Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

General discussions on songwriting, mixing, music business and other music related topics.

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby greggybud » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:02 pm

toader wrote:
andyjh wrote:Just do the tests yourself and judge based on what YOU hear. Trust your own judgement. Take the time to experiment and actually test the difference. That is how you grow as an audio engineer - and not by blindly following the opinions of others.


Most will blindly follow unfortunately.

IMO this is the problem. Everyone thinks they are not biased. We have all read about the different theories that can bias an audio test. The only scientific way is to have a neutral 3rd party do the tests in a controlled audio environment, eliminating all kinds of subtle variables, where there is little chance of any bias. And I would guess 95% have never done this. So yes, it goes back to trusting your ears...but anyone who proclaims they did some "unbiased" tests...I'm not buying it unless the tests were administered by experienced 3rd party.

As for the 3rd party, this is one time you don't want to visit that $5 per song ME you found on Craigslist. :mrgreen:
Windows 7 x64, Wavelab 8, Cubase 7.5 x64, i7, 16g, SSD, 4 monitors, iCon QconPro, 4 TB HD, UAD-2, NI, Waves Mercury, and way too many synthesizers.
User avatar
greggybud
Member
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:01 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby mroekalea » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:36 pm

I have a audiophilic friend who was preparing himself for months to buy a new interlink from Siltech.

Months of reading reviews and also on forums kept him of the street. Once he had it, he was so pumped up that in a way he was very biased when A/B ing with the old interlink cable, he said everytime, "YES it sounds better". I was sitting next to him and was talking him to the mouth "Yes I think I hear a difference". The truth was that I really didn't here the difference and If there was any I could easily say that it probably was a increase of 0,001 % in good or bad favour. Bottomline is that your mind is the biggest infleuncer.

The reason I was talking him to mouth was to not go into endless (and useless) discussion over what I was hearing and concluding (perception is subjective to me!)

Man I always found it hard to have discussion with audphiles, espacially when trying to convince him that the recording he was listening to was made with cheap ass cables and mics and mixed with digital effects....... :lol:
Menoj
Win8.1, 3930K@3.2Ghz, 32GB, Cubase 7.5 & artist 7.5, wavelab 8 elements, HSO, RND Portico 5033, UR824+MR816X+Focusrite pro 26 IO, CC121, Cubase IC pro, Halion 5, VG2, Arturia AF, TRacks CS grand + all custom elements, BFD3, Amplitube 3 (fender, orange, SVX collections, slash), HSO library, Fender Jazz basses, tube amps and 12 inchers!
mroekalea
Member
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:12 am
Location: Netherlands
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby iBM » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:33 am

I repeat: Whatever you hear has to be within the human hearing range.

That's why I don't discuss this anymore. I try to tell that we can't fight nature. If you really want to discuss the sample rate debate, please talk to any Auditory Doctor worth his grain of salt before buying into all misinformation and myths on the internet.

I happened to discuss this with some Auditory Doctors when my mother attended a research group for Tinnitus at the biggest hospital in my home town, country even.
She have had Tinnitus for many years and participated voluntarily in this research after consulting me. She knew I had more than average interest in the subject, after I finished my Sound Engineer education in the mid 90's (started recording about 1979-80).

PS. For anyone who believe we can "feel" the frequencies above our hearings range, please follow the Fletcher-Munson (phon) curves and figure out how much energy you have to provide, to bring it up at an even level with some lower frequencies (we still can't hear it, but may feel it).

The only way these high frequencies can be used in medical equipment is due the very hard handed high-pass filtering, using all the energy in specific frequency areas.

If we provided the same amount of power into the lower frequencies (we have no amps that can feed that amount of power across a full frequency spectrum within a musical context).
If we could have provided that power played back, we had burned up and/or exploded.

Think of why we can get hot in a ultrasound treatment. Then think of what we had "felt" when that power had hit us in a full frequency musical context (talk about Wall of Sound ;-))

Don't make this harder than it is. Don't fight nature. It is only good old physics and math, and human auditory system limitations.

