192 khz vs 48 khz poll

[esldude]

Sorry the poll question got chopped off on the end. It should read as below.

 

192 khz sampled digital audio will record and reproduce analog musical signals below 20 khz more accurately than 48 khz sampled digital audio.

Is this statement true or false?

 

You can assume the same bit depth in either case whether both are 16 bit or 24 bit or 32 bit.

 

You can give your explanations in posts to this thread.

[sandyk]

Why not also include SACD, DSD etc. in the poll ?

 

On the surface at least, it appears to be yet another in a highly divisive series of threads that you have started.

[Daudio]

On the surface at least, it appears to be yet another in a highly divisive series of threads that you have started.

 

How about giving the thread a chance before accusations ?? (there always seems to be time for that)

[sandyk]

How about giving the thread a chance before accusations ?? (there always seems to be time for that)

 

Surely the poll could be clarified further at this very early stage? A simple True or False answer doesn't leave much room for other opinions either.

[esldude]

What would you like clarified? I didn't include DSD, SACD etc. etc. because it isn't what I wanted to poll.

[sandyk]

What would you like clarified? I didn't include DSD, SACD etc. etc. because it isn't what I wanted to poll.

 

In other words you have already found some research by others that backs your own conclusions in this very narrow and specific area, and thus do not wish to include any other high resolution formats.

You could have included another option such as "I don't care as long as it sounds good"

[esldude]

In other words you have already found some research by others that backs your own conclusions in this very narrow and specific area, and thus do not wish to include any other high resolution formats.

You could have included another option such as "I don't care as long as it sounds good"

 

Yes, I have a firm opinion on this. Wanted to poll the opinion of others.

 

I didn't include other high resolution formats because there are many complicated differences between them. The single difference of sample rate is much cleaner.

[sandyk]

Yes, I have a firm opinion on this. Wanted to poll the opinion of others.

 

I didn't include other high resolution formats because there are many complicated differences between them. The single difference of sample rate is much cleaner.

 

 

You always have firm opinions before starting these threads, so do continue on your merry way without me.

[esldude]

You always have firm opinions before starting these threads, so do continue on your merry way without me.

 

Thank you, much appreciated.

[wgscott]

How about giving the thread a chance before accusations ?? (there always seems to be time for that)

 

Thank you for speaking up. I appreciate it.

[wgscott]

I voted "no", but I am not sure about this. In the limit of zero experimental error, sampling redundancy does nothing that sampling at 1/2 the wavelength doesn't. However, I do know from my own line of work that redundancy in sampling really helps with image reconstruction (this is the kx part rather than ωt part, but it should work the same way).

[wdw]

No doubt about it...the ruling is in. We know it. So do you...whether it is repeatable "testable" as being audible is another poll.

[sdolezalek]

I voted "FALSE" because standing alone, increasing the sampling frequency below 20khz should not change the accuracy, but I also don't think that is where most of the disagreement is. In my view, the filtering that goes on in the conversion process behaves differently at different sampling rates and there are benefits to be had by starting with a 192 khz sample rate. I certainly have played enough with the adjustments available in Audirvana and Isotope IRC to convince myself that differing slopes and cutoff values have tradeoffs that are different at 48 khz than at 192 khz.

[esldude]

Well changing the filtering is changing more than just the sample rate. Perhaps that should have been spelled out as well. I am referring only to changing sample rate. Not bit depth, filtering etc. Changing filtering will often have frequency response alterations that go with it. Doing so will make a different level of difference with low vs high sample rates.

[sandyk]

I voted true, mainly because I accept what highly experienced Recording and Mastering Engineer Barry Diament is saying when he reports that it is only when he reaches 24/192 that the results sound like his microphone feed.

[mwheelerk]

I didn't vote. I don't know the answer. I don't hold a particular opinion on it. It has no bearing on my enjoyment of or choice of music or formats. And yes this seems to be yet another in a very long boring line of threads....

[mayhem13]

I didn't vote. I don't know the answer. I don't hold a particular opinion on it. It has no bearing on my enjoyment of or choice of music or formats. And yes this seems to be yet another in a very long boring line of threads....

 

Then why post at all if you're not interested in what the poll reveals?

 

Your response is extremely rude and condescending. Move on please.

[wgscott]

If you have signal that goes significantly above 24 kHz, it could make a difference. For example, if you sample at 48kHz, but the signal goes to 36 kHz, then you can get folding artifacts down to 12 kHz, which has the potential at least to be audible. 88.2 and 96 kHz give you much more of a margin for safety. Beyond that (eg 192 kHz) is beyond overkill.

