when i listen to cd tracks copied into my computer, even though winamp plays em at 16/44 it still sounds much better through my 24/96 soundcard than the original on a decent cd player. i presume a 24/192 soundcard would have to be twice as accurate and would sound even better for it .. i dont get the maths and i dont believe in pixies, but i liked the flour and sieve analogy best

grainger

Quote grAInger:

---

when i listen to cd tracks copied into my computer, even though winamp plays em at 16/44 it still sounds much better through my 24/96 soundcard than the original on a decent cd player. i presume a 24/192 soundcard would have to be twice as accurate and would sound even better for it .. i dont get the maths and i dont believe in pixies, but i liked the flour and sieve analogy best

grainger

---

What yuo are listening to is NOT 96kHz signals, what you hear is a 44.1 signal (maybe processed in various ways). The reason you like it better is probably that the analog parts of the card are better than the stuff in your CD player. There is absolutely nothing saying that a card that supports 192 will have better circuits or sound better. Actually I believe that you often swap the 192 support for lower quality in the rest of the circuit if you buy project studio equipment today.

Gunnar

Quote Barish:

---

Quote Grimm Reaper Sound:

---

BTW Barish, to truly analyze digital audio, one does not just take derivatives and integrals, one must also do a Fourier transform (more precisely a Discret Fourier Transform) to get out of the time domain into the frequency domain to do proper frequency analysis. So get off your high horse and quit beating up on people and trying to show them off with triple derivatives and triple integrals (most of which are never used in DFT's).

---

The Nyquist theorem is reached to and proven through all derivatives and integrals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem

http://www.digital-recordings.com/publ/pubneq.html

Thank you.

B.

---

Euh Barish, that's a single integral there not a triple...
Which was my point, don't confuse people with triple integrals when you only need a single to get a DFT done.
And don't bother sending links to Wikipedia, I get a much more detailed analysis in my engineering texts.

Let's recenter the discussion for 196k.
In summary so far (and Hugh stated this a few pages back)
in theory we would only need 40kHz sampling.

Almost everybody agrees that 96kHz is better sounding.

Most electronics designers agree that 96Khz will do the job but it is a bit of overkill (approx 60Khz being needed with proper dithering and noise shapping).

Outboard equipment (I refer here to mics, amps, monitors, etc) are limited in bandwidth to 20-25K so in theory they should not need anything over 96K.

High end analog could capture 100K, but the associated outboard gear is limited.

Musical instruments can and do go to much higher frequencies
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm

So, based on these statements (verify the validities on your own) the question becomes:
Is 196K truly needed?

The rate is 192kHz, not 196 -- just to make a small pedantic point.

Some musical instruments do generate ultrasonic harmonics and/or noise -- but that doesn't mean or imply that such components are relevant to our perception or appreciation of their sound characteristics, and I know of no scientific tests to establish this issue one way or the other. The ultrasonic componetns certainly contribute no pitch information -- tests have definitely proved that point. So I think this element of your argument is irrelevant and potentially misleading.

Not all outboard equipment is restricted to a 20kHz top end -- some is deliberately designed to extend to 100kHz or so -- but even those that have a nominal 20kHz bandwidth will certainly have a far more gentle roll off at the high end than a 44.1 or 48kHz digital system. That seems to me another good argument in favour of 96kHz systems.

However, the issue is really one of theory versus practicality, with the laws of diminishing returns thrown in.

Theory suggests 48kHz should be adequate, 60kHz would be ideal. Despite lots of misguided arguments, the theory has never been invalidated, ever.

96kHz is probably the best current compromise, sounding better than poorly engineered 48kHz systems, but not because the higher sampling rate is actually required -- it's because the practical design constraints of working at 96 have a negligable impact on the perceived sound quality.

There are also technical benefits which could be achieved in better engineered 48kHz systems, but they more or less happen for free in 96kHz systems.

192 and 384 build on the benefits of 96kHz, in terms of even more relaxed filtering constraints, less draconian noise-shaping and even shorter filter impulse responses... but place ludicrous (and probably unworkable) tolerances on clock accuracy, as well as silly demands on data storage and DSP overheads.

The bottom line, though, is if you like chasing numbers, have the budgets, and believe it sounds better, go with 192 or 384. No one's going to stop you. if you really want to, you can even release your material on DVD-A in native 24bit/192kHz PCm. Or transcode to DSD and release as an SACD. Hell, why not go the whole hog and sample at 2.8224MHz in native DSD

For those whose feet still reach the ground, 96kHz is probably the most cost-effective format, even for budget applications. But there still isn't much wrong with 44.1 and 48kHz systems for most people, most of the time, especially if you choose the equipment carefully!

After six pages of this I'm getting bored now... shall we move on to something more interesting... pretty please

Hugh

Quote 0VU:

---

M Story: "A Suggested Explanation For (Some Of The) Audible Differences Between High Sample Rate and Conventional Sample Rate Audio Material"

You can find the paper in the Technical Papers section of the dCS website on the link I gave way back up this thread somewhere. It sticks with some simple ideas and avoids going into the maths but it makes some fairly convincing reading as it stands. Obviously though, with this kind of thing, the devil is in the detail and I'd've preferred to have seen his "workings". I took part in some listening tests related to this and another paper on the dCS site and I have to say that whatever the actual maths involved, empirically, it does stack up alongside what was heard.

---

Just what I needed. Thanks for the link OVU.

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

Thank you all for your time & replies, your comments have been really helpful for me.

All the best.

Shahi