Go Back   Cockos Incorporated Forums > REAPER Forums > newbieland

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-03-2011, 05:24 PM   #41
Kenny
Human being with feelings
 
Kenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Central PA
Posts: 598
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuraMorte View Post
Sure... With no frequencies above 16kHz represented in the recording.
But who can hear that high anyway?
Kenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2011, 08:10 PM   #42
peter5992
Human being with feelings
 
peter5992's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 10,478
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny View Post
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.
peter5992 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 03:12 AM   #43
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
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!
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 05:35 AM   #44
Some Guy
Human being with feelings
 
Some Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 415
Default

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.
Some Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 05:54 AM   #45
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

... 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!
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 06:24 AM   #46
Some Guy
Human being with feelings
 
Some Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 415
Default

absolutely right, i should go back and do my homework.

so, the low-pass filter is where it's at...
Some Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2011, 09:38 AM   #47
Mercado_Negro
Moderator
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Caracas, Venezuela
Posts: 8,676
Default

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
Mercado_Negro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2011, 09:53 PM   #48
hamish
Human being with feelings
 
hamish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Reflection Free Zone
Posts: 3,026
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Guy View Post
so, the low-pass filter is where it's at...
right
hamish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 05:18 AM   #49
AudioWonderland
Human being with feelings
 
AudioWonderland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 729
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
... 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
AudioWonderland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 06:07 AM   #50
timlloyd
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,713
Default

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.
timlloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 01:56 PM   #51
Sheppola
Human being with feelings
 
Sheppola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,293
Default

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?
__________________
"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."
http://www.reverbnation.com/pauldouglas
https://www.youtube.com/user/TalosIO
Sheppola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 02:06 PM   #52
shemp
Human being with feelings
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheppola View Post
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.
shemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 02:12 PM   #53
shemp
Human being with feelings
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,157
Default

great thread by the way
shemp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2011, 02:25 PM   #54
Sheppola
Human being with feelings
 
Sheppola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3,293
Default

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 :/
__________________
"Music washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life."
http://www.reverbnation.com/pauldouglas
https://www.youtube.com/user/TalosIO
Sheppola is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.