Skip to main content

Topic: Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/ (Read 311191 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • William
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Yes, I have searched the forum.
Yes, maybe I am dumb.

But it seems I cannot find the answer.

Why do we need 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/192kHz if 16bit/44.1kHz is good enough? Are there any situations that 16bit/44.1kHz simply cannot satisfy? In other words, is there any real need for the higher bit depth and sampling rate?

Thanks for answering.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 07:47:19 AM by William

  • Lyx
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #1
Quote
Why do we need 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/192kHz if 16bit/44.1kHz is good enough?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353038"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We dont need it. It's just virtual useless number-games to give people the incentive to buy new equipment and then re-buy all our music. There are some *technical* arguments for using 48khz instead of 44khz.... but the actual benefit for normal endusers is zero.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 07:55:28 AM by Lyx
I am arrogant and I can afford it because I deliver.

  • William
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #2
I heard someone saying that increasing the sampling rate improves the SNR. I simply don't get it. It would be grateful if someone can enlighten me on this as well.

Thank you.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 08:10:47 AM by William

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #3
Quote
I heard someone saying that increasing the sampling rate improves the SNR. I simply don't get it. It would be grateful if someone can enlighten me on this as well.

Thank you.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353047"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Normally, improving sampling rate improves bandwidth, not SNR. SNR is improved by increasing bit depth. Noise shaping allows trading bandwidth for effective SNR.

The question is why one would need a SNR of >96dB or a bandwidth of over 22kHz for end user playback.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 08:13:36 AM by Garf

  • William
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #4
Quote
Normally, improving sampling rate improves bandwidth, not SNR. SNR is improved by increasing bit depth. Noise shaping allows trading bandwidth for effective SNR.

This is exactly what I am wondering...

What I learnt is that, in frequency domain, the higher the sampling rate, the larger the bandwidth, and the farther away between the base band and its images..

And I see nothing related to SNR by improving sampling rate.

Would you please give me more information on noise shaping?

Quote
The question is why one would need a SNR of >96dB or a bandwidth of over 22kHz for end user playback.

Then why DVD audio uses 96kHz? This is something I always wonder.

Thank you.

  • bizangoin
  • [*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #5
I totally agree with you all. Increasing sample rate and bit depth is not perceptible, excepting for some animals.

Sony Super Audio Compact Disc (SACD) is the fine high end example of the no-use technology. Sony claims to consumers his high sample rate, bandwidth etc but do not claim that 0.00001% could hear the difference.

Moreover, even if you have a HD Player with 100 kHz bandwidth, you have to get the same characteristics for the whole audio elements (amplifiers, loudspeakers).

"The audio quality of a sound equipment set is equal to the audio quality of the worst device."

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #6
Quote
Would you please give me more information on noise shaping?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353055"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Use the search function.

  • William
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #7
I am sorry. Thanks.

  • singaiya
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #8
Quote
Why do we need 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/192kHz if 16bit/44.1kHz is good enough? Are there any situations that 16bit/44.1kHz simply cannot satisfy? In other words, is there any real need for the higher bit depth and sampling rate?

Thanks for answering.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353038"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I have read that if you are recording music and performing several layers of edits and signal processing, that higher sampling and/or bit depth may be of actual value to the final mixdown. I don't do that kind of work, so that is hearsay pretty much. For simple audio playback you are correct, 16/44.1 is totally sufficient.

  • rosshmusic
  • [*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #9
I agree that it makes no difference to end users...  though there are technical reasons why this would have its advantages...

most of it comes from the way hardware plays back music.... it has to do with the enforcements of peaks... each sample is essentially enforced as a peak in the reproduced sound wave... but this should NOT be the case... the sample may have been taken along any part of the wave (and most likely not at a peak)...

The affects of this are mostly negligable and hardware also works to minimize the affects... but it shouldn't have to... and higher sampling rates allow the hardware to start  with a closer reresentation to the original wave...

I'll look for some articles about this "phenom"... I actually looked them up a year or two ago cause an audiophile engineer I know was telling me about it and I didn't believe him...

in the end the LARGE majority people would never be able to tell... and I think most of the reason CD's sound like s**t to me is due to gawd awful compression they fell they need to put on the CD's 

Peace
Ross

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #10
Quote
I agree that it makes no difference to end users...  though there are technical reasons why this would have its advantages...

most of it comes from the way hardware plays back music.... it has to do with the enforcements of peaks... each sample is essentially enforced as a peak in the reproduced sound wave... but this should NOT be the case... the sample may have been taken along any part of the wave (and most likely not at a peak)...

The affects of this are mostly negligable and hardware also works to minimize the affects... but it shouldn't have to... and higher sampling rates allow the hardware to start  with a closer reresentation to the original wave...

