Some commonsense

[Paul R]

20 hours ago, Ajax said:

Hi Jabbr,

 

I agree that ideally we should replay at the same resolution as the recording (pre digital music was mastered specifically to be replayed on turntables by limiting the base so the needle did not jump out of the grooves. Today we limit the band width of the audio frequency so we don't end up with artefacts).

 

My reasoning of recording in hi-res and playing back at 16/44.1 was simply to achieve more head room during the recording process, which with due care is obviously not essential, especially today with so much compression being added.

 

The point of the article is that mathematically 16/44.1 is adequate for music playback, IF as George points out the recording and mastering has been done with sufficient care. My hearing is limited to 12khz (I'm 63) so for me personally there is no need to record at higher frequency rates (above 44.1), however, maybe there is benefit at recording at 24 bits, however slight.

 

I went to a hi-fi show in Melbourne, Australia about 4 years ago and heard the Devialet ensemble being demonstrated using only CDs and it was truly stunned by the sound, despite the poor acoustic environment of hotel show rooms. There were lots of competing gear with massive power amps and exotic cables but nothing to my ears came close. I bought the demo system, which included Atohm GT1 speakers and it now sits in my living room.

 

However, the best sound I have ever heard was my office system, which consisted of a Benchmark DAC1 (I just purchased a DAC2 second hand for $US900) driving a pair of Adam X7 active monitors listening to Gwyneth Herbert recorded and produced by Peter Gabriel's 'Society of Sound". This was recorded and distributed at 24/48. One night about 7 years ago my then 12 years old son (now an accomplished musician) came into say goodnight and said "that's spooky Dad, it's like she is in the room with us".

 

The point is John states (and my experience confirms) that extremely higher frequency rates aren't required, especially for old buggers like me, and if you don't play your music at pain levels you also don't need more than 16 bits.

 

As John says, it is all in the maths. It is important to remember the reason why we have digital audio in the first place is because a couple of very smart mathematicians, Shannon & Nyquist, developed a theorem that simply put states that if you record at twice the highest maximum audio frequency of the music then that is sufficient for perfect fidelity and no actual information is lost.

 

The other reason for reproducing the article is that the majority of music is available at 16/44.1, whether via CD, downloads or streaming, and manufactures should therefore be concentrating on improving the playback of that resolution, preferable using a combination of software and hardware, not offering us more and more exotic gizmos in an effort to differentiate themselves from other manufactures..

 

 

 

 

Just a question - does your Benchmark internally upsample every input? If so, that is probably the biggest reason why the two files sound alike. My old Benchmark upsampled all inputs to 100khz, which gave the effect of making all the inputs sound the same or at east very similar. .

 

Not sure if the new models do that or something similar.  

 

There are very good sounding DACs that resample everything to DSD and I cannot usually tell the difference between a red book and 24/96k file on those DACs either. 

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Paul

 My old highly modified Musical Fidelity X-DAC V3 that I use with the PC only, upsamples everything to 24/192, yet I have no problem whatsoever with well mastered recordings, hearing obvious differences between the same music in 16/44.1 or 24/96 .

 I did however find that fitting a  .1PPM TCXO with an improved power supply for it, instead of the original 24.576MHZ oscillator noticeably improved the 24/96 version with little difference heard with the 16/44.1 versions.

 Perhaps high res material needs more precise low noise clocking to get the best from it ?

Kind  Regards

Alex

 

That is one of the biggest points Alex. It is why on older DACs, a lot of times 88.2k or 96k sounds way better than 176.4k or 192k. 

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, tmtomh said:

 

Thanks for the correction - that further strengthens the point, then, that resampled PCM, e.g. from high-res down to redbook, is lossless.

 

You both really need to specify the conditions you are making your statements under. 

 

Nyquist sampling can provide, for our intents and purposes, a reproduction that is audibly perfect.  Is it objectively perfect? No, because infinite samples would be required for perfect reproduction. Does it matter in a practical sense? Almost certainly not. 

 

Is Decimated PCM lossless? In one sense, of course not. Data from the original file is not in the decimated file.  In another sense, the sound we will reproduce from the decimated file will be audibly the same. Unless of course, there was any signal above 22khz. That will be lost in the SRC. 

 

It seems impossible this argument is still going on.

 

Common sense says that the higher sample rate file gives you a choice and thus, even if there is no audible difference to you between 24/192k and 16/44.1k,  preserve the choice for the future. There is no longer any justification in terms of size or bandwidth for 16/44.1k. I do not know of any professional studios recording in 16/44.1k these days, and not many amateurs do either. 

 

Otherwise, you may put yourself into a position like those folks who ripped their CDs to MP3 then threw away the CDs. They argued there was no possible audible difference between MP3 and CD quality. There probably are even a few of those arguments preserved here somewhere. 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

You can get as close to perfection as you desire by using a sufficiently long filter.

 

If by “long” here you are referring to the number of taps (i.e. delay),  there are operators that come into play that limit that. If you mean something else, please explain. 

 

What is your opinion on filters designed specifically for high res material vs those designed only for 16/44.1k?

 

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

How about you, for once, explain what you mean instead of making vague allusions?

 

How about you for once, being clear about one of your pronouncements? What do you mean by “long” in your reference to digital filters? 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Paul, for there to be high resolution albums to purchase a high-resolution format must be specified in the recording contract. I asked Tommy Faragher, Rafa Sardina and Tony Braunagel last Saturday at t.h.e. Show in Long Beach if the labels often specified high-resolution deliverables. They said no.

 

The RIAA May 6^th press release said there are almost hi-res 400,000 tracks available in the United States. 7digital in their June 7^th press release outlining their survival plans said they have more than 70 million tracks. The 400,000 number includes studio production format, 24/44.1. Professionals give the labels what they specify.

 

The reason is simple economics. According to Tony Braunagel, an additional hi-res master costs between $18,000 and $60,000 more to other costs of making a record. That additional $18,000 would have to result in about a million more streams to breakeven.

 

Whether they sell sell the high res tracks or not is rather irrelevant here. They record them in high res, if for no other reason than it does less damage to the sound when it is mixed and mastered.  The delivered file, be that 16/44.1k or higher, is downsampled from the mixing format. 

 

 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, esldude said:

You sure about that?  24/96 being the studio norm. Referring to studios, the overwhelming majority work at 24/44.1 or 24/48 depending upon whether it is for audio or video.  Some small number work at 96 khz.  Even those may only do so sometimes at customer requests.  The reason no one uses 16 bit is 24 bit allows headroom for various processing that 16 bit wouldn't. 

 

 Can not say I have done an exhaustive survey, but the half dozen or so recording studios I have personal knowledge of are all recording at at least 24/96k these days. Why not? There is no financial advantage to recording at a lower rate. That includes audio mixes for video. 

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Some interesting comments here, https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-should-i-use-high-sample-rates.

 

Interesting, but whom might Various be? 

 

Honestly, their technical reasons seem very specious to me, and I do not put a lot of credence into that article. 

 

[Paul R]

44 minutes ago, esldude said:

Okay, my best insight into it is gearslutz which is a forum for recording pros.  Not everyone there is a pro (like me being there and not a pro).  But if you look thru threads on sample rates, and they come up pretty often, those who you can confirm really work in a commercial studio over and over state 44 for audio and 48 for video.  

 

You of course see some of everything.  Two said they track in 48/24, do final summing and mixing on an analog console they then record the output of that to DSD.  ??????? What!  Then of course resample to CD or whatever their needs.  Yikes!

 

A fair number of pros are surprisingly under-educated about how digital works it would appear reading their thoughts.  But I assume they know what sample rate they use day to day in their studios.  

 

I've said this often, but I don't think many people get it.  You are worried about downsampling ruining the recording when the only inaccuracy in good downsampling is the residual noise from dither.  The amount of processing between the mike and your released music file in any format is staggeringly complex and mucked about with.  No way is poor resampling to redbook a significant reason for the sound of almost any recording.  Like not even 1 in 100,000 recordings.  The idea this sounded great in 96/24 and they effed it up going to redbook is ludicrous.  If 96/24 is perceptible to some people on some systems it is a tiny difference.  If it weren't there would be no argument about it now 3 decades after CD.  Far more common, in fact I'd say very close to universal if there are significant differences in a recording in 96/24 vs redbook then one of them has been mastered differently.  Even worse, if it is a recent remaster of an older recording there is a high probability the 96/24 sounds worse.  

