I've just read SoS's excellent article on recording The Darkness' new album. I noticed, with interest, that once the tracks were recorded using analogue tape, it was edited in Pro Tools at 96kHz.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but, there seemed to be no hint of compromise in the production of the album, and yet they didn't use 192kHz...

So, what is the point in 192k?

Is it just case of "Hi-spec for Hi-Spec's sake", to fool naive punters into upgrading their soundcards?

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

No, this is not the case, but I'm sure someone with more technical know how than me will elaborate...

P

Well, recording using 96kHz will reproduce frequencies of over 40kHz - more than twice the human theoretical hearing range, and well above any frequency which could potentially modulate sounds within our hearing range, so I'd like to hear what the justification of 192kHz is.

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

This could be a long thread. Personally I've yet to hear any justification for 192k that convinces me, but maybe I've got cloth ears as a (very) few people claim to be able to hear a difference.

Since decent analogue kit will comfortably go up to 192k and way beyond, actually dropping it into PT or any digital domain for editing could even be argued (by some) to be a retrograde step!!

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

True indeed.

My point is, if the Darkness wanted 192kHz, they would have used it. They did not.

If they choose not to use it, then why should the lower-budgeted, hard-disk-space-conscious producers entertain the idea of 192k?

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

Dan Lavry (who makes very pukka Lavry ADCs & DACs) argues quite strongly that current materials/manufacturing technology/whatever are limiting what can feasibly be achieved with increasing sample rates octave upon octave (as we are).

I think that the current crop of options available (I'm still using 24bit 44.1kHz!!) are 'good enough' for the moment - I feel there's other areas of our game which could do with development & improvement before further increases of sample rate yield significant benefits, even ignoring the possibility they may not be capturing all that they claim...

Mike

--------------------
www.ehsound.co.uk - Live Sound Hire & Services

Hugh RJ has written extensively, both on this and the older forums ands in the magazine, on this subject. This is a subect that he has explained with clarity and insight and I suggest to one and all that they read his articles.

Without going into details which are easily looked up in the back issues and on the first and the second forums, good low-res is far better than poor hi-def.

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

Some claim that phsycho-acoustics come into play at very high frequencies and that even if we don't hear past 20k, humans perceive frequencies well into the 40k and on past 60k.

When I think about this from a more practical point of view, going from say 20k up to 80k is just 2 octaves. Now 2 octaves is now a far stretch for the ears. We can easily perceive beating from tones that are 2 octaves apart but lower in the frequency spectrum. Why wouldn't the same thing apply higher up the scale.

This brings me to another point, get two signals, one at 65k the other at 75k...mix them...you get sum and difference signals (sometimes known as "beating" or "aliasing")...the difference is 10k, well within perceptable range... This is how AM radio works folks, but with a much higher frequency "carrier" signal.

As for why they used 96k instead of 192k...maybe they only had 96k converters available with them at the time.

Let's face it, even 96kHz was completely wasted on that project! They can't've been that bothered about quality if they stuck everything through Protools - though it's about all the "music" deserved.

On a slightly more serious note, the high sample rate issue is about so much more than mere frequency response or just the digital side of things. As The Byre said, it's been discussed at length on these forums; try a search of this forum, the old Infopo (V2) forum and the main SOS site.

aaaah yes, grim, but sum and difference tones ARE all captured within current technologies.

And to counter an earlier point - there may be SOME individuals who (dubiously in my books) claim to hear detail in larger rate samples - however they are the occasional and most think digital radio is good quality....

--------------------
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Quote 0VU:

---

Let's face it, even 96kHz was completely wasted on that project! They can't've been that bothered about quality if they stuck everything through Protools - though it's about all the "music" deserved.

---

--------------------
www.ehsound.co.uk - Live Sound Hire & Services

No-one has convincingly proven that humans can hear much beyond 20kHz (the one Japanese study that claimed to show this has since been discredited).

However, many people claim to hear differences with gear that works at 192kHz. I wouldn't necessarily put this down to the sample rate - there are other factors which may be affecting the signal in the normally audible frequency range.

Cheers

James.

PS - I know that one of 0VU's mastering friends thinks that 384kHz is only just about comparable to analogue!

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Edited by James Perrett (20/01/06 10:53 AM)

Quote:

---

PS - I know that one of 0VU's mastering friends thinks that 384kHz is only just about comparable to analogue!