I'll look for some articles about this "phenom"... I actually looked them up a year or two ago cause an audiophile engineer I know was telling me about it and I didn't believe him...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353155"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This really doesn't make any sense at all.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 03:48:41 PM by Garf

  • bug80
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #11
Quote
I have read that if you are recording music and performing several layers of edits and signal processing, that higher sampling and/or bit depth may be of actual value to the final mixdown. I don't do that kind of work, so that is hearsay pretty much.

Exactly. In the digital domain you make rounding errors due to the quantization. If an engineer does all the processing in the 16 bit domain, these rounding errors will build up and therefore decrease the signal to noise ratio. If all the processing is done in the 24 bit domain and the audio is quantized to 16 bits per sample afterwards, these rounding errors will be negligible.

A higher sampling rate is not really necessary.

Quote
For simple audio playback you are correct, 16/44.1 is totally sufficient.[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353114"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also think that's the case. I don't think many people are able to ABX 24 bit versus 16 bit audio, for example. Or 44.1 kHz versus 48 kHz.

edit: I can imagine that a higher sampling rate can be of use if multiple anti-aliasing filters exist in a recording chain. Each anti-aliasing filter will remove high frequencies, so multiple filters may remove too much energy from the high frequency bands. However, in most studios only one A/D converter with anti-aliasing filter is present in the chain (for example in the mixing desk).
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 04:20:25 PM by bug80

  • listen
  • [*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #12
I had a thread here: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=17118

It is quite an indirect and meandering thread (experimentation, disbelief etc), but amongst all of it are some definite abx results.

The trouble is, there is no way I can say for certain that i am not simply hearing large errors introduced by my headphones.  And since headphones on the market do not seem to be designed for such high resolution there is not much i can do about that.

  • Tool462
  • [*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #13
ok, i'm a newb so don't give me some slack, but wouldn't that mean that CDs are the last audio format we'd need for the foreseeable future? I mean I know from previous posts that DVD Audio is useless, so anything better than CDs with only 2 channels is pretty useless.

  • rosshmusic
  • [*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #14
Quote
Quote
I agree that it makes no difference to end users...  though there are technical reasons why this would have its advantages...

most of it comes from the way hardware plays back music.... it has to do with the enforcements of peaks... each sample is essentially enforced as a peak in the reproduced sound wave... but this should NOT be the case... the sample may have been taken along any part of the wave (and most likely not at a peak)...

The affects of this are mostly negligable and hardware also works to minimize the affects... but it shouldn't have to... and higher sampling rates allow the hardware to start  with a closer reresentation to the original wave...

I'll look for some articles about this "phenom"... I actually looked them up a year or two ago cause an audiophile engineer I know was telling me about it and I didn't believe him...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This really doesn't make any sense at all.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353156"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


heh... I thought the same thing when I read it back... I'm not the best to explain obviously... I didn't have time (and can't recall where) to find the resources we found talking about this... but I did find this one (which is not the one I remember but talks about the same thing)....
[a href="http://www.themusicpage.org/articles/SamplingTheory.html]http://www.themusicpage.org/articles/SamplingTheory.html[/url]

any better?

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #15
Quote
http://www.themusicpage.org/articles/SamplingTheory.html

any better?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353170"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


A paper where the author doesn't seem to correctly understand Nyquist is not an acceptable argument, no.

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #16
Quote
ok, i'm a newb so don't give me some slack, but wouldn't that mean that CDs are the last audio format we'd need for the foreseeable future? I mean I know from previous posts that DVD Audio is useless, so anything better than CDs with only 2 channels is pretty useless.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353167"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Well, the advantage of DVDA and SACD is exactly that they are multichannel. And have DRM, which is obviously a big advantage to some people.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 06:02:10 PM by Garf

  • rosshmusic
  • [*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #17
Quote
Quote
http://www.themusicpage.org/articles/SamplingTheory.html

any better?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353170"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


A paper where the author doesn't seem to correctly understand Nyquist is not an acceptable argument, no.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353188"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

where does he go askew .... ?

Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #18
I have to step out and disagree that there is no audible difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings. The decision to use 16/44.1 was arrived at, not because it was audio nirvana, but because it was the best comprimise possible with the digital to analogue conversion technology of the 80's.

To hear the benifits of 24-bit vs. 16-bit, you need a few things:

1) Capable and descriminating ears. The fact is that no everyone can hear the difference, and that's fine. However, even with a capable ear, the individual has to know what he's looking for. We're talking about very subtle points here, the difference is not going to be night and day.

