R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down

Author Topic: 96k or 88k  (Read 11121 times)

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
96k or 88k
« on: June 25, 2006, 03:56:26 PM »

I know this has probably been done and done so please forgive me.


Down sampling to 44 from
88 or 96k.

Is the SRC from 88 always going to sound closer to the source than 96k because of it being an exact half.

Logically one would think so.

But, are the results evading logic.

What have you guys found.


The reason i ask is that i have always recorded at 44.1 but the other day tried a recording at 88 and it sounded sweet to me.

My destination is cd and i am thinking of going to 96k.

Will the downsample be much different from the 88k audio.



Cheers








Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2006, 06:43:31 PM »

Before we even get into higher sample-rates, what SRC will you use?

Some are pretty ropey

And you say 88.2 sounded sweet. Sweeter than 44.1?

Logged

Revolution

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 364
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2006, 09:38:32 PM »

FWIW I have recorded at 44,88 and 96 and always found the higher sample rates (88,96)to have sounded better even after the sample rate conversion to 44.1K.

I just don't buy the argument that when bouncing down from 88 to 44 that by taking out every second sample means that the end product is going to sound the same.It doesn't according to my experience.

It's incredible how often I here this from guys who only have 44,48k capability or limited storage.

After trying all of these sample rates even 192 I am now sold at 96K.

Spock

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2006, 12:25:52 AM »

One would think that going from 44.1 to 88.2 could be done by just repeating each sample, or making a average between two samples.  Going the other way you would think that you could just drop every other sample, or average each two samples to make the results.

However, I don't think you would like the results.

Read Dan's paper on sampling.  You have to treat each sample as a sinc function, then add up the contributions from the sinc functions of several samples on each side to figure out what your new value should be.

Once you have a SRC program that does things right, making it take care of non related in and out rates, shouldn't be that much harder.
Logged
Spock: Are you sure it isn't time for a "colourful metaphor"?
The Voyage Home

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2006, 03:36:31 AM »

Revolution wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 09:38

FWIW I have recorded at 44,88 and 96 and always found the higher sample rates (88,96)to have sounded better even after the sample rate conversion to 44.1K.

I just don't buy the argument that when bouncing down from 88 to 44 that by taking out every second sample means that the end product is going to sound the same.It doesn't according to my experience.

It's incredible how often I here this from guys who only have 44,48k capability or limited storage.

After trying all of these sample rates even 192 I am now sold at 96K.



This is how im feeling.
Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2006, 04:17:43 AM »

Revolution wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 02:38

FWIW I have recorded at 44,88 and 96 and always found the higher sample rates (88,96)to have sounded better even after the sample rate conversion to 44.1K.

I just don't buy the argument that when bouncing down from 88 to 44 that by taking out every second sample means that the end product is going to sound the same.It doesn't according to my experience.

It's incredible how often I here this from guys who only have 44,48k capability or limited storage.

After trying all of these sample rates even 192 I am now sold at 96K.


Actually it's not surprising it sounds different.

At the very least you're exchanging the last stage of downsampling in the converter for one in your DAW, which has the potential to be much better since you have more DSP and memory to apply to it.

If you do any non-linear processing then that can make a difference too (depending on how the algorithms are implemented).
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2006, 04:21:49 AM »

Pingu wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 20:56

I know this has probably been done and done so please forgive me.


Down sampling to 44 from
88 or 96k.

Is the SRC from 88 always going to sound closer to the source than 96k because of it being an exact half.

Logically one would think so.

But, are the results evading logic.

What have you guys found.


The reason i ask is that i have always recorded at 44.1 but the other day tried a recording at 88 and it sounded sweet to me.

My destination is cd and i am thinking of going to 96k.

Will the downsample be much different from the 88k audio.



Cheers











You could make an SRC that sounded as good doing 96kHz->44kHz as 88kHz->44kHz

However it is easier to make a good divide by two SRC.

Check out the SRC though. I saw a page where they'd actually done some tests and was rather shocked at the lack of quality of many of them, including the standard ones in several DAWs.
Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2006, 06:57:00 AM »

I don't think Pingu wants to discuss SRC . . .  Twisted Evil

It's a slippery slope - someone might suggest blind listening tests next . . .
Logged

kraster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 199
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2006, 07:24:36 AM »

blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 11:57

I don't think Pingu wants to discuss SRC . . .  Twisted Evil

It's a slippery slope - someone might suggest blind listening tests next . . .



Well Pingu did say that his ultimate destination is Cd so SRC is pretty relevant.  Wink

Personally I think that recording at the Sample rate of the ultimate destination is the best way. I try to avoid SRC when at all possible. And, in my experience, the benefits of recording at high sample rates are lost/altered when downsampling from a higher rate.

88.2 has two advantages over 96k if you decide to use higher sample rate.

1. As Jon pointed out the maths involved in Src are probably easier to implement when doing a synchronous conversion. I fyour ultimate destination is CD then 88.2 is an obvious choice.

2. 88.2 is closer to Dan's optimal sampling rate than 96k. And you still get 44.1k of bandwidth.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2006, 07:59:29 AM »

blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 11:57

I don't think Pingu wants to discuss SRC . . .  Twisted Evil

It's a slippery slope - someone might suggest blind listening tests next . . .


And how can you possibly avoid SRC when talking about sample rates at the converter that differ from sample rates in the delivery medium?

Logged

blueintheface

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2006, 08:01:02 AM »

kraster wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 12:24



Well Pingu did say that his ultimate destination is Cd so SRC is pretty relevant.  Wink

Personally I think that recording at the Sample rate of the ultimate destination is the best way. I try to avoid SRC when at all possible. And, in my experience, the benefits of recording at high sample rates are lost/altered when downsampling from a higher rate.



I guess the irony didn't translate - I agree with you that good SRC is vital, and generally best avoided altogether.

I'm also a fan of blind listening tests.

Been there too many times twiddling a knob that wasn't connected to anything - until it was in the position that just 'felt right'.

People in general seem to have a hard time accepting that psychology plays a huge part in aural perception - and it's so easy to prove.
Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2006, 08:09:38 AM »

kraster wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 12:24


Personally I think that recording at the Sample rate of the ultimate destination is the best way. I try to avoid SRC when at all possible.


If you look at the architecture of a modern ADC, they actually do the front end sampling at the same high rate whether they are outputing at 176, 88 or 44. They then have a different number of downconversion steps before outputing a digital word. Therefore when you make the decision as to whether you should set your converter to 44kHz, or set it to 88kHz and then downconvert in your DAW, you are NOT making a decision as to whether or not to employ SRC. Your decision is as to whether the SRC should occur in the converter, or in your DAW.

If both are properly implemented then you are right that you should not hear a difference. However due to constraints of chip size, or processing power, either may be compromised.


Logged

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2006, 08:12:39 AM »

blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 13:01

Been there too many times twiddling a knob that wasn't connected to anything - until it was in the position that just 'felt right'.

People in general seem to have a hard time accepting that psychology plays a huge part in aural perception - and it's so easy to prove.



Agreed!!!

In fact I note that quite often the people who are the most adamant that psychology isn't affecting their perception, only their objective listening skills, are the ones whos comments and conclusions SCREAM "psychosomatic"!!
Logged

Pingu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1196
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2006, 08:20:07 AM »

Jeezus.
I love how all of a sudden this turns into placebo.
Logged
If I defend myself I am attacked. But in defenselessness I will be strong, and I will learn what my defenses hide.

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96k or 88k
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2006, 08:50:01 AM »

Pingu wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 13:20

Jeezus.
I love how all of a sudden this turns into placebo.


We're not saying it is placebo in your specific case, or at least I'm not.

We're saying that when you're trying to judge what should be (assuming good implementation) very small differences then blind tests are important. It was a general comment and not one aimed specifically at you or your findings.

The answer to your question is that 88kHz should be a better choice for you than 96KHz, for the two reasons given. The sampling itself should be more accurate (though the difference is probably below human perception anyway) and the downconversion will quite possibly be better, or at worst equal.

It might also benefit you to test some different SRC options to do that conversion, because not all are created equal.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 18 queries.