Ivo wrote on Wed, 21 December 2005 00:34 |
Jon,
all I can say is that the same instrumental samples recorded alternately in 96 and 44k do sound different (if one listens by switching between the two original sessions). Resampling 96 k to 44k retains most of the 96k sound characteristics that the sound differences are still audible. Yes, we are listening in 44k now - but within that frequency there is a whole universe of all possible sounds ...
|
Ivo,
I'm not denying the possibility that things will sound different if the output of the Lavry converter is 96kHz rather than 44kHz, they certainly will BE different, since the noise floor at 96kHz is slightly higher, what other differences there are between the two within the audio band I don't know.
But when you compare two different signals, one of which was recorded directly at 44kHz, and one at 96kHz then converted down to 44kHz, then you have three main variables.
1) You are comparing two different signals... sorry but you've got a problem right there (I know it's difficult to avoid, in fact the best way would require internal knowledge of the converter itself and some DSP code).
2) You are comparing TWO DIFFERENT 44kHz samplers.
a) The Lavry fed a direct analogue input
b) The SRC fed a digital input generated by the Lavry.
3) By pre-declaring which is which you also bring in personal bias into the equation. Give me a room of people and I could convince at least some of them that two identical signals were quite obviously different.
If we ignore the last factor in this case, since the signals are measurably different, you still have the first two variables.
You asked the question why the Lavry sounds better at 96kHz than 44kHz, well the simple fact is that if these "improvements" (nicer is not always more accurate) translate through SRC then it is not down to there being 96000 rather than 44100 samples.
If you could send me the original samples (PM me for email) then maybe we could investigate further.