I finish: However clever you are, or good you are at cut'n'paste, and how many "mumbo jumbo" words you use:

Whatever you hear has to be within the human hearing range. Agree?
TSR - Now a division under The Tower Studio Suite - Run by my uncles nephew

Win7/Win8 x64 | Intel i5 2500/3570K | 16 GB RAM | MOTU PCIe-424 w/ 24io x 2 / 2408 / 308
Cubase 6.5/7.5 - Nuendo 5.5 | CC121 | Slate Digital | Softube | Sonnox | SoundToys |
Eventide | Exponential Audio | Boz' Digital Lab | +++
Dynaudio BM15A | Focusrite ISA430 | Universal Audio LA-610SE/2-610/8110 |
TLAudio 5052/C1/PA-1 | TC Electronics R4000/M3000/M-One/D-Two | +++
User avatar
iBM
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:49 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby peakae » Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:50 am

iBM wrote:I
Whatever you hear has to be within the human hearing range. Agree?


Unless You are an elephant, but it would be making it hard to control the mouse. :mrgreen:
Cubase 7.5.30 , I7 3770K , win7x64, 16Gb Ram, Steinberg MR816x, Cambridge Audio DacMagic Plus, CMC TP, CMC CH.
Cubase 6.5.4, Intel Q6600, WinXPx32, 4Gb Ram, Motu 828mkII, Behringer ADA8000.
Yamaha MoXF, Waldorf blofeld, Yamaha CS1x, MusicMan Stingray 5, Yamaha TRB 5FL, Daking MicPre One, Safesoundaudio P1, TK audio BC1, Brauner Phanthera.
User avatar
peakae
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:15 pm
Location: Bedroom
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby curteye » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:03 am

iBM wrote:Whatever you hear has to be within the human hearing range. Agree?[/b]


You are probably correct however somehow I'm still not convinced.

Everyday unorganized sounds yes.

But when it comes to music both recorded playback and in live performance.
I believe there is more to it than simple 'hearing with yer ears'.

That missing ingredient is why humans get 'touched' by the sounds.
{'-'}
If yer gear ain't breakin down, you aint workin' much.

iMac i7 2.8Gz 16GB 10.9...../C5.5/6.5/7.5
Mbook 2.4Gz 4GB 10.7.5.../C5.5/6.5/7.5

Location:
On the side of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
User avatar
curteye
Grand Senior Member
 
Posts: 5153
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:03 am
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 197 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby knuckle47 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:50 am

iBM wrote:
I happened to discuss this with some Auditory Doctors when my mother attended a research group for Tinnitus at the biggest hospital in my home town, country even.
She have had Tinnitus for many years and participated voluntarily in this research after consulting


Not to reveal any particular location but this hospital... Is it in Oregon? I was there in the early 1980's when this Tinnitus research was initiated.

Tinnitus, by the way , while well off topic is a truly miserable affliction
PC Win 7 64bit | VST Instrument Collection | i7 3930 | 32gb Corsair ram : MOTU 896 HD FireWire, Samsung 840 Pro SSD 256gb Win 7 OS | 2nd Crucial 64gb with Cubase 7.5.2| WD 2 TB Caviar Black | 500gb project drive | Cubasis and iPad 4th 64gb. Guitarist not really a keyboard player, but tryin' like hell
User avatar
knuckle47
Member
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:24 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Patanjali » Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:42 am

TheNavigator wrote:... taking the Nyquist theorem and modern filter technology into the equation gives us more than enough with 44.1 kHz of sampling.

The Nyquist (et al) theorem does NOT apply to real-world sounds as it ONLY applies to waveforms that are known over all time, forwards and back.

The Cheung–Marks theorem seems to indicate problems when the functions are not infinite and in the presence of noise.

I don't pretend to understand all the maths, but I am not willing to accept statements incorrectly applying theorems as 'fact' to stymie valid discussion.

Also, the hearing range discussion is a irrelevant. Trying to limit scope to it, just because YOU think that is all that sample rate is relevant to, then using it to dismiss valid discussion of the whole topic is disingenuous and disrespectful.
Patanjali
Half of the folk music duo, DevaKnighT. Music available from CD Baby (MP3/FLAC) and the usual culprits. All recorded and processed on Cubase 7.x at 192k.
Comp: i7-4930K : Asus P9X79-E WS : 32GB : GV-N750OC-2GI : SSDx4+2 : UAD-2Q : Dell S2340Tx2 & Samsung 55" 4K.
HW: Nmn U87 Ai : JA251x2 : YRG : Korg padKontrol+uKEY2 : RME FF400+800 : M-Patch-2 : Tannoy Reveal Active+TS-12.
SW: Win 8.1 Pro 64 : Cubase 7.5.30 64 : iC Pro : RX4Adv : Ozone5Adv : Goliath/SO PP/Pianos/Gypsy : Sup.Drum 2.0 : AT7.
User avatar
Patanjali
Member
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby TheNavigator » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:51 pm

Patanjali wrote:
TheNavigator wrote:... taking the Nyquist theorem and modern filter technology into the equation gives us more than enough with 44.1 kHz of sampling.

