KVR Audio

birrbits · Post by **birrbits** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:53 am

....and if you can't whats the frikking point of 96kHz sampling?!?!!!?

Majken · Post by **Majken** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:55 am

Yay, another one of these threads

/Majken

No name · Post by **No name** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:56 am

I thought we covered this with the ishan limiter thread.

nibbzious · Post by **nibbzious** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:00 am

You're not missing much

birrbits · Post by **birrbits** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:17 am

No name wrote:I thought we covered this with the ishan limiter thread.

omg what a frikking hilarious thread, cant believe I missed it...

but you know seriously, I see why 48khz is better than 44.1kHz simply in terms of a better LPF.

but 96 & 192?!!

I blame the marketing departments

deleted · Post by **deleted** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:27 am

DELETED

solstice · Post by **solstice** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:35 am

cold c · Post by **cold c** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:19 am

AD converters typically perform better (lower noise /distortion) at higher sample and bit rates (use rightmark on your own cards to check). For many people that is enough reason alone to record using higher samplerates.

Plugin processing also behaves differently (depending on the algorithm and implementation) and can sound either better or worse at higher sample rates.

If playback of a file at a higher samplerate sounds better, it could be because the audio card DA is producing less noise/distortion in its higher sample rate mode, but if DA converter performance is constant and the monitoring chain is 'perfect' then higher than normal sample rates for playback should not make a difference.

There is a story involving Rupert Neve where an engineer reported a "bad channel" that turned out to be a fault with the electronics where a higher than audible frequency (electronics 'oscillating' at 48KHz ~ 50KHz) was being 'heard', it was theorised that the inaudible frequency in turn caused an audible distortion somewhere in the playback chain. So when people 'hear' higher than audible frequencies they could be hearing the 'effects' of those frequencies.

no_signal · Post by **no_signal** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:42 am

birrbits wrote:....and if you can't whats the frikking point of 96kHz sampling?!?!!!?

That the bandwidth for nonlinear audio processing is doubled and with proper downsampling from 96 KHz to 48KHz (or 44.1) you get rid of some aliasing artefacts that otherwise would be present in your audible frequency range of sound.

red_giant · Post by **red_giant** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:46 am

I can definitly hear above 22 kHz... years of rock n' roll have belssed me with hearing ultra hight frequencys (some may call a "ringing") all the time!!

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:51 am

Similar to Jonny X's experience, in 6th form, we used to do that kind of thing at lunch (my form room was a physics lab..).

I could hear accurately upto around 18-20kHz, after that I knew when a sound was playing as I could feel it in my nose/nasal passages, this was upto around 22-24kHz, after that I began to convulse and hit things.. nah not really, but it was a strange sensation being able to feel rather than hear sound.

that was 15 years ago, and I know my hearing has dulled since, tho' I'm still fairly clear upto 16-18kHz. I can hear television scans where most don't (you know, where you have he TV on mute, but can still hear the hipitched electronic hum of the circuits). I can tell is a TV is on from outside a room, even when the vol is low or off.

DSP

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:51 am

I used to be able to hear up past 23 kHz. Wouldn't have known if the hearing test van that came 'round the schools hadn't found out. They tested me a second time; same result.

It wasn't pleasant, and in my late 30s-early 40s the highest end started to vanish. My hearing response is now close to the norm for y'all humans. Because of this I can now be around certain kinds of equipment that used to give me headaches.

I make no claim that extended hearing response ever gave me a "golden ear."

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:54 am

red_giant wrote:I can definitly hear above 22 kHz... years of rock n' roll have belssed me with hearing ultra hight frequencys (some may call a "ringing") all the time!!

I went to a Hawkwind gig in the late 80s. Loudest thing I ever went to. They played for over 2 hours solid, then came back for a half hour encore. I was pushed against the stage with probably around ten lines of leather clad figures pushing behind. I had to just stand there the whole time. My ears rang for 3 days after!

DSP

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:55 am

Meffy wrote:I make no claim that extended hearing response ever gave me a "golden ear."

I agree, it's not just having the range, it's knowing how to interpret it. An engineer who can hear upto 30kHz, but doesn't know what a 6dB cut at 5k sounds like isn't going to work at Abbey Road...

DSP

no_signal · Post by **no_signal** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm

What if you generate a sound that aliases mirroring down to audio range ? We all gonna hear it

Who here can hear above 22kHz......!!!!????...