Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers? (Read 1915 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

I am wondering if there is any point in having "standard" frequency audio content in a high resolution containers.

By standard frequency: I am thinking of any thing that could be stored in standard CD resolution, or yet that can be heard ... so frequencies up to 22.05 kHz.
By high resolution I mean any format using higher sample rate, things like 96 kHz, 192 kHz (just examples).

Keeping in mind that a given sample rate of N Hz, should be enough to store frequencies up to N/2 Hz.

One of the reasons why I am wondering is that I have noticed that some high resolution files purchased from "hi res" platforms do not necessarily contain frequencies above 20~22 kHz, or sometimes it just looks like extrapolated noise. (My first thought is that this could just be placebo to increase price.)

Second reason why I am wondering is a parellel with image refresh rate.
Human eye is supposed to see up to 10~12 images per seconds (ips) < 24 ips is standard in cinema < but we can perceive a difference in contents shot at 50 or 60 ips (the fact that some people like it or not is not the point here) < some gamers claim they can see the benefit of monitor with refresh rates as high as 120 or 240 Hz.
(Maybe this parallel has some limitation since audio and images are different?)

Do high resolution enable more accurate sound or something like that?

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Maxym on
I am wondering if there is any point in having "standard" frequency audio content in a high resolution containers.
[...]
(My first thought is that this could just be placebo to increase price.)

Good thought :-)
Same goes for extreme bit depths. Indeed you can buy music at "24 bits" where the eight at the bottom are zero - they have taken a 16 bit signal and padded it up with zeroes.

As for the image refresh rate analogy ... whether the following is relevant or not: isn't monitor refresh rate "fixed"? Typically, an audio DAC will have to detect whether it receives samples at a 44100 rate or at a 48000 rate, and adjust.

Anyway, there are reasons to oversample during playback. (An obvious one is a less complex filter to do away with the sampling noise.) But that doesn't justify stupid files.

Also there are theoretical reasons to digitize at extreme resolutions: to capture the tape bias tone and use that to adjust speed. Not for an end-user format though.

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #2 –
Thank you.

Quote from: Porcus on
isn't monitor refresh rate "fixed"? Typically, an audio DAC will have to detect whether it receives samples at a 44100 rate or at a 48000 rate, and adjust.

Yes, and some monitors can set it up to 240 Hz as far as I know. But then, the number of images the GPU card is able to generate per second may vary. (I don't know much more, I'm not into that kind of performances).
I was mentionning this in the analogy because, as I can see the difference between between 24 ips and 60 ips with my 10~12 Hz eyes, some people claim they can see a difference up to 120/240 Hz.

Quote from: Porcus on
Not for an end-user format though.

Yes, I completely forgot to mention this in my post. I know that there reason to digitise and work sound at high resolution/high bit rate. But my question here is in the context of end-user and if we can actually perceive something different just because of the sample rate.

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Maxym on
and if we can actually perceive something different just because of the sample rate.
Yes, possibly more unwanted intermodulation distortion ;-)
(Famously, that has shown up in some experiments that did "detect" ultrasonic hearing. In some of those, the subjects didn't hear the high frequencies, only the distortion that the equipment created down into the audible range. But I do not know any evidence that it has mattered audibly in actual music sampled at 88.2k or 96k.
If anyone has any results from experiments that indicate any actual harm in 88.2 or 96, ...?)

Oh, and the DSD format "needs" filtering. This sort of bit stream creates a ton of distortion above the audible range, and should be filtered at least for the sake of safety.

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #4 –
Quote from: Maxym on
Second reason why I am wondering is a parellel with image refresh rate.
Human eye is supposed to see up to 10~12 images per seconds (ips) < 24 ips is standard in cinema < but we can perceive a difference in contents shot at 50 or 60 ips (the fact that some people like it or not is not the point here) < some gamers claim they can see the benefit of monitor with refresh rates as high as 120 or 240 Hz.
(Maybe this parallel has some limitation since audio and images are different?)
You really can't compare the two.

If I have a very, very power flash that creates light for 1/100.000th of a second, you can see that flash. Saying that eyes can perceive images with 100.000Hz from that observation is folly however. The real 'samping rate' of eyes is very dependent on a number of factors, like brightness. See for example this.

Eyes and ears are very different. The physics of light and sound are very different. It makes no sense comparing the two.
Music: sounds arranged such that they construct feelings.

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #5 –
Quote from: Maxym on
...
Second reason why I am wondering is a parellel with image refresh rate.
Human eye is supposed to see up to 10~12 images per seconds (ips) < 24 ips is standard in cinema < but we can perceive a difference in contents shot at 50 or 60 ips (the fact that some people like it or not is not the point here) < some gamers claim they can see the benefit of monitor with refresh rates as high as 120 or 240 Hz.
(Maybe this parallel has some limitation since audio and images are different?)

Do high resolution enable more accurate sound or something like that?
Beyond 60-100FPS which is where most people seem to cap out visually the main benefit is reduced input latency, which is why professional gamers increase FPS to 300+ if they can regardless of the refresh rate of the monitor. Passively watching a screen and actively playing a game are very different things.

Quote from: Porcus on
...
As for the image refresh rate analogy ... whether the following is relevant or not: isn't monitor refresh rate "fixed"? Typically, an audio DAC will have to detect whether it receives samples at a 44100 rate or at a 48000 rate, and adjust.
...
Variable refresh rate has existed on PC for years (freesync, adaptive-sync), similar possibly renamed tech is now in consoles so in a decade or so it should be common in TVs too. Instead of 60Hz say you have an output range of something like 40-60Hz which eliminates screen tearing if you can stay in the range. Different monitors have different ranges etc. I'm assuming video output is simplified by outputting each frame of 23.97FPS content twice so the monitor runs at 47.96Hz instead of having to do interpolation magic, haven't looked too deeply at it.
 

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #6 –
Quote
I am wondering if there is any point in having "standard" frequency audio content in a high resolution containers.

By standard frequency: I am thinking of any thing that could be stored in standard CD resolution, or yet that can be heard ... so frequencies up to 22.05 kHz.

There's no point in ultrasonic frequencies in any audio file, no matter the format.  For audio you only need audio frequencies. ;)  

And there's the possibility of negative side effects with ultrasonic (or subsonic) frequencies but it's usually not a problem.

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #7 –
There's no need for anything higher than CDDA spec for listening. Higher bit depths or sample rates may be beneficial in audio processing.

As for video, 10-12 fps doesn't seem right - it might be minimum for perception of motion - below that you'd rather see movement as quick jumpy slideshow...
Framerates over 60Hz mostly help reduce motion blur, which on LCD display is significant even on my 144Hz monitor. Other way to reduce motion blur is strobing (something natural for CRT displays, hence they had nearly no motion blur).

Here's a great webpage with many tests showing these things:
https://www.testufo.com

And the parent website with all the knowledge:
https://blurbusters.com

Re: Standard freqnecy content in high resolution containers?

Reply #8 –
Quote from: DVDdoug on
Quote
I am wondering if there is any point in having "standard" frequency audio content in a high resolution containers.

By standard frequency: I am thinking of any thing that could be stored in standard CD resolution, or yet that can be heard ... so frequencies up to 22.05 kHz.

There's no point in ultrasonic frequencies in any audio file, no matter the format.  For audio you only need audio frequencies. ;)  

And there's the possibility of negative side effects with ultrasonic (or subsonic) frequencies but it's usually not a problem.

Agreed, but depending on who you are, 'ultrasonics' is not well defined.