The Nyquist (et al) theorem does NOT apply to real-world sounds as it ONLY applies to waveforms that are known over all time, forwards and back.

The Cheung–Marks theorem seems to indicate problems when the functions are not infinite and in the presence of noise.

I don't pretend to understand all the maths, but I am not willing to accept statements incorrectly applying theorems as 'fact' to stymie valid discussion.

Also, the hearing range discussion is a irrelevant. Trying to limit scope to it, just because YOU think that is all that sample rate is relevant to, then using it to dismiss valid discussion of the whole topic is disingenuous and disrespectful.


It's just that, as often, that the scientific worldview and the magical / wishful thinking of esoterics clash here.

So, here are a few facts, accept them or not, it doesn't matter - they stay facts:

1. Every waveform can be represented as the sum of sine waves (Fourier theorem - which is proven)
2. To represent a sine wave of frequency f, which is the fundamental to every other waveform, a signal rate of 2f is necessary (which is the Nyquist theorem - which is also proven)
3. Human hearing has an upper range of (at most) about 20 kHz, there is no way for humans to detect frequencies beyond this point, we are simply not equipped. Try to receive ultra short wave (FM radio, or "UKW" as we call it in german) with a pure short wave radio - you'll fail. Epically. Same for your ears... they are an amazing piece of biology, but they simply can't detect anything
above 20 kHz.

There is only one valid conclusion to all of this:

= A signal rate of 40 kHz + (some space for a super steep, high quality low pass filter) is enough.

And, since the people who build the audio devices KNOW all of that, there is a second conclusion, which I leave up to you to figure out.

A little hint: you can even apply some Mark Twain here.
Chris, The Navigator... Keyboards, songwriting, CTO and aspiring coproducer for Visions of Atlantis.

PC watercooling and overclocking afficionado.

Main device: Cubase 7.5 64 bit on Windows 8.1 (4930k @ 4.1 GHz, 32 GB of RAM, 3 SSDs), Halion 5, Padshop Pro, RME Hammerfall DSP + Multiface, Avid Artist Control V2, Roland A88, AKG K701 headphones, lots of other nice stuff
Mobile cutlery: iPad Air 2, Cubasis (always the latest version), Audio Bus 2, Focusrite iTrack Dock, one or the other cheap USB MIDI keyboards

Favorite synthesizers: u-he DIVA, Padshop Pro, Halion 5

"Storms can't kill the faith in rainbows"
User avatar
TheNavigator
Member
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Vienna, European Union
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Patanjali » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:34 am

TheNavigator wrote:2. To represent a sine wave of frequency f, which is the fundamental to every other waveform, a signal rate of 2f is necessary (which is the Nyquist theorem - which is also proven).

The ONLY thing that is proven is that it is valid at MORE THAN (not exactly) twice the highest required upper frequency, BUT ONLY if the waveform is defined to plus and minus infinity (that is, doubly infinite). And the Cheung–Marks theorem (that is, proved) seems to indicate that being non doubly infinite and the presence of noise upset even this.

In other words, the Nyquist theorem sounds nice, and appears good to use for an argument for going for minimal specs, but it does NOT apply to ANY real-world sounds under ANY real-world conditions, so to continue to use it for ANY justification for one's DAW sample rate choices is dubious.

I'm not saying I have answers here, but I refuse to accept INCORRECTLY applied theorems as EVIDENCE for ANYTHING.

Now, can we get down to real-world discussions so that we can actually understand what we are really dealing with in DAW work?
Patanjali
Half of the folk music duo, DevaKnighT. Music available from CD Baby (MP3/FLAC) and the usual culprits. All recorded and processed on Cubase 7.x at 192k.
Comp: i7-4930K : Asus P9X79-E WS : 32GB : GV-N750OC-2GI : SSDx4+2 : UAD-2Q : Dell S2340Tx2 & Samsung 55" 4K.
HW: Nmn U87 Ai : JA251x2 : YRG : Korg padKontrol+uKEY2 : RME FF400+800 : M-Patch-2 : Tannoy Reveal Active+TS-12.
SW: Win 8.1 Pro 64 : Cubase 7.5.30 64 : iC Pro : RX4Adv : Ozone5Adv : Goliath/SO PP/Pianos/Gypsy : Sup.Drum 2.0 : AT7.
User avatar
Patanjali
Member
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby lachlan mcleod » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:08 am

Hi Patanjali and it is good to see you here.
I divorced Pro Tools and bought Cubase last week and just today I registered on the Steinberg forum....and saw an old friend!!!.
Now this question you have asked about the best sampling rate to use is a beauty and I have actually done some tests on this.
I didnt do the standard listening test. I used sin waves and recorded them at different sampling frequencies.
What I noticed is that as the sample rate was increased up to 192Khz the sin wave was produced very accurately. However, at lower frequencies (and even at 96Khz) the sin wave was distorted on the recorded waveform. I understood this to mean that though the frequency of the signal was not altered, its harmonics were. Pitch the same but tonally changed.
The implication is that the higher sampling rate may sound better in the upper frequencies but can we hear those frequencies.. probably not.
So to answer you question I say yes, you get a more accurate recording at higher sampling rates but no, you cant hear it.

Cheers
Lachlan
PS
I tried to send yo an email last week but it got sent back. Please email me with your new email address.
lachlan mcleod
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:53 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby curteye » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:23 am

Aloha l and welcome to the board

lachlan mcleod wrote:but no, you cant hear it.


But can human beings 'feel' it?
{'-'}
If yer gear ain't breakin down, you aint workin' much.

iMac i7 2.8Gz 16GB 10.9...../C5.5/6.5/7.5
Mbook 2.4Gz 4GB 10.7.5.../C5.5/6.5/7.5

Location:
On the side of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
User avatar
curteye
Grand Senior Member
 
Posts: 5153
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:03 am
Has thanked: 48 times
Been thanked: 197 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby TheNavigator » Fri Jun 13, 2014 7:11 am

curteye wrote:Aloha l and welcome to the board

lachlan mcleod wrote:but no, you cant hear it.


But can human beings 'feel' it?
{'-'}


No.

If you don't have an organ of perception, there is nothing you can sense (= feel).

Being able to "feel" (physically, in terms of kinesthetic sensations, if this is what you mean) frequencies higher than 20 kHz would imply such an insane amount of energy that it would kill you instantly.
Chris, The Navigator... Keyboards, songwriting, CTO and aspiring coproducer for Visions of Atlantis.

PC watercooling and overclocking afficionado.

Main device: Cubase 7.5 64 bit on Windows 8.1 (4930k @ 4.1 GHz, 32 GB of RAM, 3 SSDs), Halion 5, Padshop Pro, RME Hammerfall DSP + Multiface, Avid Artist Control V2, Roland A88, AKG K701 headphones, lots of other nice stuff
Mobile cutlery: iPad Air 2, Cubasis (always the latest version), Audio Bus 2, Focusrite iTrack Dock, one or the other cheap USB MIDI keyboards

Favorite synthesizers: u-he DIVA, Padshop Pro, Halion 5

"Storms can't kill the faith in rainbows"
User avatar
TheNavigator
Member
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Vienna, European Union
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Patanjali » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:00 am

TheNavigator wrote:If you don't have an organ of perception, there is nothing you can sense (= feel).

Some insects and animals don't have ears, yet they can sense the vibrations by other means.

I'm not saying that humans DO have such abilities to 'feel' higher frequencies (though lower frequencies are felt), but I wouldn't be as arrogant to claim there are none.

Shakespeare - Hamlet (1.5.167-8) wrote:There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.



