Any point to using 192Khz for recording?

Oct 30, 2007 at 8:27pm

Any point to using 192Khz for recording?

It doesn’t seem like audio is going to be upgrading to 192Khz (or
higher ie: Super Audio CD/DVD Audio) anytime soon. Is it worth getting
a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most
popular at lower than CD quality?

#34387
Oct 30, 2007 at 9:03pm

Hello,

Search for “intermod.ppt” in the following page :

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/

(well, today a good audio interface will usually be 192 kHz capable, but you can still stick to 44.1 kHz … moreover very high resolutions are CPU and reliability consuming)

#115914
Oct 30, 2007 at 9:12pm

I wouldn’t get a new box just for 192Khz playback but for a thousand
other reasons :-) For instance high quality and low latency playback
and recording which you would’t get with the crappy internal sound card.

As far as CD quality is concerned, I would never work with 16 bit
sounds while processing or mixing, only when you do the final mix
down of your track. The reason being that you don’t have as much
dynamic room with 16bit mixing as you do with 24.

Depending on what you do with your sounds, 192Khz could be a good
idea or not for mixing and processing. I can hear the difference
between 44.1 khz sounds that have been transposed down by and octave
and 96 khz sounds that have also been transposed down by octave
(given that they where also recorded with the same resolutions 44.1
and 96 respectively). With 44.1 you can hear a sudden cut off point
in the spectrum at around 11000 hrz. So if you are doing lots and
lots of processing (and your software can manage higher resolution)
then the higher the better particularly with transposition.

Best
Peiman

On 30 Oct 2007, at 20:27, Wade wrote:

> It doesn’t seem like audio is going to be upgrading to 192Khz (or
> higher ie: Super Audio CD/DVD Audio) anytime soon. Is it worth getting
> a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most
> popular at lower than CD quality?

#115915
Oct 30, 2007 at 9:14pm

IMO: 192 kHz SR is sales hype. 1. You can’t hear it anyway 2. it is
really hard to do properly with clock/jitter/analog circuitry. well
designed 96 kHz circuitry is plenty for the future. 44.1 kHz is fine
for now.

My very personal 2c.

Best,

Zip

Op 30-okt-2007, om 21:27 heeft Wade het volgende geschreven:

> It doesn’t seem like audio is going to be upgrading to 192Khz (or
> higher ie: Super Audio CD/DVD Audio) anytime soon. Is it worth getting
> a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most
> popular at lower than CD quality?

#115916
Oct 30, 2007 at 11:10pm

Though you’re probably already aware of it, bit-rate is definitely
more important than sample rate when choosing a recording device. 24-
bit gives you a lot of freedom to record things at softer volumes and
not worry quite as much about being too soft (or clipping).

Peter McCulloch

On Oct 30, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Zip Boterbloem wrote:

> IMO: 192 kHz SR is sales hype. 1. You can’t hear it anyway 2. it is
> really hard to do properly with clock/jitter/analog circuitry. well
> designed 96 kHz circuitry is plenty for the future. 44.1 kHz is
> fine for now.
>
> My very personal 2c.
>
> Best,
>
> Zip
>
> Op 30-okt-2007, om 21:27 heeft Wade het volgende geschreven:
>
>> It doesn’t seem like audio is going to be upgrading to 192Khz (or
>> higher ie: Super Audio CD/DVD Audio) anytime soon. Is it worth
>> getting
>> a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most
>> popular at lower than CD quality?
>

#115917
Oct 31, 2007 at 4:03am

Interestingly I bought a fireface 800 awhile back and experimented recording a four piece vocal ensemble. I tried recording using several different mic techniques at 44.1KHz,48kHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz and 192KHz. When it came to finally mastering the material onto a CD I found that the best sound came out at 88.2KHz. I found the material I recorded at 192KHz to sound extremely harsh and abrasive.

Intuitivly I was thinking the old argument that when recording at higher sample rates your quantization noise gets spread over a larger spectrum.. thus when mastering down to CD quality audio you could low pass filter the audible spectrum and get rid of some of this quantization noise that was within the inaudible spectrum. This defineatly wasn’t the case with 192KHz…. defineatly sounded like it was the case with 88.2.

blah blah blah… so NO

#115918
Oct 31, 2007 at 9:53am

Yes! 24-bit is much better sounding & easier to work with. I stopped
recording in 16-bit as soon as I got hold of a 20(24 was not there
yet at the time)-bit hard- and software.

