh? Because we can. Yep, professional advice and experience, do the most intensive and expensive thing because we can. Heck, I don't figure it takes a lot of knowledge to make that decision. Anyone's goofy brother in law could have told you that. So, do we end up in ten year's time doing everything at 1536 khz/48 bit just because? Hey, congratulations.

 

And yes, the super megapixel thing is comparable. I mean a well done with best current tech 6 mp sensor would have excellent low light capability. But 18 mp or more with still the same low light issues as always will still sell because educated consumers, nay connoisseurs, know 18 is more than 6. Again congratulations, such input and reasoning is so hard to come by. More is more and less is less.

[esldude]

Hi Julf - My point is simply the original poster writes as if Dan's word is the only word on the subject. I think Keith Johnson has contradictory things to say about the value of 176.4 kHz etc... Much of this is beyond my level of expertise. I'm just suggesting Dan isn't the Minister of Information when it comes to digital. In fact nobody is.

 

Well, lets not forget Keith Johnson also has a commercial interest to push. Why pay extra for his hi-rez recordings unless they are better right? Plus in more guarded comments at times he appears to think even his hi-rez is only a little bit better than properly done CD. That being the case, seems the difference between 96 khz and 192 khz might be small indeed.

 

As you say, no one is the Minister of Information on digital.

[esldude]

James Johnston has expressed doubts about Kunchur's results. I don't know if anyone has exactly replicated his experiment. But very similar experiments came up with fairly consistent results that don't agree with Kunchur. I am not sure it matters all that much either way. Kunchur basically said timing differences were audible to about half the accepted amount. Even 44.1 khz will have the timing accuracy for that. I believe, though might be remembering it wrong, that Kunchur is one saying 44.1 khz couldn't time accurately enough, and that is more where other people in the field disagreed with him.

 

Now Oohashi's work is much more interesting. Especially as the ultrasonics don't go through the normal hearing channel of the ear. Instead they apparently stimulate the inner ear or some related area of the brain yet the ultrasonics enter through the eye sockets. Would like to know more about how high a frequency is needed, what ranges it covers etc. Maybe you should start a thread just on that Jud.

[esldude]

Simply due to the way psychoacoustics work, blind listening tests cannot provide any solid proof as to whether two sounds are completely identical. For example, if someone listens to music in Redbook format, then listens to the same music in Hi Res right after that, the Hi Res version might reveal subtle sounds that were inaudible in the Redbook version but when the same person switches back from Hi Res to Redbook, these subtle sounds can suddenly be heard in Redbook even though they were inaudible at first. So, because psychoacoustics can never be ruled out of the equation, those who still claim measurements are the be-all and end-all in sound quality are ultimately wrong IMHO.

 

Much of psychoacoustics was determined with blind tests. To say they can provide no proof of two sounds being identical is rather ridiculous. Perhaps some phenomena will require particular conditions, but that doesn't prevent a blind test being possible. I am not sure I believe your redbook hi rez example of what might be called innoculation. Once innoculated with the sacred hirez you then hear more in redbook? Even it could be tested blind if desired. I do understand one could hear a more clear rendition of sound, and once picking something out then go back to a more muddled result, and knowing what to listen for find it more easily. But it has to be in the less clear rendition at an audible level to be discerned. An interesting test would be an example of a recording available in the same form, same mastering where you could hear something first in hi-rez and then pick out the previously inaudible artifact in the lo rez form. I think that is conjecture on your part based upon the idea hi rez is higher resolution and easier to hear into for the listener. Something which may or may not be true in my opinion.

 

As for measurements being the be and end all, I don't know that really being the aim. Listening itself will always be the final arbiter. But one must include all that is known about how listening can be fooled or well you will get fooled. Measurements can provide a consistent background in many areas. Measurements are an excellent short cut as in ruling out known factors. It also can usually be adapted to measure any new result coming to light to help figure out just what is going on. It can sometimes eliminate factors as well.

[esldude]

http://test.beperkdestraling.org/Studies%20en%20Rapporten/Tinnitus/Auditory%20Response%20to%20Pulsed%20radiofrequency%20energy.pdf

 

If you get the sample rates high enough, then it could cause clicks and buzzes in your ears. Admittedly the intensity will have to be pretty high as well as the rate. Pretty interesting stuff here anyway. Intense pulses of 2.5 mhz to 10 ghz will cause sound to be heard.

[esldude]

Hi Julf,

 

 

 

For my ears and based on my experience so far, I agree.

(That is why I wrote the second paragraph in post #95).

 

On the other hand and perhaps merely coincidental (I don't know), with my 24-bit DAC, I'm hearing the best playback of 16-bit material I've yet heard. (That said, I attribute this to the whole design, not simply the wordlength.)

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

A question Barry. You have said when you hear 176 or 192 it crosses a threshold into sounding like live feed. You may have no reason to have done so, but have you listened with some of the relatively affordable consumer level DACs playing at those high sample rates? And if so do they get pretty close or fall far short in your opinon? By affordable I don't mean like $100 units, but maybe units of $1000 and less.

[esldude]

Hi elsdude,

 

 

 

To be clear, with regard to 4x rates, I said I find the threshold crossed*with the best converters I've heard*. I've also said many converters I've heard which have a "192" in their spec sheets actually perform *worse* (to my ears) than they do at 2x rates.

 

I know of no converter in the $1000 range that does 4x rates. Not talking what's on the spec sheet but what comes out of my speakers. Even at $2000, the best I've heard isn't even spec'd for 4x rates - but does a wonderful job at 96k.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

 

Thanks Barry,

 

Just the kind of answer I was seeking as you have a perspective most of us don't get to have as someone who does high quality recording.

[esldude]

[video=youtube_share;aoO2q8g7I88]I think he makes that point here. It is not the sampling that is important so much as increasing the bit-rate.

 

I think my brain got blurred.