[wdw]

ELSDUDE, I agree with your summation, 24/48, is near the "best or "adequately best'.

 

My experience suggests that bit depth is more important than frequency .

 

so, wassup? I'm somewhat cynical about the direction of your posts, so what's the punchline?

 

Wassup?

[Le Concombre Masqué]

What's the length of the 17 miles drive ?

 

if you drive the Nyquist theorem branded car, the answer is 17/false

 

But what if you're a bee flying close to (discriminate the subtlest variations) every nook and cranny of the rocks ?

[mwheelerk]

Then why post at all if you're not interested in what the poll reveals?

 

Your response is extremely rude and condescending. Move on please.

That is a opinion on the poll and is as valid as yours or anyone else. One person's rude is another person's to the point. The clutter does get boring.

 

Have you ever tried the beer Arrogant Bastard?

[esldude]

What's the length of the 17 miles drive ?

 

if you drive the Nyquist theorem branded car, the answer is 17/false

 

But what if you're a bee flying close to (discriminate the subtlest variations) every nook and cranny of the rocks ?

 

Using your bee car analogy. The nooks and crannies would equal to a higher frequency than nyquist. So if we filtered your bee's flight path with nyquist the bee and car get the same answer.

[mwheelerk]

I didn't vote. I don't know the answer. I don't hold a particular opinion on it. It has no bearing on my enjoyment of or choice of music or formats. And yes this seems to be yet another in a very long boring line of threads....

 

That is a opinion on the poll and is as valid as yours or anyone else. One person's rude is another person's to the point. The clutter does get boring.

 

Have you ever tried the beer Arrogant Bastard?

 

Withdrawn with apologies to all. I should never allow the frustrations of a day be exhibited on the forum. I'm sorry.

[sdolezalek]

Well changing the filtering is changing more than just the sample rate. Perhaps that should have been spelled out as well. I am referring only to changing sample rate. Not bit depth, filtering etc. Changing filtering will often have frequency response alterations that go with it. Doing so will make a different level of difference with low vs high sample rates.

 

I wasn't suggesting that you also change the filtering; I was just suggesting that on the way back from your 24/48 digital sample to the analog signal driving your speaker that somewhere there must be a filter applied and that filter may behave differently with different bit depth and sample rates in ways that do affect what you ultimately hear. Therefore a 36/192 sample may be more amenable to being reconfigured to the desired form of analog output that most closely matches the original analog sound wave.

[esldude]

ELSDUDE, I agree with your summation, 24/48, is near the "best or "adequately best'.

 

My experience suggests that bit depth is more important than frequency .

 

so, wassup? I'm somewhat cynical about the direction of your posts, so what's the punchline?

 

Wassup?

 

Yes, it is cynical. I think many, many audiophiles have this idea that with more dots (higher sample rate) you have a smoother and more accurate waveform. That isn't a benefit of higher sample rates. You get only more bandwidth. Within the stipulation I made of 20 khz and lower both at least theoretically are equally accurate below 20 khz. I think this idea hirez equals smoother or hirez equals more resolution is a problem. It is technically incorrect as a way to imagine what goes on and what it gets you. More bit depth actually gets more resolution.

 

It actually isn't open to any substantial argument as the theory, and largely the actual working of the system is this way. However I wonder how many have the opinion higher sample rate equal higher accuracy over the range of human hearing. It really isn't a poll of what people think they do or don't hear at the different rates. Perhaps that should have been stipulated. It is a poll of what people think happens.

 

And if you had the opinion the poll statement was true then explain.

 

Now of course theory and reality can be somewhat different. I don't think there is much evidence theory and reality of digital audio are at odds other than at the very margins (excepting poorly designed equipment which is not all that common anymore). If you have frequencies above nyquist the filtering and such might vary a bit and what folding back into the audible range there is could be minor differences as wgscott, and some others have hinted at.

 

So why do I care? Because repeatedly when discussing what might be going on between hirez and normal digital this is a point of misunderstanding.

 

I think properly done 48 khz is very, very close to fully transparent. As wgscott mentioned, and papers by Lavry indicate you could benefit perhaps with 96 khz. You get for sure everything any mikes are capturing and a chance to do filtering a bit differently with more space between what humans hear. But it should be pretty small a difference. Anymore than 96 khz I don't know what one could be getting. When I ask people I have about as often as not been told simply more bits is better, and how could I even wonder whether or not it would be better? Well where does it stop? Some folks have said 192 khz sounds like the mike feed. I have read of other professionals in mastering who say 384 finally gets close. Of course what little blind testing has been done fails to indicate the higher rates are audible.