Op 31-okt-2007, om 0:10 heeft Peter McCulloch het volgende geschreven:

> Though you’re probably already aware of it, bit-rate is definitely
> more important than sample rate when choosing a recording device.
> 24-bit gives you a lot of freedom to record things at softer
> volumes and not worry quite as much about being too soft (or
> clipping).
>
> Peter McCulloch
>
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 5:14 PM, Zip Boterbloem wrote:
>
>> IMO: 192 kHz SR is sales hype. 1. You can’t hear it anyway 2. it
>> is really hard to do properly with clock/jitter/analog circuitry.
>> well designed 96 kHz circuitry is plenty for the future. 44.1 kHz
>> is fine for now.
>>
>> My very personal 2c.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Zip
>>
>> Op 30-okt-2007, om 21:27 heeft Wade het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> It doesn’t seem like audio is going to be upgrading to 192Khz (or
>>> higher ie: Super Audio CD/DVD Audio) anytime soon. Is it worth
>>> getting
>>> a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most
>>> popular at lower than CD quality?
>>
>

#115919
Oct 31, 2007 at 10:56am

Dan Lavry has an interesting take on 192khz converter technology which you can read here:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

In my own investigations of AD/DA technology I’ve been disappointed by nearly all sigma-delta converter designs and have set to working on an R2R non-oversampling ADC/DAC with 2 more bits of true measurement than the eccentric Dr. Altmann’s creation ADC (who does a nice job of exploring AD/DA tech in layman’s terms):

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/timeband.htm
http://www.mother-of-tone.com/cd.htm

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/conversion.htm

Lavry strongest argument against 192khz (IMO) is nearly all off the shelf converter designs halve the decimation rate as the sample rate doubles. [I think I'm stating this correctly, someone please correct me if I've forgotten the argument/logic]. One could conclude that there isn’t any real gain to 176khz or 192khz unless it’s done with a NOS true measurement ADC *OR* an approach like the Korg MR-1 is taken and the decimation and filtering can be performed in fake-time by software where latency is not an issue allowing many bits and excellent filter responses to be generated (thus not smearing transients and giving better reproduction).

Most of what I discuss above is prohibitive to the musician (Designing your own, Purchasing Altmanns @ 2000 euro’s or the even more expensive true R2R 24bit master ADC by Lavry. Prism and Mytek are top designs but extremely expensive for a sigma-delta and out of the reach of most… And of course the Korg MR-1 isn’t an interface and if it where it would have the exact same problems as any other sigma-delta system when you tried to use it with a PCM based software platform (Which is nearly every DAW, sans DSD editing platforms).

So, what’s the consumer to do? After much research I’ve settled on:

A.) build my own NOS AD/DA (in process), when finished run at 96khz or 192khz (case/x/case)

B.) Use a Korg MR-1 as a master recorder for analog sessions (192khz derived from DSD using fake-time would appear to get around the halved decimation rate argument), me, I’m usually happy with 96khz.

C.) Use an echo Audiofire 12 for multi-tracking sessions with outboard gear/musicians
(the audiofire 8 and 12 both use the same crystal AD/DA as the Apogee Ensemble, which isn’t that great in itself, BUT, for only 550$, it’s a great value and is good enough for most music made today. +one can upgrade the Audiofire’s analog path to get a decent sounding box, equal to or better than the Ensemble.

D.) Continue to use tape on specific projects although it’s getting very expensive these days and sourcing tape in Tokyo is a nightmare.

HTH,
-anthony

#115920
Oct 31, 2007 at 11:14am

And then I found this:

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_07.shtml

and

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_08.shtml

Many golden ears like the MR-1 but the plots on this page are not exactly exciting. I’d like to see a DSD conversion down to 96khz compared, perhaps in my next life when i have time for such things.

when we tell a story, it’s great to listen to, but it’s not like actually experiencing said story. good story tellers don’t have
many problems with the lossiness of language. it follows recording shouldn’t be so dependent on things sounding professional rather just “sounding intentional”.

-anthony

#115921
Oct 31, 2007 at 4:53pm

On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:03 PM, Tyler Nitsch wrote:

>
> Interestingly I bought a fireface 800 awhile back and experimented
> recording a four piece vocal ensemble. I tried recording using
> several different mic techniques at 44.1KHz,48kHz, 88.2KHz, 96KHz
> and 192KHz. When it came to finally mastering the material onto a
> CD I found that the best sound came out at 88.2KHz. I found the
> material I recorded at 192KHz to sound extremely harsh and abrasive.
Were the original recordings at 192 harsh, or was the result after
downsampling from 192 to 44.1 harsh? If the latter, then you may very
well not be testing 192 vs. other rates so much as testing the
quality of the downsampling algorithm/implementation of the software
you used.

—-
Steven M. Miller
Professor, Contemporary Music Program
College of Santa Fe

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
CMP <
http://www.csf.edu/csf/academics/cmp/index.html>

#115922
Oct 31, 2007 at 5:15pm

On Oct 30, 2007, at 3:12 PM, Peiman Khosravi wrote:

>
> As far as CD quality is concerned, I would never work with 16 bit
> sounds while processing or mixing, only when you do the final mix
> down of your track. The reason being that you don’t have as much
> dynamic room with 16bit mixing as you do with 24.

