| Author
|
higher Khz recording
|
Surrender
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
506
Posts :
5388
Posted : Dec 12, 2005 20:47
|
since in higher khz then 44.1khz the signal is stronger and there is more room for the sounds and they are all bigger... do you figure its just a matter of time before we see 96.1khz releases? dvd quality style? wouldnt that be great?
i already know people doing their live in 24bit depth which is nice but not much diffrent... i think its just a matter of hdd space getting larger and were there! the future is coming 
  "On the other hand, you have different fingers."
http://myspace.com/gadimon |
|
|
|
l337
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
55
Posts :
817
Posted : Dec 12, 2005 22:00
|
|
higher resolutions doesnt necessarily mean a better sound,do u think even one would want to buy dvd's? people arent even buying cd's as it is |
|
|
|
texmex
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
189
Posted : Dec 12, 2005 22:37
|
umm... if human hearing is limited to around 20khz (meaning 40khz sampling), I really don't see any use in 96khz releases (max 48khz signals)... The most benefit of 96khz is in the production phase (smaller change of aliasing etc).
96khz does not have "stronger" signal, it just can cover broader frequency range. And there is more room for the sounds - but you can't hear them!
Surrender, maybe you meant sample cd's and such by the "releases". That would in a way make sense. However because you can't hear the extra 40khz you'll get, you really can't judge samples by ear.
In live situation the PA probably can't reliably play 20+khz signals, because again they're designed for human hearing.
On the other hand, 24 bit signals in audio media would be more than welcome (preferably floating point Many sample collections/synths already have that, sometimes even 32bit. And VST runs 32bit float.
And btw, DVD Audio is just 48khz not 96khz... |
|
|
|
Surrender
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
506
Posts :
5388
Posted : Dec 12, 2005 22:41
|
texmex, you gotta love when i try to sound smart and end up being dumb  thanks for the explanation though
"On the other hand, you have different fingers."
http://myspace.com/gadimon |
|
|
|
index
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
36
Posts :
548
Posted : Dec 12, 2005 23:06
|
wow!
At the moment i am reading about ad/da convertion for my lessons.
So,u say to me to write in my exams that a sample rate at 192khz doesnt take more samples than 96khz and so the signal is the same on both...nahh i wont pass this way..
Higher sample rates IS Better Sound,and the differences Are hearble/noticable comparing the same material.
And also humans hearing is not only about what only the ear gets...
what about the human brain,skin,stomach or all our other neurosensitive to sound parts?
There is a plenty of medical research about higher freqs and humans.
As higher the signal flows,i got reasons to compose  |
|
|
|
Spindrift
Spindrift
Started Topics :
33
Posts :
1560
Posted : Dec 12, 2005 23:47
|
As I understand converters is not accurate enough to make justice of a 192k recording.
But I don't belive the idea that bitrate=dynamic range and sample frequency=frequency range.
Sure it correlates to what range you get, but thats not all there is too it.
Just compare a 8 bit sound and a compressed 16 bit sound. Lowering the bitrate does more than reducing the dynamic range.
Downsampling to 11k doesn't sound like using a LPF at 5.5K.
Lower resolutions when sampling audio means a rougher less precise waveform, not only less range.
Oversampling does help to smooth out the edges and the difference is for sure not very obvious.
(``·.¸(``·.¸(``·.¸¸.·`´)¸.·`´)¸.·`´)
« .....www.ResonantEarth.com..... »
(¸.·`´(¸.·`´(¸.·`´``·.¸)``·.¸)``·.¸)
http://www.myspace.com/spindriftsounds
http://www.myspace.com/resonantearth |
|
|
|
Elad
Tsabeat/Sattel Battle
Started Topics :
158
Posts :
5306
Posted : Dec 13, 2005 11:23
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : Dec 13, 2005 14:18
|
@ spindrift. Of corso... the two are interrelated in a way. If you compress a 16 bit sound to have the same dynamic range as an 8 bit signal, successive samples can have intermediate values that aren't possible in an 8 bit signal, because the compressor works at a higher internal samplerate and translates these back to 16 bit during the makeup gain stage of the compressor. If you just have an 8 bit sample to start with succesive samples can't have intermediate values because the stepsize is limited. You can think of this as a continuum that ranges from a square wave to a sine wave: with one bit you can only sample a square wave and by increasing bitdepth you can approximate a sine-wave. This pic illustrates this: http://www.dolphinmusic.co.uk/rs/audioquality/samplerate.jpg If you would resample the "stairs" underneath the left half of this pic at a higher bitdepth you will still hear the "stairs" since there are no intermediate values to be sampled.
