OT: Who here has recorded at 32/192?

[ericj23]

hmm i found a very interesting article a while ago that i can't find - it pointed out that this use of the nynquist theroem faces one important mathematical problem

the nynquist theroem assumes an unlimited time window - essentially that all samples must be seen at once - as no device works like that they calcluated if errors could be introduced in what was then standard cd player conditions (it was a 10 year old article) - and there was

ie 10 years ago cd players were not capable of accurately reproducing the information encoded with in them

now that was i think in the early days of oversampling - so i wonder if this huge increase in the oversampling was intended to also reduce these errors as the dac would effectively ahve a bigger sampling window

must stop

a wiseman once said "the geeks shall inhibit their girth"

[Frippertronix]

That article is interesting. It'll take me a while to get through all of it.

Anyone have any references to technical arguments in favor of increasing sample rate standards?

[Frippertronix]

hmm i found a very interesting article a while ago that i can't find - it pointed out that this use of the nynquist theroem faces one important mathematical problem

the nynquist theroem assumes an unlimited time window - essentially that all samples must be seen at once - as no device works like that they calcluated if errors could be introduced in what was then standard cd player conditions (it was a 10 year old article) - and there was

ie 10 years ago cd players were not capable of accurately reproducing the information encoded with in them

now that was i think in the early days of oversampling - so i wonder if this huge increase in the oversampling was intended to also reduce these errors as the dac would effectively ahve a bigger sampling window

must stop

a wiseman once said "the geeks shall inhibit their girth"

ericj23, I read your post after I posted my last one.

If 44.1 sampling is so perfectly capable of delivering everything we flawed biological entities are capable of perceiving, much less appreciating , then why is it that digital still sounds so, well...digital?

[mandolarian]

Thanks for the link, I've glanced at it and will read more of it later.

Yeah, right.

The problem with stuff like this is that it is:

a) The product of the minds of engineers.

Yes, the mind can be a terrible thing....

b) Seems to be saying that current digital technology is already equal to or better than the higher quality analog technology in terms of accuracy, "naturalness", etc., of sound reproduction and that is a big, nasty, raging debate that I doubt will be completely put to rest by articles (well thought out though they may be) such as this one.

But in theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
Well, I would say the best of the current digital is more 'accurate' than high quality analog recording. But, is 'accuracy' what we really want to hear? Most times, we want flattering. And analog tape can be very flattering for a lot of things.

[mandolarian]

If 44.1 sampling is so perfectly capable of delivering everything we flawed biological entities are capable of perceiving, much less appreciating , then why is it that digital still sounds so, well...digital?

44.1 is proably not optimal. 50-60K would be though.
And it still needs to be implemented correctly. That's the hard part. We have new and weird distortions in the binary world. Jitter. Very nasty. An inverse distortion characteristic compared to the analog domain. And more. We still need a good analog section before and after.

And production values are still developing. Or in the case of digital brick wall limiters / maximizers, regressing.

[Frippertronix]

If 44.1 sampling is so perfectly capable of delivering everything we flawed biological entities are capable of perceiving, much less appreciating , then why is it that digital still sounds so, well...digital?

44.1 is proably not optimal. 50-60K would be though.
And it still needs to be implemented correctly. That's the hard part. We have new and weird distortions in the binary world. Jitter. Very nasty. An inverse distortion characteristic compared to the analog domain. And more. We still need a good analog section before and after.

And production values are still developing. Or in the case of digital brick wall limiters / maximizers, regressing.

Well, I guess I'll stick with 96 since it seems like that will become the new standard.

Maybe it will get stuck there and they will simply improve other factors, such as the ones you named.

I know that, to my ears, "CD quality" sound is still far from amazing.

[mandolarian]

The Hard Disk Manufacturers Association thanks you. But would be even more grateful if you and all your friends recorded at 384!

[Frippertronix]

The Hard Disk Manufacturers Association thanks you. But would be even more grateful if you and all your friends recorded at 384!

Hard disks?

Just got a new 160 GB in a box of Cap'n Crunch.

[mandolarian]

Of course, the Serial ATA drives come in a Cereal box.

[pethu]

Of course, the Serial ATA drives come in a Cereal box.

[Kim Lajoie]

1) ADCs are no longer limited by bit depth. For modern 24 bit ADCs, the weakest link is the analogue components.
.

Can you elaborate. What do you mean by "ADC's are no longer limited"?

Back in the Dark Ages, we didn't have 24 bit recording, and ADcs only captured at 16 bit. Back then, they were limited by bit depth ie bit depth of the digitised signal was a weak link. This is no longer the case.

Forever,




Kim.

[pw]

If 44.1 sampling is so perfectly capable of delivering everything we flawed biological entities are capable of perceiving, much less appreciating , then why is it that digital still sounds so, well...digital?

because it is digital.

[Frippertronix]

If 44.1 sampling is so perfectly capable of delivering everything we flawed biological entities are capable of perceiving, much less appreciating , then why is it that digital still sounds so, well...digital?

because it is digital.

I meant that disparagingly. I think digital still sounds "cold", "edgy", and ultimately less realistic in terms of reproduction of an actual acoustic sound than articles like the one linked to in this thread seem to be preaching to us (because obviously engineers know much more than we artists do) that it is "proven" to be---i.e. that it can't, nor does it need to get any better (i.e., it's been proven via principles of physics that your CD sound is already perfect).

This whole thing reminds me of how, in the early '70's, transistors were it, tubes were obsolete. Transistors lasted longer, ran colder, produced an "uncolored sound" (except for all that odd order distortion), so just listen to what the engineers tell you, play through your new Kuston solid state amplifier, shut up, and don't pretend to know more than the engineers do.

Thirty years later, everyone loves tubes so much, they are doing everything they can to reproduce their characteristics, even in the mathematically perfect digital world.

[pj geerlings]

It's amazing how often the topic of Sample Rate comes up - some months ago I posted a series of responses to this issue here at kvraudio and more recently I combined these posts into a single one here

Hope this helps

peace,
pj

[ericj23]

im afraid you are mistaking the media for the medium

analogue the medium is flaterring to the media - harmonic distortion akimbo

digital the medium is not flattering to the media - it is coldy clinical about representing things

The problem is that recording an instrument does not produce the same results as your ears - mike choice and positioning is vitally important in ensuring that it sounds natural. digital the medium lets you ehar what the engineer did - analogue will smother that in distortion that in many ways will make a sterile recording more lively

if that it makes it better that frankly represents the recording - not the medium

- PS sacd/dvd-a are less sterile IMHO