squeegybug wrote on Thu, 22 December 2005 17:26 |
kraster wrote | I think it's very relevant how we sample sound at 96k or other rates and then present it for analysis. The thread title is "Why recording in 96k through Lavry Blue sounds clearly better ?". Therefore we must hear the sounds at 96k. Otherwise the thread title should be "Why recording in 96k and then downsampling to 44.1khz through Lavry Blue sounds clearly better ?" I listened to the samples and the most obvious thing to me was differences in the timbre of the instruments as a result of a different performance. There are a lot of factors at play here: variances in performance, the downsampling process and your own knowledge of what sample rate was being used. All of these have a bearing on the sound.
|
I can add nothing to Ivo’s superb analogy, it is valid and in fact the exact reason I also resampled to the standard CD resolution.
I understand your point about analytical data submitted for review. If it was indeed possible for the resampling process to “improve” the original audio, then I would agree that only raw information would be acceptable for discussion. However, of course we know this is not reasonable – the SRC could (and does) slightly degrade the audio resolution, but in no way can it enhance it.
I will certainly submit my original raw 48k data alongside the raw 96k file previously posted. To me, the relative differences remain as in the resampled 44.1 clips.
Would that I, or Ivo, or any musician, could actually increase stereo imaging or add more depth or smooth out harsh tonal transitions of actual physical instruments (or voices) – only from the simple notion of just “playing differently”! Of course the styles or presentations can change – but, the overall organic structure of these instruments preclude creating something that is physically not there.
In my opinion, the opposite result is actually the point here – I contend that there is already further detail available in the music than what is able to be captured by the 44.1 (or 48) resolution.
In my case, it was quite welcome to hear the comparable ease of the performance in the higher sampled version. I can accept that as a fact, given my own 40+ years experiences with my own instruments and voice. While I understand the reason for this forum is to explore technical explanations of physical phenomena, let’s not dismiss the submissions of evidence for the wrong reasons here.
Steve
|
I'm not dismissing the evidence, I am using facts to filter out what might or might not be the cause.
Fourier and Shannon-Nyquist are not theories, they are theorems, they are mathematical equations, every bit as deterministic as 1+1 = 2.
What many people don't understand, when they think they are challenging these theorems, saying things like "they require perfect filters to work and you can't have perfect filters so they can't work", is that they DO NOT require perfect filters, because their "job" is not to create or recreate waveforms perfectly, but rather to tell you how to do it, and what happens when you get something wrong.
So for example if your anti-aliasing filter doesn't completely cut out everything above half your sampling rate, then Nyquist still correctly predicts what you will get.
Now, given that we know Fourier and Nyquist-Shannon to be correct, then all things being equal, the only difference between a perfect 48 kHz sample and a perfect 96kHz sample would be bandwidth, the second sample would have an extra 24 kHz of bandwidth available.
Now, if you put this through a "perfect" sample rate converter, then you will lose that extra bandwidth, and what you end up with is the same as if you originally sampled at 48kHz.
If everything is working correctly, then there is no way for any of the extra information resulting from a higher sample rate(call it imaging, clarity, whatever you like), to translate through the Sample Rate Conversion process.
Therefore if there is something coming through, then something is working incorrectly from a technical point of view (artistically it might be great, but then so is valve distortion on a guitar).
I'm kindof busy the next couple of days, but I'll try to set up some tests for you guys to try, I'm interested to see the results.