Quote:

Originally Posted by wgscott /t/1529833/is-high-resolution-audio-irrelevant#post_24668900





The case for 24-bit audio (vs. 16 bit) I think is somewhat stronger than that for high sampling frequency.





Although 24 bits is inarguably overkill, 20 could provide a useful margin of error. 24 bit also gives some headroom for DSP and digital volume control. Click to expand...

Quote:

The case for sampling at twice the Shannon cutoff for audible frequencies (88.2kHz or 96kHz, depending on the source) is a lot weaker, but the ability to move noise and aliasing artifacts well away from the audible range, and simultaneously avoiding Fourier truncation artifacts from applying a steep filter, do make some sense. Click to expand...

Quote:

The idea of not throwing away any of the data is key in image reconstruction; by analogy it seems at worst to be a harmless indulgence of audio paranoia. Click to expand...

Quote:

Anything beyond 88.2/96 kHz sampling frequency seems completely pointless. I doubt most microphones record above 25 to 30 kHz anyway (corresponding to sampling at 50 to 60 kHz). Most speakers used for playback hardly extend to 20 kHz. My hearing goes to 17 kHz if a mosquito buzzes my ear canal. Click to expand...

Quote:

One of the problems with testing one's ability to hear any difference in "high res" music is that so many of the commercially available tracks are fake -- up sampled redbook. I've seen and unfortunately purchased a bunch of examples from HDtracks, and even some of Neil Young's supposedly high res stuff on DVD is bricked at 44.1 kHz. Click to expand...

Quote:

Please note I am not challenging you but your post caught my eye with respect to your comment about HDtracks. You suggest that some of their offerings are up-sampled. Could you explain further how you came to this conclusion please. Click to expand...

Quote:

Also - For any and all here, if 44.1/16 is considered all that is needed, why do Blu Ray and such offer 48/24 and 96/24 audio? - This is an honest question here not a challenge. Click to expand...

In general 16 bits has from 10 to 20 dB of built in headroom when one is recording live performances. Rooms, particularly ones with real live humans in them, are relatively noisy. Live recordings tend to top out with around 70 dB dynamic range. I've personally made 24/96 recordings with more dynamic range - almost 90 dB but the conditions were very artificial. It is also true that with good noise shaping 16 bits can have an effective dynamic range of over 110 dB.Waltrip says this: "The focus of his discussion regarding 24-bits for downloaded files is based on the recognition of the status quo and the limits that have been accepted by (or forced on) recording engineers and producers." and that tells me more about about his lack of real world experience and understanding of how to exploit the digital domain than anything else.While lots of dynamic range gets done away with during production, the real problem is the real world as both a recording and playback venue. Recordings with reduced dynamic range meet a real world need for as pleasurable listening as possible in settings with dynamic range issues of their own. If everybody listened to music and nothing else and did it in 0 dB quiet rooms there would be a vastly reduced need for recordings with reduced dynamic range.It might make sense as long as again, one stays away from the real world. There is one situation where very high sample rates e.g. 96 KHz) makes sense, and that is for using audio production tools that apply heavy nonlinear distortion to the music as is sometimes done with techno and other kinds of electronic music. Normal music production never goes there.The fact is that everybody who listens to mainstream media is probably getting a fairly steady diet of music with a far lower brick wall filter than 22 Khz. That's because one easy way to make lossy compression as sonically transparent as possible is to brick wall filter the music at 16 KHz. So it gets done a lot. Notice it? In extensive DBT testing of audio processing it has been found that fairly egregious processing centered at 22 KHz is generally innocuous. There are many reasons for this, one being the simple fact that the energy in real world music decreases as the frequencies go up, and by the time you get to 13 KHz you can throw away what you want, but you aren't throwing away much.In fact ultra high frequencies are meaningless for reconstruction of sonic scenes. In fact bandwdith wasted on poorly chosen sample rates can be more profitably invested in high quality processing at lower frequencies that can actually be heard.Actually a large proportion of all professional microphones start rolling off an octave lower - at 10 or 12 KHz.This is the manufacturer's FR spec for what may be the most widely used professional microphone in the world:it is pretty typical.True story. This is a funny story for those of us who are realistic about sample rates. It turns out that about half of all DVD-A and SACD recordings were upsampled from sources with far lower sample rates and less resolution. Until some meter readers discovered it, nobody detected it. All of the high end music reviewers in the world ranted and raved about their favorite so-called Hi Reza recordings, when in fact their resolution was lost decades ago when it was originally recorded. The immutable laws of physics say that once resolution is lost, it is gone forever.Somebody who was tasked with transcribing a lot of SACDs and DVD-As to digital files spilled the truth. This was after some traditional audio authorities took a peak at their own transcriptions of the same media and found the clear evidence of brick wall filtering in the 20-30 KHz range.It's simple. It is well known that you can fool an ignorant public including most high end audio reviewers with a meaningless display of larger numbers. Audio CDs and CD players had become mere commodity items and could no longer be sold for outlandish prices. A great amount of money had been made relicensing and reselling zillions of people music they had already bought once by selling them CDs that duplicated the LPs and tapes that they already owned. Been there, done that adn with a big smile on my face.People were betting that this profitable lightning based on re-issues would strike again in the same marketplace. This is, CDs generally sounded appreciably better than the LPs and tapes that they replaced. The SACDs and DVD-As not so much, even if they were re-mastered.(I think I messed up some of the attributions of the above posts- my apologies in advance)