what have I missed in these high sampling playback formats?
I'm not totally sure, but recalling my ever-so-tiny amount of knowledge pertaining to stereo CDs (44.1 khz, 22.05 khz per channel), I'd say the higher frequencies are for surround sound tracks or something of that nature.
stereo CDs (44.1 khz, 22.05 khz per channel)
Quote from: Prince Of All Saiyans on 17 February, 2012, 10:37:20 AMstereo CDs (44.1 khz, 22.05 khz per channel)The samplerate is 44.1kHz in order to properly preserve ~20kHz of bandwidth. It has nothing to do with it being in stereo.
to stereo CDs (44.1 khz, 22.05 khz per channel)
10 or 20 years ago getting equipment capable of producing sounds up to 40 or more kHz was very costly, now you just go and buy a $200 sound card, a $400 loudspeaker, and you're there.
I'm still confused as to why studios use really high sampling frequencies. I have a vague understanding of why higher bit depths might be needed for adujsting levels, but I don't get why they need higher sampling rates.
For producing sound/music then higher bit depths and sample rates can have advantages (and disadvantages).- time stretch and other granular based pitch/time changes allow smaller grain size, and relatively smoother grain size resolution. A clearly audible difference can be heard here.- signal processing at higher depth/resolution can preserve signals above above audible frequencies that will affect the sound at audible frequencies i.e. control signals may have less audible artefacts at hight depth/resolution. Simular to above.- resampling to change pitch is a common process. Resampling at higher resolution will remain more faithful to the original, and sounds outside of the audible range may be transposed down whereas if sampled at 44.1 you may end up with dull sounds when pitched down (although, who knows what is up there!).
I don't think any of this is true with respect to sampling rate, since any effect processing could trivially upsample if it actually needed to prior to processing. Like I said before, I think the ral reason that higher sampling rates are used is that they exist and there is no real down side to using them so people use them. People really do like bigger numbers.
the processing has a clearly audible difference.
Quote from: saratoga on 19 February, 2012, 07:08:13 PMI don't think any of this is true with respect to sampling rate, since any effect processing could trivially upsample if it actually needed to prior to processing. Like I said before, I think the ral reason that higher sampling rates are used is that they exist and there is no real down side to using them so people use them. People really do like bigger numbers.Depends on the software. For example, ableton live time stretch is based on the DAW setting, Reaktor has its own processing settings, and UAD has 192 sample rate as standard.
Im not saying higher is better for all situations, but these are some which do benefit from higher numbers.
On the flip side, I could imagine a situation where a CD would have been better off coming from a 44.1 native project than a 96 kHz project due to quantisation error,
I won't repeat or elaborate on my original points until I have some evidence, but I would like to respond that quantisation does have something to with sample rates when you change them.
I understand this is a forum for scientists, but I didn't realise scientists could be so tetchy! I'm not trying to get one over anyone, just puttin some perspective accross that might be relevant.
I'll prepare an ABX test of ableton live at different sample rates.
I would like to respond that quantisation does have something to with sample rates when you change them.
Ps, reread my previous post, sorry if I come across as an arse saratoga - bit of a rash comment from me, I just felt like I was being hung out to dry when it wasn't warranted. Think I 'get' this forum that little bit more now, and the rigours required from participants. (although how did the guy who said each channel has half the samples get off Scott free?!? ;-)
Saratoga, just seen your latest. I appreciate I need to explain myself, but I don't believe I've actually said anything incorrect. Your arguments don't leave much room for any truth that may reside in my blabbering, yet there is something in what I'm saying.
What I've said previously re sample rates/depths has been too vague, which is evidently a cardinal sin round here, I will seek to improve that, but is it really right to rubbish my points because they are poorly expressed?
Presumably higher bit depth give you more range to play with when recording. Someone may correct me on that one.
Higher depth/resolution hardware tends to be more inaccurate, jitter etc.
Processing overhead and disk space usage could be quite insane.