96khz blu rays - Page 3

Hugh! We saw that band BEFORE the record was out and before the tour. It was called, "An Evening With Sting" at the old "The Ritz" downtown. Nobody knew WHAT the hell it was gonna be. All the musicians including Sting were reading off charts with music stands. I was about 10 feet from the stage. Was awesome. Later I saw them when they were all polished at Radio City as well but that Ritz gig was just amazing.

Disagreed.

By this logic, a 1 MP camera puts out the same visble image as a 6 MP camera.

There's a lot of people here that are confusing sampling rates with audible frequencies.

My bad, there are probably a few Ht amps that do dsp at 192ks.

But so far I found none that are clear in the spec sheets about that.

Often 192ks DAC's are advertized but that does not mean that the dsp processing, other than upsampling, before the dacs is 192ks.

Onkyo has some smallprint in the manual that internal processing is limited to 96ks. 192ks is downsampled.
The denons boast about 'alpha processing plus' before the signal from the dsp processing is going to the dacs. This alpha processing is basically a fancy upsampling/oversampling algorythm. If the signal is processed at 192ks this alpha processing is not needed.

Meridian is limited to 96ks.

For most of us true 192ks signal path al the way to the dacs means a significant double dip.

If processing is at 192ks through the entire digital amp I have no doubt that this will be pointed out in the brochure.
So far I found hardly any indications about this other than a statement in an Onkyo user manual.

But as stated there is no audible benefit from a signal at 192ks instead of 96ks.

Any difference in sound is due to differences in the hardware used in such a test. For example a DAC running at 192ks can sound different if used with 96ks sample rate. If a dac is switched the oversampling filter adjusted from 8 times to 4 times. This alone make results from such a test very dubious.

24bit/96ks is more than good enough.

yeah mine has a 24/192 DAC but will only accept 24/96... and with my speakers no way i'm getting that "hypersonic sound experience" crap even if my receiver accepted the full 24/192 without downsampling it

Sampling rates are directly related to audible frequencies.

The issue is that human hearing simply can't detect anything over 20 kHz. Once you are sampling at 48 kHz, you are already reproducing everything that is audible.

I responded to:

1) 48 kHz sampling of a 16 kHz signal gives three samples per cycle, not 1.5 per second.

2) A sampling rate higher than f*2 does not result in a "more accurate and detailed representation". The additional resolution only affects signals that are above f. Thus, the additional resolution of 96 kHz sampling only provides reproduction of signals between 24 kHz and 48 kHz. Since this is clearly above human hearing capability, it provides no audible benefit. [Caveat: sampling and/or reconstructing at a higher rate does make the filtering easier.]

Whilst you *may* be technically correct, other factors come into play when the sample rate is increased - like a relaxed or even removed filter (vs. a brickwall filter on 44.1 material). All my 192Khz DVD-A's/HDAD's sound absolutely effortless. All three Classic Records Alan Parson's Project discs are simply gob-smacking in their comfort and enjoyment levels, something 44/16 just can't come close to.

There is no need for a "brickwall" filter in modern DAC implementations. Oversampling does a perfectly fine job of eliminating the need for a sharp analog filter with all of the inherent phase issues.


I can't argue that the DVD-As don't sound good - I'm sure they do. What I will propose is that it has a lot more to do with the care taken in mastering than with the digital format itself.

I'd bet good money that if you took the 192 kHz file and properly downsampled it to 48 kHz, you'd never be able to tell the difference. [I won't make this bet for 44.1, because it's not an even divisor - too much potential for loss in the conversion.]

While sampling theory indicates that if the sampling rate is at least twice the bandwidth then noting is lost I for one see no reason in this day and age to limit the rate to CD rates. So long as the storage media can handle it I'd just prefer everything be recorded at 192/24.

Of course, that won't stop to LP purists from arguing that vinyl is better than 192/24! Intersing how those vinylists come to the conclusion that music, originally recorded onto magnetic tape with limited bandwidth can somehow 'create' new information once pressed onto vinyl.


Brian

No, not really. Mostly a huge vast of space.

Placebo? Different mastering? Because it is NOT because of some strange info at 40 khz if you think so.

Picked this up about a week ago. Awesome, awesome BD!!!