By the way, what happened to your sentence with 'science and logic'? I had whole lot of things lined up to deal with your lack of that!
Patanjali
Half of the folk music duo, DevaKnighT. Music available from CD Baby (MP3/FLAC) and the usual culprits. All recorded and processed on Cubase 7.x at 192k.
Comp: i7-4930K : Asus P9X79-E WS : 32GB : GV-N750OC-2GI : SSDx4+2 : UAD-2Q : Dell S2340Tx2 & Samsung 55" 4K.
HW: Nmn U87 Ai : JA251x2 : YRG : Korg padKontrol+uKEY2 : RME FF400+800 : M-Patch-2 : Tannoy Reveal Active+TS-12.
SW: Win 8.1 Pro 64 : Cubase 7.5.30 64 : iC Pro : RX4Adv : Ozone5Adv : Goliath/SO PP/Pianos/Gypsy : Sup.Drum 2.0 : AT7.
User avatar
Patanjali
Member
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby TheNavigator » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:31 am

Patanjali, as long as there is no hard evidence to backup any claims of higher sample rates being useful, everybody should refuse to waste 50% or more of his CPU power just for some unsubstantiated hearsay and esoteric waffle, seriously.

I need to see significant differences in perception, under strictly controlled circumstances (double blinding, open source and heavily examined LPF design, etc...) between 44,1 kHz and 192 kHz recordings to even CONSIDER those claims being anything more than esoteric mumbo-jumbo.

If it would not cost CPU cycles (and memory, but this is a non-issue nowadays), I wouldn't be such a nitpicker, but people pay through their noses for moar CPU power (and have to utilize awkward metatechniques such as "freezing", which is a horrible concept in itself) for exactly NOTHING.

Please understand that I really appreciate your strife for better, more beautiful and clearer sound. I'm all for that and I try to do the same (mostly by learning, but also by getting good equipment, such as the SPL Gainstation 1 I just ordered) - but some efforts are not only futile but even counterproductive.

Believe me, I really like high end equipment (SPL stuff) and I use stuff like Kramer Master Tape and the Slate VBC and all that, which add nuances at most - but I would never even consider going > 48 kHz (and I do 48 kHz only because KORG forces me to).

Science simply doesn't back any higher sample rates (except in select mathematical processes, this is why some plugins perform upsampling, which is good and necessary and great, but this is about mathematics only, algebraic necessities and all that).

And, here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... ling_rates
Chris, The Navigator... Keyboards, songwriting, CTO and aspiring coproducer for Visions of Atlantis.

PC watercooling and overclocking afficionado.

Main device: Cubase 7.5 64 bit on Windows 8.1 (4930k @ 4.1 GHz, 32 GB of RAM, 3 SSDs), Halion 5, Padshop Pro, RME Hammerfall DSP + Multiface, Avid Artist Control V2, Roland A88, AKG K701 headphones, lots of other nice stuff
Mobile cutlery: iPad Air 2, Cubasis (always the latest version), Audio Bus 2, Focusrite iTrack Dock, one or the other cheap USB MIDI keyboards

Favorite synthesizers: u-he DIVA, Padshop Pro, Halion 5

"Storms can't kill the faith in rainbows"
User avatar
TheNavigator
Member
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Vienna, European Union
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Patanjali » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:11 pm

TheNavigator wrote:I need to see significant differences in perception, under strictly controlled circumstances (double blinding, open source and heavily examined LPF design, etc...) between 44,1 kHz and 192 kHz recordings

I would like to see those as well, but there needs to be some discussion about how that may be achieved. Such things don't have to be the province of proprietary research or musings by learned experts in obscure forums. Such collaboration can be had by any group interested in knowing the truth.

However, having open discussions about such things is very difficult when you just use dismissive and erroneous arguments to ruin getting to anywhere near such a forum. Those tactics are the enemies of science and engineering.

Suppression, ignorance and choosing the least confronting options are not what the peaks of human achievement are made of. I choose NOT to be mediocre!
Patanjali
Half of the folk music duo, DevaKnighT. Music available from CD Baby (MP3/FLAC) and the usual culprits. All recorded and processed on Cubase 7.x at 192k.
Comp: i7-4930K : Asus P9X79-E WS : 32GB : GV-N750OC-2GI : SSDx4+2 : UAD-2Q : Dell S2340Tx2 & Samsung 55" 4K.
HW: Nmn U87 Ai : JA251x2 : YRG : Korg padKontrol+uKEY2 : RME FF400+800 : M-Patch-2 : Tannoy Reveal Active+TS-12.
SW: Win 8.1 Pro 64 : Cubase 7.5.30 64 : iC Pro : RX4Adv : Ozone5Adv : Goliath/SO PP/Pianos/Gypsy : Sup.Drum 2.0 : AT7.
User avatar
Patanjali
Member
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 63 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby TheNavigator » Fri Jun 13, 2014 12:34 pm

Right, Patanjali, and I'm with you there, but this discussion about higher sample rates strongly remind me of "EUR 5,000.- audio cables" and "Argentum nitricum D12".