Actually, the dynamic range is unchanged but the signal-to-error
ratio is improved with higher bit rates. They are closely related,
but not synonymous. Just a clarification.

—-
Steven M. Miller
Professor, Contemporary Music Program
College of Santa Fe

Home < http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill>
SFIFEM <
http://sfifem.csf.edu>
Atrium Sound Space <
http://atrium.csf.edu>
OVOS <
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill/ovos.html>
CMP <
http://www.csf.edu/csf/academics/cmp/index.html>

#115923
Nov 1, 2007 at 10:09am

Tyler Nitsch schrieb:
> When it came to finally mastering the material onto a CD I found that
> the best sound came out at 88.2KHz. I found the material I recorded
> at 192KHz to sound extremely harsh and abrasive.

It probably depends for which medium you want to record. If the final
product is 44.1 kHz CD, a SR of 88.2 kHZ seems a good choice, and if you
master for DVD, then 96kHz would be more appropriate…

This amount of oversampling leaves enough room for smooth analog
filtering, higher rates impose more problems in that area without (m)any
benefits…

Both would double the CPU requirements for processing in Max according
to 44.1/48 kHz though…

One option could be, record in 88.1/96 kHz but to do the patch in 44.1.
When its finished, switch to non realtime and 88.1/96 kHz. and render
the result in good quality… (Only worth for tweakheads… ;-)

…I just see, that the nonrealtime driver doesn’t allow 88.2 kHz. This
seems to be an oversight I can’t follow… Any comments from cycling…?

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com

#115924
Nov 1, 2007 at 10:22am

Anthony Bisset schrieb:
> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_08.shtml
>
These guys live in a different world:

“Data storage is cheap these days; I can get a terabyte for less than
three thousand dollars. We need to deliver audio as painlessly as
possible to the consumer.”

I get a terabyte for less than 250 Euros, but they still consider it
cheap… ;-)

> Many golden ears like the MR-1 but the plots on this page are not
> exactly exciting. I’d like to see a DSD conversion down to 96khz
> compared, perhaps in my next life when i have time for such things.

Another point is if they put up wave forms as arguments they obviously
do not trust their ears…
The cleaner waveforms will be distorted in their ears anyway to what is
supposed to be worse…

Tech talk marketing I’d call that. Its made for people who do not
understand, but have too many bucks to spend…

> it follows recording shouldn’t be so dependent on things sounding
> professional rather just “sounding intentional”.

You pinpoint it to the essential. Nothing to add…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com

#115925
Nov 1, 2007 at 1:55pm

to be fair, this page is four years old.

On Nov 1, 2007, at 6:22 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

> Anthony Bisset schrieb:
>> http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/surround2002/technology/page_08.shtml
> These guys live in a different world:
>
> “Data storage is cheap these days; I can get a terabyte for less than
> three thousand dollars. We need to deliver audio as painlessly as
> possible to the consumer.”
>
> I get a terabyte for less than 250 Euros, but they still consider it
> cheap… ;-)
>
>> Many golden ears like the MR-1 but the plots on this page are not
>> exactly exciting. I’d like to see a DSD conversion down to 96khz
>> compared, perhaps in my next life when i have time for such things.
>
> Another point is if they put up wave forms as arguments they obviously
> do not trust their ears…
> The cleaner waveforms will be distorted in their ears anyway to what
> is
> supposed to be worse…
>
> Tech talk marketing I’d call that. Its made for people who do not
> understand, but have too many bucks to spend…
>
>> it follows recording shouldn’t be so dependent on things sounding
>> professional rather just “sounding intentional”.
>
> You pinpoint it to the essential. Nothing to add…
>
> Stefan
>
> —
> Stefan Tiedje————x——-
> –_____———–|————–
> –(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
> — _|_)—-|—–()————–
> ———-()——–www.ccmix.com
>
>
>

#115926
Nov 29, 2007 at 9:38am

Hi all…

and sorry for joining that late to your discussion.

I would like to make clear that there is (at least) one really significant point with higher than 44.1/48 kHz sample-rates.

If you take again a look at my small time-or-band article:

http://www.mother-of-tone.com/timeband.htm

This is 16 bits 44.1 kHz playback with various digital and filter techniqes, down to no filter at all.

The left shots show a step response, all right hand shots show a 8kHz sinewave playback.

What the diagrams tell us, is that there is a a choice:

EITHER you want a perfect sine, then you have ripple on every step input (its the filter that generates the ripple and its the ripple that makes the sine perfect). This is considered the correct technical way by many, and it is the way covered in all those digital audio educational books.