Agreed that it's nothing to do with higher frequencies. I have, in all my years with DVD-A and SACD not once considered that a higher frequency response was terribly worthwhile (I won't ever be buying "super tweeters" for instance) - but I strongly believe the quality of the sound *in-band* is more preserved, if that quality is there to begin with (and it generally is).

???

even the soundcard in my computer does 192kHz

yeah a lot of time it is just that they dont do ridiculous compressions and exansion leveling and weird equilizations so things sound good on junk, etc. and use much more care in general and better recording equipment, etc.

Well, this BD is a good example of why production values are more important than bitrates and sampling frequencies. It does not do the 96/24 format justice. It's not bad, but lacks the the transparency or dynamic range of the best 96/24 recordings. A bit disappointing.

Does your sound card perform bass management, DPLIIx or THX post processing to name a few tasks? That's what DSP chips do in an AV preamp/receiver, and most are restricted to 96khz sampling rate while doing it,mostly because design choices, or lacking processing power. DACs are a different chips, and have different tasks.

If you haven’t tried the 192 Khz 24 Bit 5.1 Channel DD-THD Divertimenti disc then you need to go out and buy it right now. It is incredible!

Ohhhhhh yeahhhhhhhh . . . . . . . .

I own two: Chris Botti and Queen.

The Chris Botti disc sounds fantastic. The Queen disc sounds good too, but not nearly as good as the Botti disc.

Not to mention the fact that it is great music. Content matters!

You are confusing sampling rate with frequency response. The sampling rate is how many samples per second are taken of the analog waveform. 44.1khz is needed to faithfully reproduce a 20khz tone. Higher sampling rates are dificult to distinguish without good equipment. It usually ads sparkle and air outside the realm of what we can acurately hear.

Nyquist says that any sampling rate above 40 kHz will completely reproduce a 20 kHz tone.


Actually, they're impossible to distinguish with ANY equipment.


Remove the word "acurately" (sic), and you've got it right.

Higher sampling rates and bit depths are valuable during the tracking and mixing stages. Once it's mastered, though, there's no need for a sampling rate higher than redbook CD.

Bit depths are another story - 16 bits isn't enough.

I saw and heard in DTS-HD MA logo in many BDs from Lions gate.

Also keep in mind that the fundamental frequency for most of what we hear are quite low. Human speech is around 300Hz-2kHz and the high note of a piano is about 4kHz. 44kHz sampling rate is 10x what is needed to handle 2KHz sound and 70x what is needed to carry 300Hz sound.

Where the higher sampling rate help is to capture the harmonics above the fundamental frequencies. There aren't too much energy carried by the time you get beyond 2-3 octaves (4-8x) above the fundamental frequency. You can go higher than 44kHz but it's a diminishing return for the extra storage and BW needed.

Human hearing biologically taps out at 16bit, 48khz. In fact, 16/48 is probably overkill. Anything above that is snake oil and a waste of space/bandwidth. Audio companies will be happy to sell you endless upgrades, though.

People who claim that something above that sounds better are either (a) very gullible with money to blow or (b) listening to a different, better remaster from what was available on a prior format. A true comparison would be a blind test between a 24/96 recording at its native resolution and a copy that has been downsampled to 16/48. They'll get it right 50% of the time, a rate no better than a guess.

How lossy compression afflicts perceptible quality is another matter entirely.

I can tell you that recording 24 bit is really handy since you don't have to worry about the levels so much!

I reserve the right to be gullible and still call BS on anyone who claims the 7.1 96khz intro on Lionsgate films is just placebo. I would like to hear that kind of placebo on all BD movies.

True. However, any of those harmonics that are above 20 kHz have no impact on what is heard by humans.

Bit depth has nothing to do with recording levels...

16 and 24 bit recording share the same headroom above their 0 reference.

It gives you the ability to record at a lower level with less (perhaps no) loss when you boost it back up to a normal level. I can record a live band with 24 bits at a fairly low level and not worry about unexpected loud noises being clipped and causing distortion. Afterwards I can scan the entire recording for the highest level and convert it to 16 bit audio without any hint that it had been recorded at a low level.

I'm sorry I don't know the proper technical terms for what I'm describing.