|
|
|
09-03-2011, 05:24 PM
|
#41
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Central PA
Posts: 598
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuraMorte
Sure... With no frequencies above 16kHz represented in the recording.
|
But who can hear that high anyway?
|
|
|
09-03-2011, 08:10 PM
|
#42
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 10,478
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
But who can hear that high anyway?
|
It's audible - don't be fooled. Depending on the style of music, the upper harmonics can be important for the overall result, even if your hearing is diminishing in the higher regions. (eg for orchestral music recorded in pristine quality).
Some people record at high sample rates (88 khz, 96 khz) on the notion that while current day technology may not allow yet for playback at such high rates, you never know what the future beholds.
|
|
|
09-04-2011, 03:12 AM
|
#43
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman
If I could just pick up on 2 points there. What I gatherered from Dan Lavry's posts about the subject, 60kHz (ish) is preferable not only to 44.1kHz and 48kHz, but also to 88.2kHz, 96kHz and above.
|
In theory yes, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But what works "best" with any given conversion unit isn't necessarily quite so clear-cut.
Quote:
The 2nd point is that Reaper supports any sample rate that the attached hardware supports and that the Fireface supports 64kHz.
|
I didn't know that about the Fireface - good stuff!
|
|
|
09-04-2011, 05:35 AM
|
#44
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 415
|
i hate when guys mention the fact that we only hear up to 20kHz, therefore, higher sample-rates are useful only for dolphins/dogs/carrots.
44,1kHz : you're taking 44100 samples of the electrical signal per second
96kHz : you're taking 96000 samples of the electrical signal per second
what's this got to do with dolphins? clearly, you have a more accurate signal. wether you hear this or not is an entirely different question.
also, nyquist theory has nothing to do with accuracy, it's about aliasing.
|
|
|
09-04-2011, 05:54 AM
|
#45
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
|
... careful ... theoretically you don't have a more accurate signal <20kHz, you just have larger bandwidth ... so staying within the realm of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, those saying that > approx. 44.1kHz is pointless for humans are actually correct.
///
So while you are actually right, make sure you're not right for the wrong reasons!
|
|
|
09-04-2011, 06:24 AM
|
#46
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 415
|
absolutely right, i should go back and do my homework.
so, the low-pass filter is where it's at...
|
|
|
09-04-2011, 09:38 AM
|
#47
|
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
|
I record and mix at 96kHz, that's the only way I could get rid of some blur on the high end (4khz-12khz), sadly.
__________________
Pressure is what turns coal into diamonds - Michael a.k.a. Runaway
|
|
|
09-06-2011, 09:53 PM
|
#48
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Reflection Free Zone
Posts: 3,026
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Guy
so, the low-pass filter is where it's at...
|
right
|
|
|
09-07-2011, 05:18 AM
|
#49
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 729
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd
... careful ... theoretically you don't have a more accurate signal <20kHz, you just have larger bandwidth ... so staying within the realm of the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, those saying that > approx. 44.1kHz is pointless for humans are actually correct.
///
So while you are actually right, make sure you're not right for the wrong reasons!
|
Only if we assume the only way we perceive those frequencies is audibly. There is a lot of debate about that and not a lot of science that I have seen at least to prove or disprove it. I would rather have the extra fidelity and not need it than the other way around since hardware and CPU cycles are not really an issue any more
|
|
|
09-07-2011, 06:07 AM
|
#50
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
|
As far as I'm aware the evidence that approximately 20kHz is the upper bandlimit of human hearing currently outweighs the evidence that sugests it is higher. Oohashi is rumoured to have been debunked, and the results have not been repeated afaik, so the methodology is understandably suspect.
I'm not talking about bone-conduction or extreme SPL (at which ultrasonic frequencies start behaving nonlinearly and can produce (inter)modulation frequencies that are below 20kHz - this is the basis of how ultrasonic directional loudspeakers work) ... just semi-normal professional listening conditions. If you have any papers you could recommend which show evidence of sound perception >20kHz I would love to read them!
The problem with testing this stuff out with digital audio is that it's very tricky to separate the effects of anti-alias/decimation and anti-imaging filters from the effects of greater capture bandwidth on its own ... because the're inherently linked ... and depending on methodology you might need equipment which can be comprehensively proved to have precisely the same measured specifications (apart from bandwidth) when operating at all the tested sample rates.
At a certain point those of us who don't earn our livings as psychophysicists just have to decide what to do based on a rational appreciation of the currently provable pros/cons of sampling higher vs sampling lower vs asset resources vs the potential for future advances in processing and playback that may require/benefit from source material with >baseband-width ... vs the possibility that the current model of sound perception is even more incomplete than is already accepted.
So I really have no issue with however everyone else decides to work as long as they're basing their decisions on technically accurate concepts
Last edited by timlloyd; 09-07-2011 at 09:10 AM.
|
|
|
09-07-2011, 01:56 PM
|
#51
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,293
|
I have made what I consider decent recordings @ 16 bit 44.1 Khz but tend to use 24 bit 44.1 Khz.
Just some observations.
Many people may be surprised just how limited their hearing is.Take this online hearing test but it's no use lying to oneself about the results as you won't help yourself,
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/hearing.html
As you will see the subject is quite complicated as it's not only the frequency band but the amplitude at different frequencies that affect perception and the way the brain interprets them and of course the type of music and it's complexity.
Now I know my hearing is limited in certain places so can adjust for it but something that has always intrigued me is this.
If my Top-end is getting bad say below 16Khz then how come when I use a low pass filter on my tracks,as I do,I can hear it affect things like drum cymbals as soon as I lower it below say 20Khz?
|
|
|
09-07-2011, 02:06 PM
|
#52
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,157
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheppola
If my Top-end is getting bad say below 16Khz then how come when I use a low pass filter on my tracks,as I do,I can hear it affect things like drum cymbals as soon as I lower it below say 20Khz?
|
Could be masking. Two or more frequencies in the same time space (music) will all affect each other. Remove some of the frequencies and the ones remaining will be affected less.
This is another argument for recording at higher sample rates. If the higher frequencies that we can't hear don't exist in the recording, they can not affect the ones we can hear.
|
|
|
09-07-2011, 02:12 PM
|
#53
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,157
|
great thread by the way
|
|
|
09-07-2011, 02:25 PM
|
#54
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,293
|
I'm sure it's not masking.Just have one cymbal playing and see where moving a Low pass filter on it starts affecting it's top-end sound.It usually doesn't coincide with what I know my top-end hearing tests say :/
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 PM.
|