---

Lol Who've you been talking to?

Several of them do Some feel that it still isn't good enough

We don't necessarily agree about everything

Good analogue still sounds nicer than even good digital though. Not necessarily better, just nicer. Which is fine if you're looking for a nice sound. Sometimes accurate is better - and 384 is pretty accurate - though perhaps not as accurate as 176.4. Or even 88.2. Too many variables.

I'm going back to listening to the tape I'm supposed to be working on next week. Full track mono 1/4" recorded in 1959

a guy came into where i used to work wanting to transfer all his vinyl at 192khz. When i enquired why he wanted to do this he said that "I had to hear the quality to believe it"

I explained to hime that when vinyl is mastered there is a pretty steep roll off above 16khz as anything above that would cause the needle to jump out of the groove on the record. I said that sampling so high would merely highlight the limitations of the source.

This guy was about 65 and probably therefore couldnt hear much above 13khz anyway...

However he still insisted that he could hear the difference. when i showed him something done at 48khz. Where i could not.

Obviosly he had read somwhere that this was the thing to do.

The moral of this story is that if somebody reads something in "what HI-FI" etc they tend to believe it.

In my opinion things like 192khz are used to sell expensive gear to people who are too ignorant of the actual physics of audio to know any better.

just my 2c

Quote:

---

The moral of this story is that if somebody reads something in "what HI-FI" etc they tend to believe it.

---

Perhaps. Or perhaps the moral is, you do it and charge him for a high resolution transfer instead of an ordinary one, he goes away happy in his belief and you go away happy with a few extra quid in your pocket and your belief in his stupidity reinforced.

If you get a lot of that kind of work you might want to upgrade your cables too. And perhaps take on an agency for one of the more esoteric cable brands.

Cynical exploitation? Me?

It does seem a shame as let's face it,
some of the Darkness's best stuff is doubtless happening up above 80kHz
I for one would rather hear them up there than their 20 - 20kHz output

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote narpin99:

---

In my opinion things like 192khz are used to sell expensive gear to people who are too ignorant of the actual physics of audio to know any better.

---

It's certainly true that there's a lot of BS abroad in the hifi world to hook in the gullible.

On the other hand, there are a number of extremely non-gullible professionals who are convinced by it (like Elliot Mazer) simply because they think it sounds better.

I think there's a moral here - whatever the technical arguments for and against, if you test 192KHz and you genuinely think it improves your sound, then go for it. You shouldnt need technical arguments to confirm or contradict what your ears are telling you.

--------------------
www.myspace.com/benjunctionbox

Well, my two cents. You simply have to try with your own equipment.

In a perfect world 44.1kHz is perfect up to about 20kHz. And 96 is, well, even more perfect? Not to talk about 192 that should be, well, even more perfect again?

Reality seems to be different. Somehow the limitations in AD and DA converters and processing plugins and such make the sounds different. And most probably, there is an optimum frequency for every combination. Not necessarily the fastest the boxes can go.

What I would expect from real world converters is that with a higher sample rate I would get slightly increased distortion. And as every tape fan knows, distortion can make things sound nicer.

Personally, I go at 44.1 using Lavry Blues. To put it short, the sample rate is not the limiting factor in my recordings. Maybe in 20 years time when my mic positioning is perfect... (I do mostly on location classical music thoung, guess that is less demanding than distorted electrical guitars).

Gunnar

Well, there you have it - SoS forums in a nutshell... We start off with a technical discussion, and end up slagging-off "The Darkness".

On that particular tangent, I quite like 'em. Although, their current album is mastered with the loudness knob set to number 11. Taking their Spinal Tap comparision a step too far, they've definately gone "One Louder".

If you want to discuss the necessity of 192kHz sampling, I guess you need to read Dan's white paper on Sampling Theory first. It's quite sobering:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

B.

Quote feline1:

---

It does seem a shame as let's face it,
some of the Darkness's best stuff is doubtless happening up above 80kHz
I for one would rather hear them up there than their 20 - 20kHz output

---

LOL!

--------------------
madtheory creations
Synths and pianos for Kontakt

Most people tend to forget what it takes to make 196k ADC's. To make a premium quality 196k ADC, one must have extremely fast sample and hold circuitry. This circuitry makes sampling of square waves of much higher "fidelity". Square waves are the "Primo" source of harmonics.

This is why top quality analog is so much better than ordinary digital. But getting into "extreme" sampling rates enhances the ability to capture that gnarly square wave. Which in turn gets you higher up the fidelity scale.

I for one would love to see 1Mhz sampling rates, but then again you could buy top quality analog and get that.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Since decent analogue kit will comfortably go up to 192k and way beyond...

---

Some analogue electronics are wideband and will pass frequencies of 100kHz or more. However, I'm yet to find an analogue tape recorder that can do much better than 50kHz

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Grimm Reaper Sound:

---

Square waves are the "Primo" source of harmonics.

---

A square wave is created from a continuous series of odd harmonics at specific relative amplitudes. Great if you like odd harmonics. Bugger all use if you want something a little kinder on the ears

Quote:

---

But getting into "extreme" sampling rates enhances the ability to capture that gnarly square wave. Which in turn gets you higher up the fidelity scale.

I for one would love to see 1Mhz sampling rates, but then again you could buy top quality analog and get that.

---

Er... I fear this shows the all-too-common misunderstanding of sampling theory and the inherent bandwidth limitations of analogue equipment.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Grimm Reaper Sound:

---

Most people tend to forget what it takes to make 196k ADC's. To make a premium quality 196k ADC, one must have extremely fast sample and hold circuitry. This circuitry makes sampling of square waves of much higher "fidelity". Square waves are the "Primo" source of harmonics.

This is why top quality analog is so much better than ordinary digital. But getting into "extreme" sampling rates enhances the ability to capture that gnarly square wave. Which in turn gets you higher up the fidelity scale.

I for one would love to see 1Mhz sampling rates, but then again you could buy top quality analog and get that.

---

You obviously have next to zero knowledge about the basics of sampling. Why don't you scroll a few posts up from yours and read my post and the document linked there first? That would help people avoid reading posts like yours that are full of nonsense rubbish.

I'll quote that message of mine here for your convenience:

Quote Barish:

---

If you want to discuss the necessity of 192kHz sampling, I guess you need to read Dan's white paper on Sampling Theory first. It's quite sobering:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

B.

---

IMO unless you have very poor hearing, you will clearly hear the difference between recordings made at 44.1 and 192kHz.
That said, I still very much appreciate the 16bit 44.1kHz CD format and would hate to loose it now that we 'own' it, so to speak.

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

A square wave is created from a continuous series of odd harmonics at specific relative amplitudes. Great if you like odd harmonics. Bugger all use if you want something a little kinder on the ears

Quote:

---

But getting into "extreme" sampling rates enhances the ability to capture that gnarly square wave. Which in turn gets you higher up the fidelity scale.

---

hugh

---

And perfect square waves, with an infinite bandwidth of odd harmonmics don't even exist .. therefore the square wave argument is not valid.

--------------------
"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent."

Quote Barish:

---

If you want to discuss the necessity of 192kHz sampling, I guess you need to read Dan's white paper on Sampling Theory first. It's quite sobering:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

B.

---

Thanks for the link Barish, very interesting stuff.

--------------------
Looking for musicians?
www.partysounds.co.uk

There are plenty of ADC's that will do 1MHz - and the editing software that I use will work up to 10MHz but the trick is getting them to work together

Cheers

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Hello,

This is a question, not an argument

Whenever I read arguments for high sampling rates (> 48k, say) that are based on the high-frequency-content's production of artifacts in the audible range I become confused. Wouldn't the artifactual information be present in the signal if it were recorded at a lower samplr rate, even if the higher frequency components that produced it weren't? Isn't this also why we can hear the artifactual information in the first place?

I have a feeling that there is a simple answer to my confusion that I am just not getting. Enliightment would be much appreciated!

Regards

Quote Stan:

---

IMO unless you have very poor hearing, you will clearly hear the difference between recordings made at 44.1 and 192kHz.
That said, I still very much appreciate the 16bit 44.1kHz CD format and would hate to loose it now that we 'own' it, so to speak.

---

I'm not sure you have read Dan's white paper before making a comment on this.

I'd like to remind you that he is one of the people who design and produce the AD/DA converters so that we can buy and use them in order to make comments as such, not to mention that he also happens to be a musician himself and the converters he designs and manufactures are right up there with the best available on this planet.

Please read the following and then make a comment, which is going to have to be as scientific as his in order to stand. Otherwise, it will have to remain subjective/your personal preference and not something scientifically accurate:

Quote Dan Lavry:

---

There are reports of better sound with higher sampling rates. No doubt, the folks that like the "sound of a 192KHz" converter hear something. Clearly it has nothing to do with more bandwidth: the instruments make next to no 96KHz sound, the microphones don't respond to it, the speakers don't produce it, and the ear can not hear it.


Moreover, we hear some reports about "some of that special quality captured by that 192KHz is retained when down sampling to 44.1KHz. Such reports neglect the fact that a 44.1KHz sampled material can not contain above 22.05KHz of audio.


Some claim that that 192K is closer to the audio tape. That same tape that typically contains "only" 20KHz of audio gets converted to digital by a 192K AD, than stripped out of all possible content above 22KHz (down sample to CD).


“If you hear it, there is something there” is an artistic statement. If you like it and want to use it, go ahead. But whatever you hear is not due to energy above audio. All is contained within the "lower band". It could be certain type of distortions that sound good to you. Can it be that someone made a real good 192KHz device, and even after down sampling it has fewer distortions? Not likely. The same converter architecture can be optimized for slower rates and with more time to process it should be more accurate (less distortions).


The danger here is that people who hear something they like may associate better sound with faster sampling, wider bandwidth, and higher accuracy. This indirectly implies that lower rates are inferior. Whatever one hears on a 192KHz system can be introduced into a 96KHz system, and much of it into lower sampling rates. That includes any distortions associated with 192KHz gear, much of which is due to insufficient time to achieve the level of accuracy of slower sampling.


Conclusion:


There is an inescapable tradeoff between faster sampling on one hand and a loss of accuracy, increased data size and much additional processing requirement on the other hand.
AD converter designers can not generate 20 bits at MHz speeds, yet they often utilize a circuit yielding a few bits at MHz speeds as a step towards making many bits at lower speeds.


The compromise between speed and accuracy is a permanent engineering and scientific reality.


Sampling audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.


While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:


1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data transmission speed requirements).


2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.


The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates. The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Whether motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true.


Sampling Theory Page 26
Copyright Dan Lavry, Lavry Engineering, Inc, 2004

---

barish, thanks for the reference. i started a thread with similar thoughts last summer, and was appalled at the level of misinformation people were spouting like gospel. ("ignorance is not impediment to utterance" a wise man once said). by the time most rockers hit their late 20s, their hearing limit is creeping downn to 10 kHz. read pete townsend's recent warnings to people using ipods for the danger of headphones...

this reminds me of the vinyl purists who disdain cds. i've often wanted to add some surface noise to a cd's output and a/b w/ vinyl to these folks. (before i'm flamed on this, let me add: *if* you have b&w 801s, mark levinson amps, bryston pre-amps, a perfect listening space - oh hell, flame away, most of us *still* won't hear the difference!)

anyway, i suppose we should hope that there are enough technology-philes to buy the latest and greatest, hence keeping the manufacturers going. not least because then the luddites among us (call me ned ludd, to quote the late, great robert calvert) can buy killer product as it's discontinued and sold for pennies...

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

Hi Barish, I trust you read Dan's white paper more carefully than my post.
I agree with Dan ''If you like it and want to use it, go ahead.''

Have you tried it yourself yet?

--------------------
.. is this thing on?

Yes. It is different. But different does not necessarily mean "better". Differences are subject to many other conditions in design topology and you'll find that a 192I/O operated at 192kHz will sound different than a 96I/O operated at 192kHz, so will a Rosetta 800 or AD-16X/DA-16X or an RME or what have you. Even different products from same manufacturer sound different. That does not prove a point.

From a scientific point of view, a 192kHz sampling is not better than 96kHz for the audible frequency range in terms of fidelity to the original, and in fact, it is worse, as explained in that paper.

If it sounds better to "you", that's an artistic statement and electronic devices are not designed with artistic decisions, but rather mathematical calculations. We're only making an art using something that was designed with non-artistic values.

B.

This might be one reason why 192kHz sounds so good.

The effect of oversampling and noise shaping on quantisation noise in A/D conversion.
If you expand the range of frequencies that can pass through the system by sampling more quickly, more and more of the noise shaping (dither) can be filtered into higher frequency bands that can not be heard.

Paul Frindle of Sony Professional stated in an interview in 1998 that it was easier to make agood converter at 96kHz than at 48kHz.
I take it from this a 192kHz converter has some advantages for the manufacturer as well.

Edited by Stan (20/01/06 08:39 PM)

Quote Barish:

---

Quote Grimm Reaper Sound:

---

Most people tend to forget what it takes to make 196k ADC's. To make a premium quality 196k ADC, one must have extremely fast sample and hold circuitry. This circuitry makes sampling of square waves of much higher "fidelity". Square waves are the "Primo" source of harmonics.

This is why top quality analog is so much better than ordinary digital. But getting into "extreme" sampling rates enhances the ability to capture that gnarly square wave. Which in turn gets you higher up the fidelity scale.

I for one would love to see 1Mhz sampling rates, but then again you could buy top quality analog and get that.

---

You obviously have next to zero knowledge about the basics of sampling. Why don't you scroll a few posts up from yours and read my post and the document linked there first? That would help people avoid reading posts like yours that are full of nonsense rubbish.

I'll quote that message of mine here for your convenience:

Quote Barish:

---

If you want to discuss the necessity of 192kHz sampling, I guess you need to read Dan's white paper on Sampling Theory first. It's quite sobering:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

B.

---

---

Well according to that Dan Lavry,he claims that the human ear can only pick up signals up to 40k and quotes that there is no need for a MHz audio system.PREPOSTEROUS.
Just listen to the very noticable difference in the quality of AM radio(in KHz) and FM(in Mhz).Surely he cant be saying we cant hear radio 1.I have to put up with the bloody thing every morning when my bloody sister wakes up.
Richard Steed
www.soundclick.com/steedie


--------------------
RSteed

Quote Grimm Reaper Sound:

---

When I think about this from a more practical point of view, going from say 20k up to 80k is just 2 octaves. Now 2 octaves is now a far stretch for the ears. We can easily perceive beating from tones that are 2 octaves apart but lower in the frequency spectrum. Why wouldn't the same thing apply higher up the scale?

---

I'm not sure I quite understand the technical nature of the "beating" you refer to, but maybe because the notes of the harmonic series get closer together as they get higher?

ie, two octaves above a fundamental note is the distance to its fourth harmonic. Two octaves above that brings you to its sixteenth harmonic, and so on. Thus the perception of difference between high notes is not the same as the perception of difference between low notes.

You can hear this if you play a chord at the top of the piano and then the same chord at the bottom of the piano. Any dissonances (or even thirds, which can be perceived as dissonance down there) or out of tune notes jump out and beat like all hell in the low version, whereas the ear is much more forgiving in the high version, since it picks up sypathetic resonances with the lower strings and appears as a group of overtones higher up the harmonic series (where such dissonances are more natural).

Again I'm not sure this is connected with what you meant. Just pointing out that the way we hear is not a straightforward linear scale up the frequency spectrum. An octave is a much smaller interval, in actual aural terms, down low than it is up high, since it is the distance between one or two harmonics rather than the distance between many.

Quote Richard Steed:

---

yada yada

---

Classic.

Barish, I would check that document you so proudly keep bringing up and look at page 25...The reproduction of the square wave shown is BANDWIDTH LIMITED to 20kHz before hitting the converters...Obviously this works!
Yes his document is technically correct for the most part but some people can perceive a 40kHz filter being turned on in the signal path.

What I meant to say was that without bandwidth limiting and without bringing up data transfer rates for high frequency sampling and the inherent FIR limitations. You cannot reproduce a square wave in the digital domain like you have in analog.

As for the use of this in music, push two oscilator into high frequency (over 20kHz) mix them back together and start playing with that combined signal, you then get an idea of what is available as a difference signal. And yes some analog synths can do this.

So yes using 196kHz can get you better fidelity.

Check before roasting next time

There isnt really much of a significant and apparent difference though between 44.1 khz and 192khz.Obviously,there would be when audio is heard in Mhz.
Stick to 44.1 Khz i say.......'cause I do now-every morning,while I'm having my cornflakes.

--------------------
RSteed

Edited by Richard Steed (20/01/06 09:59 PM)