LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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 2014

ARSCLIST August 2014

Subject:

Re: recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:14:26 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (149 lines)

Hi Dave:

You might be correct, especially since transferring "native" at 44.1/16 has rarely been done since 
the late 90s and filtering has improved and become less of a factor with higher sampling and 
bitrates.

My thinking was that there wasn't enough high frequency information captured to reconstruct the 
waveform correctly since the sound is a ringing and modulating not necessarily in relation to the 
frequency cycle (airwaves are moving within and around each other because the instrument is 
physically moving in order to make sound -- I might not have described that correctly). The net 
result being that very complex information of varying amplitude is happening at high frequencies and 
not enough is being captured to reproduce correctly, with the "swishies" caused by digital 
"guessing."

Like I said, your theory might be more correct. Whatever it is, _something_ doesn't work "perfect 
sound"-wise at 44.1/16.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "DAVID BURNHAM" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] recording "cleanup" plugins and 192/24


> Tom, I've heard that distortion on triangles and tambourines and sleighbells as well and I've 
> always believed that it was caused by the intense super-sonic harmonics which get through the 
> anti-aliasing filters and cause aliasing distortion.  But that's not difinitive, just my own 
> theory.  Everybody likes to put down Mr. Nyquist.
>
> db
>
>
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 10:58:46 AM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
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