Because HD download sellers such as HDTracks and Acoustic Sounds are
selling 192/24 versions, and because audio equipment manufacturers are
touting and marketing the "superiority" of super-high-rez digital
audio, ABX testing is irrelevant from a business standpoint. My
question centers around what post-transfer production tools are
available at 192/24. I already have clients requesting 192/24,
including having me spec it in documentation for grant applications. No
one has specifically requested DSD yet.

Aside from Don Cox's comments about potential usefulness distinguishing
ticks and pops from musical content, I'm wondering if a higher sampling
rate allows for truer capture of tape hiss? I would think that the bias
trap rolls off HF somewhere before 96kHz, but maybe not? I'm not saying
any human can hear any of this ultra-HF information but I am saying
that it interacts with frequencies in the human hearing range, just as
sub-sonic information does (which is why one has to be very careful how
one works with rumble on disk transfers, blanket high-passing can
really screw up other frequencies because it removes
phase-cancellations and boosts or cuts harmonics of the sub-sonic
frequencies).

I have seen demonstrations where a later-era tape machine, for instance
an Ampex ATR-100, can record and reproduce frequencies far above the
human hearing range. Richard Hess has discussed ultra-HF overtones
captured in his organ recordings using less-than-later-era tape
recorders.

If you want to hear why Nyquist doesn't work with real musical
instruments, listen to triangle or sleighbell tones anywhere above
-12dBfs on any CD recorded or transferred at 44.1kHz. One almost all
such CDs I've heard, there are clearly digi-swishies (sound somewhat
like flangeing and phase-shifting) in the very top primary tones and
harmonics. And I certainly cannot hear the alleged upper end of CD
reproduction, my hearing tops out around 16kHz these days, in a quiet
room.

Back to 192/24 (or even higher resolutions), I think it's here to stay
and I'm wondering when the mainstream production tools will catch up,
or if what I was told by two top mastering studios reflected the fact
that they have out-dated versions of the tools?

-- Tom Fine

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:09:12 -0400, Rob Poretti - Cube-Tec
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I would argue that this is true up until 24/96. I've done a LOT of
> restoration and 24/96 will let you visually distinguish stuff (if you are
> zooming in enough) that you can’t actually HEAR. Conversely, I've never
> heard problems at that sample rate, that I could not see... Admittedly low
> frequency thumps often do not show on simple waveform displays but are
> easily show on time/spectral displays.
>
> Regarding some earlier comments on the sound quality virtues of 24/96
> versus 24/192: if someone has a link to a paper or presentation, that
> performs a proper ABX test between the two ... and showing conclusive
> results, please post it here...
>
> Thanks!
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/
> Rob Poretti - Sales Engineer - Archiving
> Cube-Tec North America LLC
> Vox.905.827.0741  Fax.905.901.9996  Cel.905.510.6785
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Cox
> Sent: August 29, 2014 10:36 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24
>
> On 29/08/2014, Eric Jacobs wrote:
>
>
> > I m not sure that there is that much more information present at >
> 192/24, and the algorithms from Cube-Tec perform equally well at
> > 192/24 as they do at 96/24. It can be argued that there is more >
> spatial information (two-channel or multi-channel) available at
> 192/24 > since the human brain can perceive very small L/R
> differences, but > many listening systems and rooms are not up to the
> task of reproducing > those spatial differences faithfully (i.e. due
> to room reflections).
> > For the most part, I m just as happy with a 192/24 as a 96/24 >
> recording. The leap from 44/16 to 96/24 is huge, but the leap from
> > 96/24 to 192/24 is more incremental. The chief limitation for many
> > recordings is not the media or the format, but the recording itself.
> > The main advantage of higher sample rates is that they make it easier to
> distinguish clicks from music.
>
> So they could be very useful when digisizing from disc, but only if you have
> a cartridge with at least some response up at those ultrasonic frequencies.
>
>
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>
>