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]
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|