 

Have to disagree there Dennis. It is not the worry about downsampling ruining something - pretty much everyone agrees that downsampling to redbook or 48k video is the best thing to do for distribution. But the old contention that CD quality is the ultimate format has certainly been debunked. I think so at least. 

 

Whether the reason is ultrasonics or filter mathematics, high res music often sounds better. Can we find some examples of recent works that were actually recorded at 16/44.1k, rather than that being the production format? It would be fun to listen to them and some CDs recorded and mixed in high res, even with a prod format of redbook.

[Paul R]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Paul

 While I basically agree, there are quite a few recordings being marketed these days as high res which are only 24/44.1 !

 I wonder if this means that they weren't recorded originally at a higher Bit Rate ?

They include ones like Lady Gaga-Joanne and many others from Oasis, Depeche Mode, McCartney etc.

Regards

Alex

 

 

 

Could be - there are some dastardly frauds out there. I can not imagine the Gaga person recording in low res though. I may not like much of her music, but she definitely seems to be a production genius. 

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, esldude said:

I don't know where the 16/44 recording idea is coming from.  

 

I don't know that redbook being adequate as a distribution format has been debunked.  I've not seen examples of hires often sounding better than for any other reason except being mixed and mastered better.  2L downloads don't convince me the hires is some leap forward.  They are the most honest comparison files I know of available for people to listen for themselves.  I personally can't hear they are an improvement. But I'm old enough higher frequencies aren't going to be audible to me.  The mastering is much more believable and obviously audible versus all the other angels on the head of a pin debates. 

 

I'd agree redbook might not be the ultimate format.  And only then and only barely because there are edge cases where 24 bit with about 20 bit levels realized do have a chance to be barely audibly better.  I'd pick 24/48 and call it a day.  I'd not complain about 24/96 with the idea it will record pretty much everything that is there to record without cutting off anything.  Unfortunately I don't think most music goes in at 24/96.  Nor do I think if it suddenly all did we'd see any real benefit in the end product.  Mastering is a smoking garbage dump these days. 

 

Apologies - I thought that was what you had been arguing? 44.1k or at most 48k is what recordings are being made at today? 

 

That is is not my experience, but my experience is far from definitive. What I have seen is 96k, 176.4k, 192k, and DSD. For live recordings with simple mic setups, DSD and 192k seem to be the top dogs.  For pretty much everything else, 96k works, but higher sample rates are used where the computers support it. 

 

I definitely did NOT say Redbook as a distribution format has been debunked - though I can see how you thought that. I meant ultimate as “nothing is or can be better.”

[Paul R]

9 minutes ago, esldude said:

Vocals off a laptop using a Garageband mic. 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lady-gaga-producer-making-born-193459

 

Her voice is so powerful, you can pretty much capture it with anything, whether a laptop or a mic. It's funny, even vocals recorded off her laptop with the GarageBand mic we ended up using on the album. Sometimes we sacrifice quality for performance because there's a magic moment where the vocal sounds just right. We worked very hard at repairing anything that needed to be repaired sonically.

 

Maybe they really used the quality Apogee USB mic for Apple products.  $200 and works at 44 or 48 and 24 bit. 

https://www.amazon.com/Apogee-MiC-microphone-iPad-iPhone/dp/B006W11TT2

 

Oh, I would guess more like a Yeti Pro. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004L9KLT6/ref=emc_b_5_t

 

Or perhaps an AT2020 https://www.audio-technica.com/cms/wired_mics/50c0cbe703025c75/index.html

 

But more likely a Focusright, PreSonus, Or some other prosumer USB interface.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

Tom Elmhirst works with Mark Ronson who works withe Lady Gaga.  But she did one album on RTR tape to get away from all the processing. 

 

Now in any case, Elmhirst is a big believer in 96 k.  He converts everything he gets into it so he can do great mastering.  He won a Grammy or three for his work.  One of them was for his co-mastering on Adele's 25. Here is an example of his work.  This album had a DR 5 rating average.  This  track was DR4.  Death Magnetic by Metallica was DR7.  

 

 

I am so glad we get the benefit of 96 k with this Grammy award winning mastering work.  

