Dembones_dup1 Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 Okay, I understand the technical side of it, but here's my question for Craig and others: What good is 96k when... 1) We can't hear it 2) Microphones can't capture it 2) Speakers can't reproduce it 3) CDs can't represent it Personally, it seems like an awful lot of hype and I'm not buyin' it. I'm not gonna bother with 100% bigger file sizes for audio only my cat can hear (that is, if my speakers could reproduce it.) I can *totally* hear the difference with 24-bit, but why wouldn't 48k be enough? (or even 44.1?) ------------------ Demian Norvell AppleSeed Studios Ruch, OR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 Demian, > What good is 96k when... > 1) We can't hear it > 2) Microphones can't capture it > 2) Speakers can't reproduce it > 3) CDs can't represent it You nailed it! 96 KHz. (and higher) sample rates is a bunch of nonsense pushed on us by the hardware manufacturers. Software companies can sell us upgrades forever, but hardware vendors can't do that. So they have to invent reasons for us to toss what we have now and buy new versions of the same boxes again and again. --Ethan Winer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill V Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 I'm not a real technical kind of guy, but supposedly the advantages have something to do with eliminating the need for "brick wall filters" and something about "anti-aliasing". [This message has been edited by Bill V (edited 06-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by Bill V (edited 06-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richt Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 Hey Guys, Even Roger thinks that 96Khz is BS (for multi-tracking)! He mentioned that 24 bit is a great improvement over everything else, and that sampling at 48Khz will pretty much take us to the usable lmit of fidelity. So, seeing as he has done such a lot of work with digital since time immemorial, perhaps his judgement should be looked at seriously when it comes to this question. Check out the thread: musicplayer.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000129.html -Rich T. [This message has been edited by richt (edited 06-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by richt (edited 06-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2000 Share Posted June 14, 2000 Originally posted by Bill V: I'm not a real technical kind of guy, but supposedly the advantages have something to do with eliminating the need for "brick wall filters" and something about "anti-aliasing". Oversampling technology is what eliminated the need for brick wall filters and got rid of most of the aliasing. What 96kHz sampling rates are all about is frequency (like 24 bit is about resolution). There's a certain amount of evidence (though it's disputed by some) that the ear is aware of transients as high as 50kHz, even though you're not hearing distinct tones at those freqs. Experimental subjects have been able to tell the difference between program material that has information in those frequency ranges and stuff that doesn't. Now as to whether it really matters, I'm not expressing an opinion. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 14, 2000 Share Posted June 14, 2000 Of course, you'd need speakers capable of 48khz, right?? Bet the speaker companies would love that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richt Posted June 14, 2000 Share Posted June 14, 2000 George, When I was in college I read about psychoacoustics and perception of sound, I think that this is what you are talking about? According to those sources there is evidence to suggest that we do *perceive* sound well past the supposed 20Khz limit, so theoretically we would want to reproduce that too, right? Perhaps this phenomena is more readily experienced over time, ie: repeated listenings to the program material would yield the experience of "better spatiality", "more defined", or other appropriate descriptions. I bet this is what the manufacturers would like to hear! I dunno, I want to do some serious listening and decide. Has anyone else done this yet? With some kind of method to help keep the results *sound*? Of course you could just mix to 96Khz as Roger mentions! Look forward to hearing back from you! Cheerz, Rich T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 15, 2000 Share Posted June 15, 2000 Originally posted by richt: George, When I was in college I read about psychoacoustics and perception of sound, I think that this is what you are talking about? According to those sources there is evidence to suggest that we do *perceive* sound well past the supposed 20Khz limit, so theoretically we would want to reproduce that too, right? For me, this is really the question. As a creative artist, should my primary concern be naturalism of sound reproduction, or simply making exciting music? For me, the former seems too sterile, obsessive/compulsive, and in many ways restrictive. In a sense, I don't care what it _sounds_ like, I only care what it _feels_ like. I've heard far too many technically 'perfect' recordings that had no soul to get excited about chasing the spectre of audiophilism (if it's not already a word, I just coined it). I've made great tracks that were recorded on 4 track cassette and mixed on Radio Shack Minimus 7's, just as I've recorded some great stuff on Sony 3348s with full on, every bell and whistle you can imagine, SSL desks. Sometimes we forget that the reason we got involved in this originally (at least for most of us, I believe) was because the music got us excited. Somewhere along the way, many of us got excited about the tools, as well. I think it's important to maintain perspective and decided which is more important to us. For me, it has to be the music. Wandering far afield, George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richt Posted June 15, 2000 Share Posted June 15, 2000 Thanks for the feedback George, I totally agree with you. You are right that some have totally gone overboard on the production and forgotten about the content. It seems like if we can find the balance then things will be good. Being a musician first and an engineer shortly thereafter, I do see the allure of gear and the excitement of being able to totally tweak every single mix element; but the framework of emotion is what we are working in, and the ability to move listeners with 4 tracks or 64 should be the motive, as you eloquently put it. Regarding psychoacoustics, I am persuaded by the things that I have read on the subject. And so I too would like to be able to reproduce all the things that give me the *feeling*, the *chill up the spine during the big chorus*, if it is possible; and if it is what we are truly hearing. I would really like to hear what Craig has to say about this, and I may post this on Roger/George/Ed's forums to see what they have to say. Anyone else while we're at it? -Rich T. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uh Clem Posted June 15, 2000 Share Posted June 15, 2000 Nobody's crappy consumer system is ever going to repro the fruits of your labor for yrs. What do you think these systems do after 20K - if they even do justice to that? Except for the Palo Alto crowd, anyone who can afford a system that will today is probably so mature that their ears aren't up to it anymore anyway. But... that is still no reason not to give it a shot, I guess. What kind of source do you record that gives you informatio up there? What mic? pre? synth? [This message has been edited by stevepow (edited 06-15-2000).] Steve Powell - Bull Moon Digital www.bullmoondigital.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted June 16, 2000 Share Posted June 16, 2000 Sorry I couldn't reply earlier, I was out at the GPI offices in San Mateo doing meetings all day, and didn't get a chance to go online. I just got back a couple hours ago, so... I don't feel the need for 96K. I pretty much subscribe to the thoughts posted here: 24 bits is better than 16, oversampling solves the filtering problem, and 96K has no real playback medium. Yes, there is evidence that people can sense frequencies above 20 kHz. If so, you've heard these ONLY in live performance. Tape, vinyl, CDs, nothing has been able to produce sounds in the 50 kHz range. So don't get suckered in by the argument that 96 will make things sound warmer, like vinyl supposedly does. Vinyl could never reproduce 50 kHz. Then again, neither could the mics feeding the vinyl! Furthermore, it seems these frequencies are ABOVE 48 kHz anyway (like 50-60 kHz), so 96 won't reproduce them anyway. Guess we need to go to 192 kHz, eh? What 96 kHz DOES allow is real sloppy converter design. When you're working with 44.1 or 48, you are dealing with an upper limit that is perilously close to the range of human hearing. To make sure you preserve those nice transients, you have to design the converter very carefully. With 96k, it's easy to make sure something will make it 20 kHz. Bottom line: a 24-bit converter, as we all know (or at least you know if you read my articles : ) doesn't deliver 24 bits of resolution, but more like 18 to 20 "real" bits. Similarly, 96 kHz makes it easier to deliver a full 20-20 kHz range. How important is the range around 15-22 kHz? Apparently not very important, given the success of MP3!! One more reality check: suppose you come up with some really fabulous piece of music. Do you think people won't buy it because it wasn't sampled at 96 kHz? Here's a challenge to all manufacturers creating 96 kHz gear: Here is a forum where you can convince us why we need to use up twice as much storage space, reduce our track count, and overload our processors much more easily, all in the name of 96 kHz. Any takers? Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 I've got to say, to me sound quality is as nothing compared to performance quality. I would rather listen to something amazing from the 60's (or 50's or 40's or 30's) than so much of this ultrapristine drivel being produced today. Maybe I'm just weird ... or so many who know me would say http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 Originally posted by drfuzz@aol.com: I've got to say, to me sound quality is as nothing compared to performance quality. I would rather listen to something amazing from the 60's (or 50's or 40's or 30's) than so much of this ultrapristine drivel being produced today. Maybe I'm just weird ... or so many who know me would say http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif I guess that would make me weird, too. All the gloss in the world won't make up for a lackluster performance, and all the crap in the world can't hide a great one. All IMHO, natch. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2000 Share Posted June 17, 2000 I wonder why most people approach this topic as if they were recording one track and then burning it directly to an audio CD. Let's pretend that you can't hear above 14kHz nor can your equipment reproduce sound above that. You still can't convince me there is no benefit from having twice as many samples per second to work with. You have better resolution in your source tracks, and that accuracy will trickle all the way down to your master. Not that I know from first hand experience, mind you. As Craig said, it really isn't worth double the disk space and half the performance for me, at this stage. But tech moves fast and in 2 years things might be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted June 18, 2000 Share Posted June 18, 2000 Originally posted by pglewis@one.net: You still can't convince me there is no benefit from having twice as many samples per second to work with. You have better resolution in your source tracks, and that accuracy will trickle all the way down to your master. In theory, oversampling should provide more samples to work with. Granted they're interpolated so they're not EXACTLY what was there originally, but surely it's very close. I guess you could make an argument that there is less possibility for aliasing, but again, oversampling should take care of that. And the smoothing filter at the output pretty much evens out the sampling rate differences. I've heard some people say that 24 bits AND 96k makes a difference you can actually detect on highly nuanced material (vocals, acoustic instruments, etc.). But then there's the question of whether the difference is truly better, or just different. Hate to be reactionary and all that, but 44.1 is an acceptable tradeoff for CD compatibility and lesser storage requirements. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.