It's not that I would not be open to meaningful evidence, quite the opposite, but it's basic logic which dictates for me that it's pointless to go higher than something like 44.1 kHz of sampling rate. This opinion is based on where science stands. We would actually need different mathematics and physics (or biology, if you want to debate human ability to perceive beyond 20 kHz!), not just updates or errata.

There is a difference between "reason allows for something to be valid, even if the probability is low" (if this was the case here, I'd all be "go 96 kHz, just to be on the safe side, should science find out that there IS something"!) and "this is utter nonsense and has nothing to do with reality at all" (which is what is the case here - given high quality LPFs... I totally agree that low quality LPFs may cause horrible differences in sample rates, but this has nothing to do with "Nyquist being invalid" or something similar).

I'd rather investigate IF and WHY there are filter differences between sample rates in some cases... I'm not one of the tinfoil hat guys, but there may be economic interest behind that. ;-)
Chris, The Navigator... Keyboards, songwriting, CTO and aspiring coproducer for Visions of Atlantis.

PC watercooling and overclocking afficionado.

Main device: Cubase 7.5 64 bit on Windows 8.1 (4930k @ 4.1 GHz, 32 GB of RAM, 3 SSDs), Halion 5, Padshop Pro, RME Hammerfall DSP + Multiface, Avid Artist Control V2, Roland A88, AKG K701 headphones, lots of other nice stuff
Mobile cutlery: iPad Air 2, Cubasis (always the latest version), Audio Bus 2, Focusrite iTrack Dock, one or the other cheap USB MIDI keyboards

Favorite synthesizers: u-he DIVA, Padshop Pro, Halion 5

"Storms can't kill the faith in rainbows"
User avatar
TheNavigator
Member
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Vienna, European Union
Has thanked: 101 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby SteveInChicago » Fri Jun 13, 2014 2:16 pm

I'm following this with interest, though I confess to not understanding the mathmatical stuff in here.

That said ;) it's interesting to note that it's been shown that humans are affected by "sound" outside the limits of hearing, of course, we don't perceive it as sound.
[sounds] above the human audible range (max. 20 kHz) activate the midbrain and diencephalon and evoke various physiological, psychological and behavioral responses.

from http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ad ... ne.0095464
Cubase 7.5.30 | Mac 10.8.5 | i7-3770k Gigabyte Z77-UD5H | 16gb | TC Konnekt24D
User avatar
SteveInChicago
External Moderator
 
Posts: 4884
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:42 pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 309 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby iBM » Fri Jun 13, 2014 4:17 pm

SteveInChicago wrote:That said ;) it's interesting to note that it's been shown that humans are affected by "sound" outside the limits of hearing, of course, we don't perceive it as sound.
[sounds] above the human audible range (max. 20 kHz) activate the midbrain and diencephalon and evoke various physiological, psychological and behavioral responses.

Humans can be affected by "sounds" outside our hearing limits, like in ultrasound treatment (in medical equipment). BUT.......

.....But to do that we have to bandlimit this sound waves to the upper frequencies only, focusing the energy needed in that frequency band only.

.....But within a musical context (I guess we are doing music here), we cannot feel anything up in these frequencies above 20kHz. Because if we provided that amout of energy to play the higher freq to be "felt through" within a musical context, the amount of power provided in the hearing range would have killed us.

.....Besides that we have no amplifier to provide such power in a full frequency playback (remember we talk about within a musical context).

Of corse there are frequencies above the human hearing range, as in ultrasound and Roentgen to take two different frequency bands that excist (above our hearing limits). Of corse they excist (nobody has denied that), but not at all present at a "feelable" level within any form of musical context.

So if you want to discuss medical equipment, I suggest another forum ;-)

Again, take a look at the Fletcher-Munson curves (phon curves). How much dBSPL (dB Sound Preassure Level) would you have to provide to make a 48kHz signal loud enough, to even get close to "feelable"?
And then switch of the High-pass Filter.............yes sir.......what did you say?

Please admit that what we hear, HAS TO BE within the human hearing range. And please discuss this Sample rate debate within a musical (full frequency) context. Please don't make this harder then it is.

Have nice weekend :)
TSR - Now a division under The Tower Studio Suite - Run by my uncles nephew

Win7/Win8 x64 | Intel i5 2500/3570K | 16 GB RAM | MOTU PCIe-424 w/ 24io x 2 / 2408 / 308
Cubase 6.5/7.5 - Nuendo 5.5 | CC121 | Slate Digital | Softube | Sonnox | SoundToys |
Eventide | Exponential Audio | Boz' Digital Lab | +++
Dynaudio BM15A | Focusrite ISA430 | Universal Audio LA-610SE/2-610/8110 |
TLAudio 5052/C1/PA-1 | TC Electronics R4000/M3000/M-One/D-Two | +++
User avatar
iBM
Member
 
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:49 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Jarno » Fri Jun 13, 2014 5:45 pm

Patanjali wrote:BUT ONLY if the waveform is defined to plus and minus infinity

Indeed, BUT guess what happens when we take a waform of only limited time ... we'll get DISTORTION. This distortion is greatest at the very beginning and very end of the waveform.

Now let me give you a homework: calculate how many samples it takes in worst case (from beginning or end of the file) to have this distortion created by time-chopping to be lower than quatisation distortion (you can choose the sampling parameters yourself). Or you may also choose to calculate how many samples it takes to make this distortion less than ... let's say ... 1%. That would be more like a real-world problem.

BTW, we DAW users all should be very familiar on problems using Shannon-Nyqvist where it's not applicable: those clicks what we get when slicing and combining waveforms without using appropriate methods.
Cubase4/SX1/VST3.7 | Waves Gold | Melodyne | PC i7-4770/8G/2xSSD/Win7 64 | MacMini | Frontier Tranzport
Tascam DM-4800 | Soundcraft Spirit Studio 16 | dbx231 | Genelec 1032A | KEF C15 | Auratone 5S | Samson S-phone
Yamaha REV500/SPX990 | Alesis Midiverb4 | Roland SDE-330 | Pearl Echo Orbit | Aphex 109 x2 | TL-Audio C5021
Alesis 3630 | AudioLogic MT66 | Joemeek VC1Q | dbx386 | Focusrite VoiceMaster | Line6 PodXt/BassPodXt | Boss GT-3
Roland TD8/TD5/JV2080/SC55 | UseAudio Plugiator | E-mu ProteusXR | Akai S-900/AX73 | M-Audio Keystation
Martin/ESP/Fender/Line6 guitars/basses | Pearl drumkit | Olympic by Premier drumkit | Custom Roland V-drum kit
AKG D112/CK77 | Calrec CM1050C | Earthworks QTC30 | EV RE20/Spherex920 | Neumann M147 | Pearl CR57
Peavey PVM45 | RØDE NT2/NT55 | Sennheiser MD441/MD421/e606 | Shure SM7/SM57/SM58/BETA57/BETA58 ...
... Saeco Odea Giro Espresso machine | BMW Z3 roadster | American Pit Bull Terrier
User avatar
Jarno
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:31 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby MrSoundman » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:42 pm

OK, OK folks .... I have a quick solution: let's all make an appointment with our local audiologist, and after we've had our hearing scientifically measured, those who can hear above 20kHz can set their interfaces to the higher sample rates, buy more expensive gear and bigger disks -- oh, and buy shares in PonoMusic, because it's clearly so much better, people will be queueing up to buy!
Now, where did I leave my gold-plated speaker cables ... oh, there they are, plugged into my tube amplifier, beside the record deck ....
Cubase 7.5.30 x64 | WaveLab 8.5.10 x64 | HALion 5.0.1 x64 | HSO 1.5 x64 | Midex 3/Midex 8 | Windows 7 x64
User avatar
MrSoundman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:27 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby MrSoundman » Fri Jun 13, 2014 10:44 pm

Jarno wrote:That would be more like a real-world problem
I think that would be more like a first-world problem.
Cubase 7.5.30 x64 | WaveLab 8.5.10 x64 | HALion 5.0.1 x64 | HSO 1.5 x64 | Midex 3/Midex 8 | Windows 7 x64
User avatar
MrSoundman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:27 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Woodcrest Studio » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:11 pm

if we can't hear a dog whistle, but when we blow on it our dog barks and we hear it..... the same goes for frequencies that fall outside of our hearing range. They affect what is in our hearing range. I did a test a few years back and I posted somewhere about it. You can clearly see a node created in our hearing range buy something outside our hearing range.
Tom Zartler

In person or from afar: helping make people's music a pleasurable listening experience.

