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

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?


any-point-to-using-192khz-for-recording

Search for "intermod.ppt" in the following page :

(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)

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)


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.

> 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

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.

> 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?


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 

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

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.

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).

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 

> 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 

>> a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most

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).

> 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?
>


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.

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.

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 

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 

> 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 

>> 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 

>>> a box that can record to this high of quality when audio is most

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.

> 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?
>>
>


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/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.

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:

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.

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

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".

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".

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 

>
> 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 
SFIFEM 
Atrium Sound Space 
OVOS 
CMP 

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.

>
> 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.

> 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 

Both would double the CPU requirements for processing in Max according

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...?

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

"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

I get a terabyte for less than 250 Euros, but they still consider it 

> 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

The cleaner waveforms will be distorted in their ears anyway to what is

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...

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".

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

> "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

> I get a terabyte for less than 250 Euros, but they still consider it 

>> 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

> The cleaner waveforms will be distorted in their ears anyway to what 

> 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...

> 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
>
>
>


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:

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 ;)

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.

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

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

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.

... 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. 

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

"Note alias distortion to be stronger on the sine-wave, as 'sinewave'

contains higher than Nyquist frequencies:"

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...

Any point to using 192Khz for recording?