OR you want a perfect impulse (no filter) then your sine shows alias distortion (bottom pic).This is considered a better sounding approach by … well some ;)

Now to the POINT:

With a higher sample-rate, lets say 88.2/96 or even 176,4/192 kHz it is – for the first time – possible to get a perfect impulse (by not using filters) and still have no alias distortion on the sine waves and these are the digital ingredients for fidelity recording and playback.

With respect to this insight, it is a pity, no… it is a shame, no… it is rather funny to see, that -at this time- no recording studio, no pro-audio manufacturer seems to make use of this potential.

Well, I think I have to take care that the following does not sound like a marketing phrase, but …

… this also means and it is a definite fact, that nobody of the entire – what they call audio industry – has EVER listened to a TRUE 192kHz recording.

What they have listened to, is just the acid fallout that plumps out of their highly interpretational noise machines and this is no way to evaluate (or even enjoying) the potential of a 96 or even 192kHz sample-rate.

Charles :)

ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES, GERMANY

#115927
Nov 29, 2007 at 10:07pm

Charles schrieb:
> If you take again a look at my small time-or-band article:
> http://www.mother-of-tone.com/timeband.htm

I found this claim on the site:

“Note alias distortion to be stronger on the sine-wave, as ‘sinewave’
contains higher than Nyquist frequencies:”

for a sine wave of 8 kHz.

Could you explain that contradiction? 8 kHz is well below, and a sine
has per definition no harmonics higher than that.

Did you look for setup errors in your measurement? I guess there must
have been something wrong with your sine or your scope…

> … this also means and it is a definite fact, that nobody of the
> entire – what they call audio industry – has EVER listened to a TRUE
> 192kHz recording.
>
> What they have listened to, is just the acid fallout that plumps out
> of their highly interpretational noise machines and this is no way to
> evaluate (or even enjoying) the potential of a 96 or even 192kHz
> sample-rate.

Also as far as I know the strongest selling argument for high end studio
equipment is 192 Khz sampling rate. I know of myself that I listened to
it, and yes it sounds better. But of course I am neither the music
industry nor would I sacrifice my processing power for that sound
advantage… ;-)

By the way, pictures don’t describe sound very well… (mp3′s neither…
;-). I’d rather believe that you hear a difference if you say so, than
being convinced by a technical explanation with visual “proof”…

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com

#115928
Nov 30, 2007 at 10:57am

Hi Stefan,,

a step function and a mathematically generated 8kHz sine wave (both 44.1) are input into R2R DACs with 4 different digital and analog filter setups.

The scope shots show you that with each filter setup you can either have the step or the sine reproduced correctly.The better you make the step the poorer the sine will be reproduced and vice versa.

The argument is that with higher sample-rates the step and the sine-wave could be reproduced correctly but only if the digital filter would be dismissed (which causes the ripple/ringing on the step).

This sine/step distortion mechanism exists for playback as well as recording.

Charles :)

ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES, GERMANY

#115929
Nov 30, 2007 at 1:22pm

Charles schrieb:
> a step function and a mathematically generated 8kHz sine wave (both
> 44.1) are input into R2R DACs with 4 different digital and analog
> filter setups.

If I get this right, you don’t use the analog filter of the dac? That
would explain the picture of the distortety sine much better, its not
aliasing, its the steps which look like that, because the trigger point
of the scope has jitter. (The 8 kHz isn’t synced to the samle rate…)

ADC and DAC always need filters. Its part of the design and necessary to
reproduce the signal correctly within the band…

A correctly setup ADC-DAC (with analog filters) will reproduce a 8kHz
sine wave correctly no matter how high your sample rate is… (Fact as
long the sr is higher than 2* sine freq…)

Stefan


Stefan Tiedje————x——-
–_____———–|————–
–(_|_ —-|—–|—–()——-
– _|_)—-|—–()————–
———-()——–www.ccmix.com

#115930
Nov 30, 2007 at 3:16pm

Hi Stefan,,

the schoolbook way of ‘correct’ playback is shown in the 2 top pics.

However the better sounding playback (feeding a music signal, of course) is shown in the bottom examples ;)

Charles :)

ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES, GERMAMY

#115931
Nov 30, 2007 at 3:32pm

Charles,

for example my Monica2 Dac should have a behaviuos like the bottom
example I think …

http://www.diyparadise.com/dackit/1545bdack

My congratulations for your Dacs, if I only had the money … :-(

All the best


Alessandro Fogar

http://www.fogar.it

2007/11/30, Charles :
>
> Hi Stefan,,
>
> the schoolbook way of ‘correct’ playback is shown in the 2 top pics.
>
> However the better sounding playback (feeding a music signal, of course) is shown in the bottom examples ;)
>
> Charles :)
>
> ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES, GERMAMY
>

#115932
Nov 30, 2007 at 3:51pm

Hi Alessandro,,

yes, Monica would look like this :)

Thanks,

Charles :)

ALTMANN MICRO MACHINES

#115933

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.