It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:42 am


Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

Sampling pipe organs and turning them into something you can play in Hauptwerk.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

Doddy

Member

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:09 am
  • Location: Abingdon-on-Thames, England

Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostSun Jun 27, 2021 3:50 am

An interesting video treatise on sampling rates. I have now reduced mine down from 24bit 96khz to 24bit 48khz as a result of this video. It makes you think!

"Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE than recording at 44.1/48, and why audio sample rate bears no relationship to frame rate in video. Busts some myths in an easy-to-digest video that explains the science behind sample rates, aliasing, and bit rate."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs1On87Ixe4&t
Robert 'Doddy' Sumsion

'You don't know what you don't know'
Offline
User avatar

vpo-organist

Member

  • Posts: 306
  • Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 6:49 am

Re: Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostSun Jun 27, 2021 7:28 am

Thank you for this interesting video.

Inspired Acoustics uses 192 kHz ;-)
https://www.inspiredacoustics.com/en/pr ... b#features
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostSun Jun 27, 2021 8:55 am

Interesting video.

This is what Bob Katz says in a article regarding higher sample rates.

Yet people reliably report that high sample rates like 88.2 and 96 KHz sound better than 44.1 and 48 KHz. The reason for this, as the legendary mastering engineer Bob Katz explains, is in the way currently designed digital to audio converters (DACs) work. When converting from digital to analog for playback, it is very difficult and expensive to produce an undistorted signal with lower sample rates like 44.1 or 48 KHz. There are at present no commercially available systems that can reproduce these sample rates without distortion. However, once you are at a high sample rate like 88.2 or 96 KHz a good converter can produce a completely undistorted analog signal with ease. So the difference people are hearing, is not the high frequency content, but the fact that lower sample rates cause the converters to distort the analog signal. For the tech minded, this is due to ripples in the bandpass filter caused by restricted high pass bandwidth in lower sample rates.

This might be the reason many people still prefer 96 khz AD converters even when in a Daw high res and lower res recordings can cancelate each other when phase is reversed.

Regards Jan
Offline
User avatar

voet

Member

  • Posts: 128
  • Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:06 pm
  • Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA

Re: Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostSun Jun 27, 2021 9:29 am

This is the best explanation I have ever heard. Thanks for sharing.
Offline
User avatar

Doddy

Member

  • Posts: 10
  • Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:09 am
  • Location: Abingdon-on-Thames, England

Re: Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostSun Jun 27, 2021 9:42 am

Jan Loosman wrote:Interesting video.

This is what Bob Katz says in a article regarding higher sample rates.

Yet people reliably report that high sample rates like 88.2 and 96 KHz sound better than 44.1 and 48 KHz. The reason for this, as the legendary mastering engineer Bob Katz explains, is in the way currently designed digital to audio converters (DACs) work. When converting from digital to analog for playback, it is very difficult and expensive to produce an undistorted signal with lower sample rates like 44.1 or 48 KHz. There are at present no commercially available systems that can reproduce these sample rates without distortion. However, once you are at a high sample rate like 88.2 or 96 KHz a good converter can produce a completely undistorted analog signal with ease. So the difference people are hearing, is not the high frequency content, but the fact that lower sample rates cause the converters to distort the analog signal. For the tech minded, this is due to ripples in the bandpass filter caused by restricted high pass bandwidth in lower sample rates.

This might be the reason many people still prefer 96 khz AD converters even when in a Daw high res and lower res recordings can cancelate each other when phase is reversed.

Regards Jan



Yes, I agree that distortion is introduced, but not for the reasons you state.

Perhaps this video will help with the science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jCwIsT0X8M
Robert 'Doddy' Sumsion

'You don't know what you don't know'
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostSun Jun 27, 2021 2:13 pm

This guy is a believer in 96 khz because this preserves the harmonics in the audio signal best.

https://gearspace.com/board/the-moan-zo ... again.html

He stated

The greater the sampling rate, the more harmonics can be used to "reshape" the original wave closer to the ideal (original) and consequently the better (i.e., closer to the original) the transients will become.

So also harmonics outside the spectrum we can hear will shape the sound and this is in favour of higher sample rates.

In my younger years i had Tannoy supertweeters in my system.
And altough their frequency started at 15000hz, already at the end or above my hearing range, engaging these tweeters improved the spatiality and transparancy of the sound a lot i think due the extended frequency range of Sacd players .
In my opininon preserving the larger freq.range in 96 khz to preserve the harmonic content in the non audible range is a good thing.
Why did lots of the people on this forum and pcorgan forum stated that they heared an improvement when the 96 khz Hauptwerk version was introduced?


Jan
Offline
User avatar

Jan Loosman

Member

  • Posts: 380
  • Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:33 pm
  • Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Re: Why recording at 96/192Khz can sound WORSE

PostFri Feb 11, 2022 6:07 am

Interesting blog on the Sonus paradisi site.

https://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/blog/co ... e-in-hw-7/

Jan

Return to Creating sample sets / recording organs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests