The increasing popularity of high playback sampling rates could be attributed to a not entirely irrational desire for margin (overkill).

Quote from: Bartholomew MacGruber on 2012-02-19 14:14:13

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.

Because even professional recording engineers can be subject to the same magical thinking and lack of scientific rigor we commonly see among audiophiles. It's just as easy to start a religious war about this stuff in a recording forum as it is in a hi-fi forum.

--Ethan

Good point.

Using higher sampling rates is virtually a no-cost option today. AFAIK every decent converter that is designed for use in audio production work has sample rate options up to 24/192. The extra storage and processing required by the need to handle integer multiples more data are now readily available. This even extends to highly portable equipment.

The same can be said of the use of longer data words.

Neither of them are generally effective at actually producing better sound quality, but as the thinking goes - since: "They cost me nothing and give me the perception of reduced risk..."

Actually, there are occasionally (note the qualification) reasons to be working at a higher sampling rate. If you must do nonlinear processing for some reason, a higher sampling rate helps ensure that aliasing of harmonics does not happen.

Just mostly dismissing it is reasonable.
Having said that, indeed, there is a lot of magical thinking in some of the production folks.

Neither of them are generally effective at actually producing better sound quality, but as the thinking goes - since: "They cost me nothing and give me the perception of reduced risk..."

I look forward to the day when both higher sample rates and greater bit-depths are widely adopted, not because I feel they offer an improvement in SQ, but because I think (admittedly perhaps mistakenly) that they will offer less opportunity for the sowing of FUD in the consumer.

No matter how big of a number you have people will eventually find a way to bullshit about a bigger one.

I understand how you feel, but IMO it is only a feeling. The less people act out of their hopelessness the greater the likelihood things will change. Once we get to 192k it'll be really hard to argue the necessity for anything more.

Quote from: icstm on 2012-02-20 16:19:00

In fact, before I sample to 44.1, I could process my signal at the higher sampling rate to not include frequencies above 22k.

Which is called a low pass filter that acts as an anti-aliasing filter.

Right, I see that we were talking about removal of greater than Nyquist in the digital domain prior to reconstruction.  Still lots of concern about anti-aliasing/anti-imaging, but not a lot of objective data demonstrating that it's been a problem over the last decade if not longer?

My understanding is that an anti-aliasing filter is applied prior to digitisation, to remove the ambiguity that arises from sampling.
What I am suggesting within the digital domain. In the digital (sampled) domain, the probablems that others have pointed to around anologue low pass filters do not apply.

...the fact that 16bits per channel of information sampled at 44.1kHz is a suitable way to store music and is not improved upon by higher formats.

No matter how big of a number you have people will eventually find a way to bullshit about a bigger one.

I've always thought that school kids should be taught logic

and consumerism

My personal belief (and I make no apologies in presenting it and would be honored to be credited in its fulfillment) is that the audiophile rags and their faith-based minions aren't going to stop pushing for more once they've reached some arbitrary threshold.

During transit through the Quantum Purifier, quantum noise energy is stripped off the electrons, streamlining their flow through ensuing conductors.

In traditional filtering networks, very high frequency noise circumvents capacitors and coils. Without using such traditional filtering elements, the Firewall is a direct enhancement to the unique filtering technology employed in the LessLoss DFPC Signature power cord.

Quote from: Walter_Odington on 2012-02-20 01:34:51

What I meant originally was that by converting to a new sample rate, some of the new samples will be have a position in time in between old samples, and as such require some computational decision to be made on their value (interpolation or rounding or prediction or whatever system is in place). Whatever the process involved, the new values will have a lesser accuracy and the signal will have been degraded.

The process is called interpolation, and no, thats not generally a problem.  Interpolation can be done with essentially unlimited accuracy, such that it is widely regarded (assuming proper implementation of course) as having no impact on quality.  Do a search, this has been discussed to death and in far more detail then I have time for.

Quote from: Walter_Odington on 2012-02-20 01:34:51

Ill try to elaborate on the suggestion that granular time stretching can benefit from a higher sample rate. When time stretching, the sound is split up in to little grains of the ms magnitude. The larger the grain, the more noticeable the granulation when the tempo is lowered

Since any time stretch algorithm can set the sampling rate as high as it likes for processing purposes, it doesn't really matter what the input sampling rate is.

Quote from: Walter_Odington on 2012-02-20 01:34:51

Similarly, when sampling a sound and then playing it back at a different pitch there is benefit to processing at a higher sample rate. Samplers re-pitch sound, and this is almost always done by resampling. If the sample contains audio up until half the sample frequency then it follows that a 48kHz sample played back at the original pitch has an upper limit of 24khz. If this is played back two octaves lower then the upper limit of the sound spectrum is 6khz.

Well yes, for recording ultrasounic information, higher sampling rates are quite obviously useful.  But we're talking about music.  Not, bat calls.  Music is generally assumed to occupy the range of frequencies humans can here, and for those 48k is quite sufficient.  If you wish to record things that humans cannot hear, then by all means go buy a 1MHz A/D.

Quote from: saratoga on 2012-02-20 04:59:37

Quote from: Walter_Odington on 2012-02-20 01:34:51

What I meant originally was that by converting to a new sample rate, some of the new samples will be have a position in time in between old samples, and as such require some computational decision to be made on their value (interpolation or rounding or prediction or whatever system is in place). Whatever the process involved, the new values will have a lesser accuracy and the signal will have been degraded.

The process is called interpolation, and no, thats not generally a problem.  Interpolation can be done with essentially unlimited accuracy, such that it is widely regarded (assuming proper implementation of course) as having no impact on quality.  Do a search, this has been discussed to death and in far more detail then I have time for.

I'm very surprised to hear that resampling can be achieved with limitless accuracy, however if it's been done to death on here then I can accept that there must truth in what your saying. With the kind of real world examples that I'm talking about, samplers etc, there is not limitless accuracy. I know this is a sweeping statement with no ABX tests, but with that caveat I continue to assert it because there is truth in it. My main concern about sampling is preserving the frequency content when pitching down.

Sorry original poster, I've taken this off topic. Half the time I'm listening to spotify, so that shows you my stance. Also I'm still buying vinyl, so judging my what I perceive to be the prevailing thoughts on this forum I can be disregarded as a Luddite anyway.

I think it goes well beyond the magazines. The manufacturers of equipment like http://www.lessloss.com/firewall-p-196.html and http://www.bybeetech.com/ourtech.asp are not going to "stop that" regardless.

Define "magical thinking".

Sorry for the OT rant, but I feel very strongly about this subject.

Magical thinking at its best...

http://www.musicalsounds.us/PDF/AADACI.pdf

Is that even possible?