Pfff... i should get back to work it looks like i'm avoiding my duties big time
|
|
|
|
the daleks
The Daleks
Started Topics :
34
Posts :
584
Posted : Dec 15, 2005 07:50
|
one of the hardware makers- i forget which- has a new techonology called 'true tape' emulation, which is something sick like 1.5Ghz sampling rates...
so there must be merit to having higher sampling rates, but i agree this makes sense more in the production phase...
but, I have also read in a few audio books that the bit depth has more of a hearable impact on the music. for example, digital clipping at 16-bit absolutely sounds like crap, but clipping at 32-bit floating doesnt sound that bad at all- so I think the real revolution will be at 64-bit, with maybe almost analogue-like overdrive. this will probably be years off though. the book it said most professional producers agree on 48khz and 24-bit as the best "happy medium" (for now)
as far as a higher resolution listening medium, i think it will be great, but it will take a long time for the market to catch up, i.e. players that support it, etc. and the record industry (in the states, anyway) isnt exactly fast moving on new mediums
great topic Surrender
Gamma Riders EP out now on iTunes and Amazon.com!
The Daleks : www.myspace.com/thedaleksupreme
A-Boys : www.myspace.com/akibaboys |
|
|
|
The Tradesman
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
15
Posted : Dec 15, 2005 18:02
|
If recording something thats very detailed, acoustic guitar, piano etc... then yes i reckon it makes sense if its there.
For trance and electronic im not so sure... whats the point when the plan is to fu*k it up anyway? |
|
|
|
Colin OOOD
Moderator
Started Topics :
95
Posts :
5380
Posted : Dec 16, 2005 00:05
|
|
Boobytrip
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
39
Posts :
988
Posted : Dec 16, 2005 11:49
|
The decibel scale is defined relative to a reference point. If P1 and P2 denotes the power of two signal, then the difference in decibel is:
diff. = 10 log (P2/P1) dB (for power)
The sound power is proportional to the square of the pressure, hence:
diff. = 20 log (p2/p1) dB (for pressure/voltage)
This we adopt as a starting point for a digital decibel scale. If we at the same time set the reference point to the largest possible digital value, we have the dBFS (digital deciBel Full Scale). For VST instruments the sound samples are 32-bit floating point numbers in the range [-1;1], hence:
dBFS level = 20 log ( L ) (for VST signals)
Notice 20 log ( 0.5 ) = -6.0. It follows that for every bit of sample resolution, we increase the dynamic range 6 dB.
16 Bit CD audio corresponds to a 96 dB dynamics range. (Roughly the same as the difference between whispering and being at the front row of a rock concert).
24 Bit CD audio corresponds to a 144 dB range. (Roughly the difference from the threshold of hearing to the level at which the bones in the ear may break).
What about 32-Bit sound? Well, this is actually a floating point number having a mantissa of 24-bit (including sign bit) and an 8-bit exponent. The VST format only uses the range from [-1;1] so we are not getting a full 192 dB range. FP numbers can be implemented different ways, but typically the machine resolution is around 3*10^-8 (according to Numerical Recipes).
This corresponds to a maximum dynamic range of 153 dB. Thus the advantage of floating point numbers is not the higher dynamic range, but the simplicity of using them.
|
|
|
|
e-motion
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
933
Posted : Dec 16, 2005 15:16
|
|
nice infos here ! |
|
|
|