 

Here I've reduced it 3 db to get a good look at how flat topped it is.  It left .01 db on the table in its original form.  Man I smell the benefits of 96 k from here even though my copy is 44. 

 

 

Not sure what you are getting at - the clipping is from beastly compression after it was mixed, I think. Look for the high res super audio release to come out anytime. Won’t be as loud though.

 

[Paul R]

3 minutes ago, esldude said:

No I think more likely it was as stated.  Some USB mic into garageband on her macbook.  And that is okay.  Good lively heartfelt takes can sacrifice some fidelity sometimes.  But it rather nicks the aura of superb signal processing and super fidelity at high bit rates when some of the vocals used on this album were USB mic, macbook, done in a reflective dressing room or some such.  

 

 

Those are LowEnd USB mics used with GarageBand, which handles 96k. 😁

 

Seriously, GarageBand is just a slightly limited Logic Pro. 

[Paul R]

3 hours ago, esldude said:

Would you rather have a Neumann U47 at 44.1 or a LowEnd USB microphone at 96 k?

 

Sample rate just isn't that important to the end quality.  It is a tiny cherry on top at best once everything is in really fine form. 

 

Totally depends. Why not use the U47 for recording at 96k, 192k, one even DSD?  I am not sure why you see it as an either or. 😁

 

Actually, sample rate at recording time is very important, depending upon how close you want to get to the microphone feed. YMMV, however, I do not believe it it is quite so cut and dried. 

[Paul R]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Now don't stoop to sophistry.  You're ignoring the context to be obtuse.

 

I guess I do not do very well at trying to be politely inoffensive, but I do try.  

 

I absolutely hear sample rate differences when I record, and I believe I

hear those same differences when I listen to playback on Dacs that do not force an automatic up or down sample on all input. (Or when the

ample rate is such no SRC is done. 

 

I know mathematically why 16/44.1k reproduction is not an exact reproduction of what is recorded, and I am aware of the magnitude of the errors, as well as their

cause. While Redbook can and does sound very good, hi-res can and often

does sound better. Whether the difference is as significant to others as it is to me, that is a subjective decision most people need to make for themselves.  

 

Of course that decision is vastly complicated by differences in mastering, engineering, and production that can make a Redbook release sound glorious and

a high res release sound like trash. Nothing is ever simple or easy!

 

That better?😇

 

[Paul R]

10 hours ago, esldude said:

Halfway.  

 

My point is if given the chance to record Lady Gaga, or any good singer, and they said, we have this old recording interface, but it only goes to 48 khz.  It'll supply phantom power and we have a Neumann U47.  Or otherwise if you need 192 khz this Blue Yeti Pro is our other choice.  I'll take the Neumann thank you.  The various differences that might accrue with sample rate extension pales dramatically with difference in microphone quality, use by experienced people and mastering methodology.  It doesn't even reach to the level of tail wagging the dog.  

 

I'd take any recordings by Tony Faulkner on cassette tape over most people recording on anything. 

 

Ah, I see what you are saying. But with very high quality usb interfaces that go to at least 96k, starting at around $100 and just getting better and better from there, I don’t see that as a real probability these days.  Just me though, if forced into your hypothetical situation, I would probably agree. With you. 

 

 

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

I seem to be struggling to get across a very, very simple point. 

 

Microphones make a big difference in sound quality.  Almost as much as speakers.  Extra bandwidth above 20 khz isn't much of a difference.  You can sample as high as you wish it won't polish a turd of a microphone.  OTOH, even at pedestrian bandwidths a good quality microphone comes through as good quality.  If you loose something compared to adding ultrasonic bandwidth, by comparison it is rather small.  Sample rate choices are among the least impactful differences in sound quality.  

 

So I'm not saying extra bandwidth will not make any difference in a good mic.  I am saying that it won't make a poor mic sound good and that a good mic still sounds very good without it.  Because the extra bandwidth is at best a minor improvement.  

 

And all of this grew out of my saying the major studios usually still work at 44 or 48 rates not 96 khz.  And the whole thing about someone with great production genius being found to use whatever is handy when the mood strikes.  Good production isn't primarily a good gear issue.  Adequate gear and genius are plenty.  

 

See, here we disagree. I don’t think you are hearing all a mic truly has to give at 16/44.1, when you listen to the mic feed and the 44.1k recording, they sound different.  The mic feed and the recording do not start sounding the same until at least 88.2 or higher, and often much higher.

 

Even with mics that are considered mediocre. (USB mics are different in my ears). 

 

[Paul R]

7 hours ago, esldude said:

If 16/44 sound different than mike feeds, do they sound more different than a quality mike vs a cheap USB mike?

I'm going to presume you know the answer is no.  That should illuminate what I'm thinking here.  

 

Talking about non USB mics, the answer is yes, in my experience. 

 

Talking about USB mics, I think the answer is yes, but I have never compared that with any rigor. 

 

[Paul R]

5 hours ago, Rexp said:

That could be the limitation of the ADC though, rather than 16/44.1? 

 

Since upit can d efinitely sound different through different ADCs and interfaces, yep 😉

[Paul R]

1 hour ago, Paul R said:

 

Talking about non USB mics, the answer is yes, in my experience. 

 

Talking about USB mics, I think the answer is yes, but I have never compared that with any rigor. 

 

 

You know, when I just reread that, I am not entirely clear what you asked...

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

Here's a file containing a series of 40 kHz bursts, each 1 ms long. They are shaped such that the frequency content is restricted to about ±3 kHz from the centre. Good luck hearing anything unless distortion in your playback system makes it audible.

hf.flac 15.25 kB · 5 downloads

 

It does seem common sense has left the discussion.

 

First, nobody has said that anyone can hear ultransonic frequencies. The vast majority of people cannot hear sound above about 15khz, and certainly not above 20khz. So those of you intent on sneering at other people about bat DNA and the like.... take a moment to think and stop making like Francis. 

 

People have said that high sample rates make a difference in the sound they hear. Those who want to claim it is scientifically impossible or only possible to dolphins- enjoy your music listening.  Because it is far from impossible. In fact it is almost inevitable that high res music will sound different than redbook on most systems. Just as DSD sounds different from redbook on most systems. 

 

As for a sample rate of 44.1k capturing all the audible sound a human can hear. In practice, yes - absolutely. In theory no, because Nyquist Shannon requires an infinite number of samples for perfect reproduction. Just get over it, on both sides. Use some of that common sense. 

 

As for why higher sample rates sound different, again, use your common sense. When they sound different, it is because something in the reproduction chain is treating them differently. That may be filters, wide band amps, or any of a half dozen other things. It is probably not ultrasonic sound reproduction from the speakers, but it possible that it is. Already been pointed out there are situations where typical humans can detect ultrasound by its effect on the environment. Perhaps not perceived by those who have extraordinarily hard heads. Perhaps only perceived by those who have extraordinarily soft heads. Perhaps not perceived in music reproduction at all, by anyone. Who cares? 

 

Lastly, your common sense should tell you that hearing is always perceptual, not objective. Yes, physical constraints apply, but especially in the case of music, personal preferences, training, and experience interpose some very effective filters between the sound waves impinging upon our ears and bodies, and what we actually perceptually hear. 

 

Use a little uncommon sense and lift your thinking above the common prejudices. There are cases where total objectivity is not only impossible, but also unwarranted. Just as there are people out there that like the visceral impact of a heavily boosted 100hz slam, God bless ‘em. 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

This whatever it is that makes high sample rate better sure is well hidden.

 

Seriously? There is at least 11 years of this argument all over this system. 

 

Notice I did not try to say hi-res was better, merely different. 

 

I certainly am not going to record at 16/44.1 or even at 24/48. I do have to trust what me ears tell me. That’s true even when they scream at me that something us wrong and I can not figure out what, exactly. 

 

You can if you wish, and I am sure your work will be very good indeed. (Said in serious way, not joking, sarcastic, or ironic in tone. )

 

 

 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, esldude said:

Hint: entirely realistic audio is not going to result from going to higher sample rate.

 

Hint: more realistic audio is not going to happen without recording at a higher sampling rate. 

 

I agree it is not the only thing that needs to happen, and recording and playback are different operations. 

[Paul R]

4 hours ago, mansr said:

That doesn't matter if only a finite number of them are non-zero.

 

True - but what makes you assume any of the samples are zero unless the signal has dropped to zero for a number of samples?