When more isn't always better

[GreenKiwi]

This is an interesting well put together article on sampling rates in digital audio. Well worth a bit of a read.

trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

[jmilton]

Mar 11, 2013 11:38:39 GMT -5 GreenKiwi said:

This is an interesting well put together article on sampling rates in digital audio. Well worth a bit of a read.

trustmeimascientist.com/2013/02/04/the-science-of-sample-rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

Nice article. Perhaps that is why Telarc recorded @ 50kHz, early on...

www.telarc.com/About/Digital.aspx

[The Mad Norseman]

An interesting article (from a web source I've never heard of before, but...). This part I thought WAS interesting:
"Unless the Nyquist Theorem is ever disproved, it stands that any increase in sample rates cannot increase fidelity within the audible spectrum. At all. Extra data points yield no improvement".

Okay, but just listen to the same piece of music, played on the same player, from a 44.1kHz CD, and then the same (level adjusted) music on Blu-ray audio format and tell me there's no difference...
Night and day difference.

But I will agree that the law of diminishing returns does kick in at higher sample rates though - and (just like "high-end" audio) you start getting far less for much more cost (or sample rate in this case) the higher up you go.

[Deleted]

I used to mix tracks back in college and my DAW software (FL Studio) had an option to output in many different ways. From 8-32 bit. While the file size at 32 bit was around a gb for a 5 minute track, it sounded no different than the 8 bit version.

[drtrey3]

My wife can tell a downsampled version from a high res version from the other room. She has no investment in them sounding better and was minding her own business but stuck her head in and asked "What happened to the music?" when I switched from 24/96 to 16/44 of the same song.

Now, it is difficult on my rig to hear the diff between 24/96 and 24/192 on my rig. In fact, I am not sure I can! So I am not willing to pay a premium for that higher rate until I can hear a worthwhile difference. But 24/96 is SO good I just opened Tarkus dvd-a! Can't wait to hear that puppy!

Trey

[yves]

Mar 11, 2013 15:07:41 GMT -5 drtrey3 said:

My wife can tell a downsampled version from a high res version from the other room.

So can I, but I can also hear the difference between 24/96 and 24/192 even though it's subtle. Barry Diament claims the audible difference between 24/96 and 24/192 is in fact far bigger than the audible difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96 and, personally, I, think the whole "192 kHz makes no sense" argument is just a poor excuse that comes from people who have invested too much of their money into (now mostly) obsolete 96 kHz technology. ;D