2) Capable audio equipment. Just because you have a DVD-A or SACD player doesn't mean your system is capable of delivering an audible difference. You need very good equipment to make 24-bit listening worth your while.

3) Quality recording. It doesn't matter if the recording is 64-bits - if it was poorly recorded, and poorly produced, it's going to sound poor. Adding another 8 bits is not a magical fix-all.

Quote
Well, the advantage of DVDA and SACD is exactly that they are multichannel. And have DRM, which is obviously a big advantage to some people.


I disagree with this, especially with respect to SACD. Alot of hardcore audiophiles (the people who would be investing in expensive high bit recordings) feel very strongly that music should only bet two channels.

In SACD multichannel is optional, but 2-channel is required; in other words every SACD will have high-bit two channel audio, but not necessarily multichannel.
  • Last Edit: 29 December, 2005, 09:14:03 PM by Revliskciuq

  • William
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #19
OK, so here are some more technical questions I found...

1) The 44.1kHz has its historical reasons, but how about 48kHz, 96kHz, or even 192kHz?
How are these numbers chosen? Any technical and practical advantage over 44.1kHz? And why creative cards resamples to these sampling rates?

2) 16bits, 24bits, 32bits, etc, I think these values are chosen because they form complete bytes (1 byte = 8 bits). Or are there any other reasons for the numbers higher than 16bits? Again, any technical and practical advantages over 16bits, besides keeping accuracy and preventing errors from various quantization before final down-mixing?

What I only see is that, these higher numbers mean more data is sampled and stored with higher accuracy, and thus gives theoretically higher quality than 16bits/44.1kHz. But, oh well, they are only theoretical after all. Practically we may not hear a single difference...

  • bug80
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #20
Quote
where does he go askew .... ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353233"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Nyquist theorem states that frequencies below the Nyquist frequency can be sampled correctly, not at the Nyquist frequency, to begin with.
  • Last Edit: 30 December, 2005, 07:54:53 AM by bug80

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #21
Quote
I have to step out and disagree that there is no audible difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recordings. The decision to use 16/44.1 was arrived at, not because it was audio nirvana, but because it was the best comprimise possible with the digital to analogue conversion technology of the 80's.

To hear the benifits of 24-bit vs. 16-bit, you need a few things:

1) Capable and descriminating ears. The fact is that no everyone can hear the difference, and that's fine. However, even with a capable ear, the individual has to know what he's looking for. We're talking about very subtle points here, the difference is not going to be night and day.

2) Capable audio equipment. Just because you have a DVD-A or SACD player doesn't mean your system is capable of delivering an audible difference. You need very good equipment to make 24-bit listening worth your while.

3) Quality recording. It doesn't matter if the recording is 64-bits - if it was poorly recorded, and poorly produced, it's going to sound poor. Adding another 8 bits is not a magical fix-all.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353234"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Practise disagrees with your suppositions. Is there any proof that we can hear beyond 96dB SNR?

Practical experiments have shown most listeners already get into problems hearing to the 13th bit (78db SNR). If you think you (or another person) can do better, please let them take the MAD challenge with whatever equipment and ears you want, come back aftwards, and see if you would still tell me there is a practical reason to have more.

For the record, claiming you hear over 100dB SNR equals claiming you can hear the person next to you breathing while listening to a live rock concert. Still sounds reasonable?
  • Last Edit: 30 December, 2005, 08:07:32 AM by Garf

  • boombaard
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #22
so, on a slightly different note, would the 24/96 recordings be harder to saturate (eg. to master crappily and make it clip?)

if so, it might be preferable with all the 'new' music that comes out

  • Garf
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer (Donating)
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #23
Quote
so, on a slightly different note, would the 24/96 recordings be harder to saturate (eg. to master crappily and make it clip?)

if so, it might be preferable with all the 'new' music that comes out
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No, it's exactly the same as with CD.

People have already noted that many SACD and DVDA recordings are just as clipped and compressed as CD's.

  • boombaard
  • [*][*][*][*]
Why 24bit/48kHz/96kHz/
Reply #24
Quote
Quote
so, on a slightly different note, would the 24/96 recordings be harder to saturate (eg. to master crappily and make it clip?)

if so, it might be preferable with all the 'new' music that comes out
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353307"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


No, it's exactly the same as with CD.

People have already noted that many SACD and DVDA recordings are just as clipped and compressed as CD's.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=353308"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


how odd.. since the SNR is that much higher, it can't be that they just master it for sacd/dvda and then use that same mastering for cd, since it would, if i'm not mistaken, be clipped much worse than on the 24/bla version..
i wonder what the point of their advertising with 'higher quality' is it's basically just higher volume out of the box
  • Last Edit: 30 December, 2005, 08:38:40 AM by boombaard