::::Woodcrest Studio Homepage::::
::::Woodcrest on Facebook::::

Cubase 6.5, ProToolsHD10, 4 rooms, a hall, bathroom, kitchen, computer, mics, outboard and an excessive Imagination.

If in a creative blackout, stare at the dancing cow for inspiration.
User avatar
Woodcrest Studio
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1622
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby marQs » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:49 pm

From a result-oriented POV 44/24 is absolutely fine. I don't negate effects of higher samplerates but would consider them as pretty much meaningless for myself. We are flooded with pure luxury today, aren't we?

Doesn't the magic of music happen in complete different spheres anyway? The idea, the talent of performers as well as engineers have much more impact in an audio world that has removed so many limitations we had to face just 10 or 15 years ago than hypothetical considerations on sample rates - which seem to remain emotional/subjective in this as well as in previous discussions about the same topic.
...Cubase 7.5 | WL 8.5 | Fireface UFX | UAD2 Octo/Quad | Win7 64...
User avatar
marQs
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1207
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:34 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 62 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby MrSoundman » Fri Jun 13, 2014 11:54 pm

Fetishizing about things like sample rates can provide a good excuse for lack of ability or creativity.
Cubase 7.5.30 x64 | WaveLab 8.5.10 x64 | HALion 5.0.1 x64 | HSO 1.5 x64 | Midex 3/Midex 8 | Windows 7 x64
User avatar
MrSoundman
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:27 am
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 45 times

Re: Where do you guys stand on Sample Rate (Khz)

Postby Patanjali » Sat Jun 14, 2014 8:25 am

Jarno wrote:
Patanjali wrote:BUT ONLY if the waveform is defined to plus and minus infinity

Indeed, BUT guess what happens when we take a waform of only limited time ... we'll get DISTORTION. This distortion is greatest at the very beginning and very end of the waveform.

Now let me give you a homework: calculate how many samples it takes in worst case (from beginning or end of the file) to have this distortion created by time-chopping to be lower than quatisation distortion (you can choose the sampling parameters yourself). Or you may also choose to calculate how many samples it takes to make this distortion less than ... let's say ... 1%. That would be more like a real-world problem.

BTW, we DAW users all should be very familiar on problems using Shannon-Nyqvist where it's not applicable: those clicks what we get when slicing and combining waveforms without using appropriate methods.

Are you referring to the guard bands, ADDED to the front and end of a block of samples being processed, that ramp up and down from zero, and designed to maintain bandwidth limiting and pretend that the block is doubly infinite?

If so, technically there is no distortion at the front and end of the actual band, but processing it as such would treat it like a square wave (where not zero), which would generate frequency components well beyond the bandwidth to which the signal is required (according to the Nyquist et al theorem) to be constrained. Careful design of the guard band slope patterns would keep bandwidth, but would also add to the coefficient values for each of the conversion frequencies, which presumably would have to be factored out before using the coefficients in any calculations. The people that come up with this stuff are SMART!

I am not familiar with all the maths, so maybe you can stop being a smart-a** and let us all know THE ANSWER.
Patanjali
Half of the folk music duo, DevaKnighT. Music available from CD Baby (MP3/FLAC) and the usual culprits. All recorded and processed on Cubase 7.x at 192k.
Comp: i7-4930K : Asus P9X79-E WS : 32GB : GV-N750OC-2GI : SSDx4+2 : UAD-2Q : Dell S2340Tx2 & Samsung 55" 4K.
HW: Nmn U87 Ai : JA251x2 : YRG : Korg padKontrol+uKEY2 : RME FF400+800 : M-Patch-2 : Tannoy Reveal Active+TS-12.
SW: Win 8.1 Pro 64 : Cubase 7.5.30 64 : iC Pro : RX4Adv : Ozone5Adv : Goliath/SO PP/Pianos/Gypsy : Sup.Drum 2.0 : AT7.
User avatar
Patanjali
Member
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 10:37 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 63 times

PreviousNext

Return to Steinberg Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests