R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down

Author Topic: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.  (Read 13586 times)

Romy The Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« on: November 20, 2005, 07:26:28 PM »

Hello, guys.

I have question to ask. What the advantage of 24/96 over the 24/44 if the original analog souse is the “HF challenged” to begin with. I use AD122 A/D nad my source is FM signal, which after being modulated and demodulated has the 15kHz-16kHz, limitation deriving from the nature of FM broadcast. Howevers, running even this “HF challenged” stream via 96kHz give some subjective benefits, primary in yransient and dynamics. So, I would like to have some "intellectually comforting" justification why I’m runing those "oversized" 24/96 files…

Rgs,
Romy the caT
Logged

Teddy G.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2005, 08:44:58 PM »

You'll get no comfort from me, I think you're...... ahh...... wrong.


Teddy G.
Logged

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2005, 09:41:18 PM »

Romy The Cat wrote on Sun, 20 November 2005 19:26

Hello, guys.

I have question to ask. What the advantage of 24/96 over the 24/44 if the original analog souse is the ?HF challenged? to begin with. I use AD122 A/D nad my source is FM signal, which after being modulated and demodulated has the 15kHz-16kHz, limitation deriving from the nature of FM broadcast. Howevers, running even this ?HF challenged? stream via 96kHz give some subjective benefits, primary in yransient and dynamics. So, I would like to have some "intellectually comforting" justification why I?m runing those "oversized" 24/96 files?

Rgs,
Romy the caT



The only thing that may be intellectually comforting to you is a hypothesis why 96 kHz sampling seems to sound better to you even with a band-limited source. There's more to a sampling system than just a sampler, there's also, for example, the low pass filtering. And the low pass filters in your 96 kHz system may be less invasive on your ear's own filters in the audible passband, than those in the 44.1 khz system. It's a very high price to pay (storage, bandwidth and speed); superior filters running at 44.1 kHz might do as good a job. Could be calculation precision, passband ripple, edge-band phase response. I wish I knew, but I've done enough tests isolating to just filters to know that different filter designs sound VERY different, enough to alter our perceptions of apparent transient response, transparency of sound, and all the rest that many of us attribute (I think erroneously) to bandwidh.

Let us not forget that significant passband ripple of a filter can sound exactly like a loss of transient response due to time-domain effects of the frequency response ripple. You'd need to know a lot more about the internal design of your converters running at the two rates to know the cause of the sonic difference; in the end, if you say that the 96 kHz sounds better, just use it; there are at least plausible explanations.

One thing I've noticed though, is that the difference between 44.1 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling to my ears has decreased considerably in the past few months now that I have upgraded my D/A converter. So, a superior converter will REDUCE the sonic differences between sample rates. What does that tell us about the "innate superiority" of the higher rates?  Maybe they are not so innately better, but perhaps it is valid to theorize that cheaply-designed converters exagerrate the differences!

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2005, 10:29:44 PM »

Hi Roman! Welcome to the mad house.

The filters have much to do with it. When you had those tip top esoteric converters of days gone by, they would hands down beat the pants off of ANYTHING out there no matter the word length or SF..because of the extra high quality parts and care of design of the analogue sections. Bob Katz is telling it like it is and may the ears be the judge.

How are the T-350's holding up? We were both using them crossed very high..I think I ended up with a 0.6mF last use. I also had to pad them a shade more. I like your philosophy in the reproduction of the high frequency spectrum. Almost ALL loudspeakers out there are way too hot on the top.

Remember Roman, your system is so much more resolving than 99% of the studios out there. If you hear a dynamic improvement with your converters running 96K, no one will be able to convince you otherwise. You hear it, for it must be so.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Romy The Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2005, 10:47:43 PM »

bobkatz wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 02:41

The only thing that may be intellectually comforting to you is a hypothesis why 96 kHz sampling seems to sound better to you even with a band-limited source. There's more to a sampling system than just a sampler, there's also, for example, the low pass filtering. And the low pass filters in your 96 kHz system may be less invasive on your ear's own filters in the audible passband, than those in the 44.1 khz system. It's a very high price to pay (storage, bandwidth and speed); superior filters running at 44.1 kHz might do as good a job. Could be calculation precision, passband ripple, edge-band phase response. I wish I knew, but I've done enough tests isolating to just filters to know that different filter designs sound VERY different, enough to alter our perceptions of apparent transient response, transparency of sound, and all the rest that many of us attribute (I think erroneously) to bandwidh.

Let us not forget that significant passband ripple of a filter can sound exactly like a loss of transient response due to time-domain effects of the frequency response ripple. You'd need to know a lot more about the internal design of your converters running at the two rates to know the cause of the sonic difference; in the end, if you say that the 96 kHz sounds better, just use it; there are at least plausible explanations.

One thing I've noticed though, is that the difference between 44.1 kHz sampling and 96 kHz sampling to my ears has decreased considerably in the past few months now that I have upgraded my D/A converter. So, a superior converter will REDUCE the sonic differences between sample rates. What does that tell us about the "innate superiority" of the higher rates?  Maybe they are not so innately better, but perhaps it is valid to theorize that cheaply-designed converters exagerrate the differences!

BK

Thanks BK,

What you propose is actually another view to the problem. I initially thought that there is something conceptually “hides” in the higher sampling frequencies but you suggest that the specific circuits/filters that render the 96 and 44 might be the reasons for the “differences”.  I think you might be on something in this. Interesting also the after many tests and experiments I summarized that I prefer different D/A processors for different sampling frequencies.  For 96kHz I use DA924 but for 44kHz I find that other DAC do more musical justness. Interesting to know if the DA924 use the same high order filter at 96 and 44. I read somewhere that it has 7th order at 20K, the “other DAC” has 4th other… Go figure, those numbers are pretty meaningless if do not know how everything else is done….  The fascinating part that with higher sampling frequencies the HF because softer and more humane… If it would be chance to slightly enrich them with second harmonics then it would be even more fun…. But it would not be a digital anymore… Smile

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

Logged

Romy The Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2005, 11:06:59 PM »

Robert,

it is not that I hear the “dynamic improvement”. At 96K, for whatever reasons, the HF run softer and more human that allows to drive the system harder without inflicting the negative consequences. I defiantly would not present it as  “dynamic improvement” but I know that if I feel to drive the system 3-4dB harder then usesly it relates to the dynamic advancements. Also, at this point I do not know if the reported better transient response sacrifices harmonic content in any way as I did not spent a lot of time to interpret the result, but my initial reaction was very positive.

Still, as I understand at this forum gathered people who exercise “applied engineering” and I would like do not contaminate it with my “subjective objectivism” as it would hardly be understood. I hope someone would elaborate on the 96K vs 44K subject. I’m quite new to all those digital things and I am sure that there are people out there who resolved the things I am going through quite long time ago.

Rgs,
The caT
Logged

Level

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1811
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2005, 12:05:16 AM »

...some very interesting reading in this forum. Subjectivity, although looked at with a highly raised eyebrow is part of the equasion..but Dan made it clear..that technical discussions "on the highest level" are the welcome mat.
Logged
http://balancedmastering.com

"Listen and Learn"
---Since 1975---

Schallfeldnebel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 816
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #7 on: November 21, 2005, 05:36:44 AM »

Logged
Bill Mueller:"Only very recently, has the availability of cheap consumer based gear popularized the concept of a rank amateur as an audio engineer. Unfortunately, this has also degraded the reputation of the audio engineer to the lowest level in its history. A sad thing indeed for those of us professionals."

Teddy G.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 369
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #8 on: November 21, 2005, 02:14:47 PM »

If I put a Briggs and Stratton lawn tractor motor in a Cadillac, will I get a better ride than I had with same motor in my lawn tractor?

Yes.

What have we learned?



TG


C'mon guys, this is silly.
Logged

Romy The Cat

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #9 on: November 21, 2005, 02:26:54 PM »

Teddy G. wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 19:14

If I put a Briggs and Stratton lawn tractor motor in a Cadillac, will I get a better ride than I had with same motor in my lawn tractor? Yes. What have we learned? C'mon guys, this is silly.

Teddy,

I appreciate you valuable intention to bring your considerable expertise to the subject of the thread but it was your second post and I clearly have no idea what made you to reply. If you feel that this subject and my interests are below your understanding then juts pass on this thread. If you feel that you have some superior knowledge on the subject then I only might propose to bless us/me with your revelations. I would be very happy to learn what made you to feel so overconfident.

Rgs,
Romy the caT
Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2005, 04:22:30 PM »

Teddy G. wrote on Mon, 21 November 2005 14:14

If I put a Briggs and Stratton lawn tractor motor in a Cadillac, will I get a better ride than I had with same motor in my lawn tractor?

Yes.

What have we learned?



TG


C'mon guys, this is silly.



Nothing.....about audio that is.

Back in 1992 I was doing spots and zingers for a few of the local FM stations. They wanted 32k sample rate. I asked why not 44.1 or 48k, the CE said it contains all of the broadcast freq's and that's what they used. I bought a 32k DAT and used it for a couple of years. WRT, the other question. Would you rather record through a Behringer ADC at 24/96 or a Lavry at 24/44.1?
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2005, 07:06:44 AM »

some people trust numbers more than their ears.

I don't.

do you?
Logged

Ronny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2739
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2005, 12:25:39 PM »

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 07:06

some people trust numbers more than their ears.

I don't.

do you?



Numbers are consistant, do you think that your ears are consistant and always perfect from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute? Are they not affected by caffeine, humidity, temperature, mood, what SPL or tonal element is listened to prior to an evaluation, whether you are horny, had a fight with your wife, are calm and releaxed or uptight? Are all ears clean? Does the amount of wax in the ear affect what frequencies one person hears over another? What about the effect of the sinuses, do your ears feel clogged when you have a cold and accenuate the mids, while atteunating highs and lows, much like the cold affects the taste buds and makes all foods taste bland and the same? Do your ears operate exactly the same at the end of a 12 hour mastering or mixing day as they might in the morning when they are fresh? Have you ever experienced ear fatigue and not realized it until the next day when you relistened to what you did the day before and noticed more detail that you missed the day before? Do you know what the term cottonear means? Are any of your humans sense reliable and accurate 100% all of the time. Can you make long term audio evaluations without having a perfect memory?

No, I don't trust numbers more than my ears, but they are useful to confirm what "I think" my ears are perceiving. It's not either analytical devices "or" your ears, but the combination of both that allow the most valid evaluations for my personal applications.
Logged
------Ronny Morris - Digitak Mastering------
---------http://digitakmastering.com---------
----------Powered By Experience-------------
-------------Driven To Perfection---------------

Jon Hodgson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1854
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2005, 01:10:10 PM »

Ronny wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 17:25

maxdimario wrote on Thu, 24 November 2005 07:06

some people trust numbers more than their ears.

I don't.

do you?



Numbers are consistant, do you think that your ears are consistant and always perfect from day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute? Are they not affected by caffeine, humidity, temperature, mood, what SPL or tonal element is listened to prior to an evaluation, whether you are horny, had a fight with your wife, are calm and releaxed or uptight? Are all ears clean? Does the amount of wax in the ear affect what frequencies one person hears over another? What about the effect of the sinuses, do your ears feel clogged when you have a cold and accenuate the mids, while atteunating highs and lows, much like the cold affects the taste buds and makes all foods taste bland and the same? Do your ears operate exactly the same at the end of a 12 hour mastering or mixing day as they might in the morning when they are fresh? Have you ever experienced ear fatigue and not realized it until the next day when you relistened to what you did the day before and noticed more detail that you missed the day before? Do you know what the term cottonear means? Are any of your humans sense reliable and accurate 100% all of the time. Can you make long term audio evaluations without having a perfect memory?

No, I don't trust numbers more than my ears, but they are useful to confirm what "I think" my ears are perceiving. It's not either analytical devices "or" your ears, but the combination of both that allow the most valid evaluations for my personal applications.


It's not just the physical aspect, you touched on the other problem when you mentioned confirming what you *think* your ears are perceiving.

Suggestion can have a HUGE effect on our perception, as has been shown many times, and not just in audio. That's why blind tests and numbers are vital, but here's how it should work...

1) Listener says they hear a difference
2) Engineer/Scientist devises blind test to confirm they really can hear it
3) Engineer investigates and isolates the difference that is being picked up.
4) Engineer devises way to measure that difference
5) More blind tests to establish when the difference becomes perceptable
6) Now you have a way to measure and values which are acceptable, use them to design and test new gear.

But the truth is that in many cases this sequence would end at point 2, because many of the differences people say they can hear are imagined, or they are completely different differences which are already known (e.g. someone might think that they can hear the difference between two sample rates and thus nullify the 20kHz hearing range theory, when in fact they are hearing the differences between two input filters).
Logged

maxdimario

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3811
Re: 96 vs 44 for a HF challenged source.
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2005, 06:28:45 AM »

"Suggestion can have a HUGE effect on our perception, as has been shown many times, and not just in audio. That's why blind tests and numbers are vital, but here's how it should work..."

you can't say that to a person who spent years comparing electronic circuits, like myself.

the first impression.

just as I can tell the difference between the sound of certain musical instruments' year of production, and feel the difference between guitars just by holding them in my hands.

I spend a lot more time with the results than with the language, theory and numbers.

I'm sure that an experienced piano technician can hear things in a piano tone that most people cannot. or a violin maker in violins..

things too small to measure, or too misunderstood to conceptualize and model.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.07 seconds with 18 queries.