LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  August 2012

ARSCLIST August 2012

Subject:

Re: Bit rates over 48 kHz

From:

"Malcolm F. Davidson" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:32:29 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (87 lines)

Many years ago at Sony Music Studios we did some blind listening tests
comparing the original analog tape source with 96 KHz and 192 KHz material
at 24 bit resolution. The "Expert Listeners" were able to identify the 96
KHz material consistently, but could not reliably tell the difference
between the 192 KHz 24 bit and the analog source.

The company compromised at 96 KHz 24 bit, and actually I believe now
digitize at 88.2 KHz because of the ease of downsampling to CD. As far as
Nyquist, one of the flaws is using 2 X Max frequency is that this
theoretical approach is based upon a single frequency source which is
present while the samples are being taken. I know from many listening
tests that anything less than 88.2 KHz 24 bit is easily spotted. The point
about bit depth is correct, even 20 bits could be heard fairly easily.

Now regarding sampling rate, I think of this from the time domain
perspective. It's not so much the frequencies, but rather the phases and
spacial detail that is captured at the higher rates. We heard subjective
comments such as, "it feels warmer", "has more depth", and "punchier".
These are all qualities which would be captured by the faster sampling
rates.

Sound travels at 340 m/s so at approx 100 Khz sampling rate we would be
grabbing around 3.4 mm of spacial information each sample. This results in
exceptional clarity of a piece of music. This is observed even more so
when you listen to classical music recordings and choral works. The
spacial information produced creates some stunning examples.

Malcolm F. Davidson
Prudence Island
RI 02872

 Yes but as several have commented, a sampling rate of 44.1 or 48 WILL
> reproduce all audible frequencies, (unless you're a dog), accurately.  
>
> When it comes to high resolution audio formats, (SACD or DVD audio), the
> bit depth plays a far more important role in producing the high quality
> audio than does the sample rate.  16 bit audio can only produce roughly
> 65,000 levels between noise floor and clipping;  24 bit audio can produce
> around 2.5 million levels.  This is particularly important with classical
> music which is almost never at full amplitude, and, hence, almost never
> using all 16 bits on a CD.  Any musical instrument produces a string of
> harmonics which are progressively lower level as their frequency
> increases;  thus on a regular CD, the highest frequency harmonics, which
> represent the most complex component of the entire audio signal, although
> still well within the frequency range of CDs, are at such a low level that
> they are only read very poorly using a couple of bits.  However when these
> audio signals are recorded using DSD or 24bit or higher bit depth, this
> harmonic content is
>  far more accurately reproduced, giving the impression of an enhanced high
> frequency content, no matter where your personal hf cutoff point is, (I
> think mine is somewhere between 14k and 15k).
>
> db
>
> db
>
>
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Mark Durenberger <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:42:07 AM
>>Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Bit rates over 48 kHz
>>
>>Best explanation I've seen for doing this!
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mark Durenberger
>>
>>-----Original Message----- From: Toby Seay
>>Yes, 44.1KHz and 48KHz cover the entire hearing spectrum. However, it
>> does
>>not cover it well. Resolution gets worse as you go higher in the
>> frequency
>>spectrum. Therefore, really high frequencies only get sampled a few
>> times.
>>For instance, a 44.1KHz sample rate is only capable of sampling a 12KHz
>>frequency 3.675 times a second. That leaves you with a very poor
>>digitization at 12KHz. 96KHz does a much better job at providing a
>> digital
>>representation of higher frequencies.
>>
>>
>>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager