Is there an audible difference or are we looking at more marketing specs?

Any blind tests?

Solid engineering answer: "It depends"
You have not given any application details. Modern DSP algorithms do just fine with Nyquest rates, but older analog filtered converters did better with higher rates.
It does no good to have resolution greater than the source. High rates are handy for understanding the ultrasonic breakup and distortion modes of tweeters. Usless when looking at mids. So on and so on.

OK. Let's be more specific. I believe we do have some sound processors in the market that claim to process 196KHz. Recently we are also seeing some blu-ray sources encoded at 196.

Will the sound necessarily be better or will the difference be only a number game since we are limited by our "mortal" ears. I read 92KHz is already in the border of our hearing, but I am not sure either way. So just wanted to see what others felt.

I read 92KHz is already in the border of our hearing, but I am not sure either way.

The absolute best a human can hear is 20KHz.
These sampling rates are multiples of 48KHz....they double to 96KHz and 192KHz.

Don't confuse the processing clock rates with the resulting output coding. Higher processing rates mean they can do more "stuff" while keeping up in real time. The output is likely to remain 48K (pro) or 44 K (consumer). Some of the "super" formats are higher, but one would have to get me to believe the source was higher too.


Only some imaginary female in her 20's can hear to 20K. Most men, before going to Who concerts stoned, never heard over 18K. If you are an iPod/ car stereo genX something, you probably can't hear over 12K.

Don't confuse the processing clock rates with the resulting output coding.

I'm not, the OP is.

It's very unlikely that 192khz will sound better than 96khz with all other things being equal.

Some of the "super" formats are higher, but one would have to get me to believe the source was higher too.

Then what is this?

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/chesky_releases_192khz_24bit_audio_titles/

Then what is this?

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/chesky_releases_192khz_24bit_audio_titles/

Someone trying to sell recordings by means of advertising large numbers? ;-)

Is there an audible difference or are we looking at more marketing specs?


I think you meant 96 KHz versus 192 KHz.

Those correspond to highest possible recorded frequencies of 48 and 96 Khz.


Any blind tests?

In a way. The current battle is over 44.1 KHz versus anything higher. The jury may be still out about that, but they've already come back with "no difference" any number of times.

Someone trying to sell recordings by means of advertising large numbers? ;-)

So you think the record company is outright lying?

I think you meant 96 KHz versus 192 KHz.

Yes sorry for the confusion. I was trying to type fast and they all sound similar :)

http://www.2l.no/epost/news2008may.html

What are you asking?

What are you asking?

My actual question was if there was any audible difference between 192KhZ and 96KhZ. I wasn't sure if anything beyond 96KhZ was beyond human perception or not.

Then both arnyk and tvrgeek said that there were no 196KhZ sources, so I just gave 2 examples.

Any blind tests?
This (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195) might be of interest to you.

So you think the record company is outright lying?
No, it's engaging on marketing hype. There's a lot of that going around.

Then both arnyk and tvrgeek said that there were no 196KhZ sources, so I just gave 2 examples.

You gave two examples of recordings....there's no mention of the source resolution.

By sources, I meant processed at that resolution from end to end in the consumer audio field. What I do see is a few efforts at 24 bits, 48 or 96K. Not sure that is much of an advantage either as 16 bits gives over 100dB of dynamic range. Can we hear more? maybe through really good headphones. Do we need it? I don't. If I were running a studio, I might consider recording at 24/96 just to be future proof as storage is pretty cheap. Jack Web made a lot of money by filming DRAGNET in color long before anyone had color TV's. He understood reruns.
My Sheffield, direct to disk, split to tape, 2 channel 16/44.8 CD's sound pretty darn good compared to most "digital studio" recordings, so it leaves me to believe the performance and the care matter more than bits.

[QUOTE=mcnarus;16446244]This (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195) might be of interest to you.[QUOTE]

Yes, this is exactly what I was asking. I wonder what they mean with "very high volume"

Women and children may be able to hear a frequency of 20kHz. Most men have a limit of 16kHz to 18kHz.

Technically, high sampling rates (the 96kHz and 192kHz numbers) will make a 20kHz (or 16kHz or 18hHz) sine wave smoother. However, since most pro audio equipment is recording the original at a lower level (24/96 is max for most studios), there is no advantage to increasing it. You'll find very few "sources" that were recorded in digital at 192kHz.

Another factor is bit depth (the 24 number)...

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Think of it this way:

176.4khz/20bit (88.2khz frequency response, 120 dB of dynamic range) goes beyond what even the best equipment can actually do (speakers, amplifiers and microphones). Anything beyond either of these two thresholds is almost certainly just marketing hype.

Anything below...well that's up for debate I suppose, assuming one's equipment can actually reproduce an amount of it. The blind tests that have been done strongly suggest that if there is any audible improvement, it's likely to be very subtle only. Claims of big or obvious differences all the time can be pretty safely be dismissed, IMO.

One more thing to take into account. While 192kHz is/maybe overkill and mostly marketing hype it costs nothing extra to use over 96kHz. If the source is a 196kHz master then you skip the down sampling step that may/or may not degrade the SQ. It's a fact that 192kHz will not sound worse that 96kHz (or make your popcorn taste stale) so what is the problem with it being used?:confused:

I wonder what they mean with "very high volume"

at very high volume when there is no (or very little) signal you might be able to hear the difference in the background noise if your preamp and amplifier were quiet enough. If your speakers make audible hiss (caused by amp or preamp noise) then probably not. As soon as the music starts you quickly run for the volume knob to preserve your hearing.

Recording at the highest resolution and bitrate possible makes sense since it gives some room for manipulation when mixing.

I'm not, the OP is.
.:rolleyes: He was clearly asking about sampling frequency and it's impact on audibility, not the audible spectrum itself.

As tvrgeek pointed out, sampling frequency is clock speed.

clearly you didn't understand my post either.....clearly you don't understand what a clock is and how it's related to sampling frequency...why do you bother posting when all you do is reveal your ignorance?

Yeah I do, since you were the first to bring up ANY mention of the audible spectrum, it is clear that you are the one confused here. tvrgeek corrected you and you chose to not-so-cleverly shrug it off as someone else's mistake. Typical of you.

It is time for you to just sit back and read instead of posting. You clearly have minimal knowledge of what you attempt to speak of.

I see where you got confused. I took it to mean that the OP had read something that indicated that a 96Khz sampling frequency satisfied all requirements for audible improvement and that higher sampling frequencies were not needed and offered no audible benefit.

You OTOH thought he was under the impression that 96khz is audible? Wow!

Addressing the very high levels, ( ones that would damage your hearing anyway) BITS would be more important than sample rate. I see a better excuse for 20 or 24 bits than higher sample rates. This is not a new argument . HP and TEKTRONIX have been arguing about this for 30 years. I forget which was which, but one said ore bits, the other more samples.
So,Nyquest tells us what sample rate we need, but dynamic range tells us how many bits we need.

And marketing says 'I hope they'll buy this new line of shite so's we can jack the prices up once again and sell them more of the stuff they already own that's crappily mastered anyways with more bits and higher sample rates.'

So you think the record company is outright lying?


I'd call it being poorly informed.

posts removed: there is no need to insult other members