I cant hear anything above 15 kHz, neither can most recording
microphones. So - for an end user delivery medium, sample rates above
44.1 kHz is in my opinion a waste of space. Listening tests performed
by the AES has also proven that hi-rez digital dont sound subjectively
better than 16-bit 44.1
Phil Leigh;316717 Wrote:
Not quite sure what you are all driving at here
I think the point of this discussion is making sure that you get what
you pay for. If I pay for a 24/96 record, I expect it to be a 24/96 one
and not upsampled 16/44.1. A well-known example is Norah Jones' Come
away with
StigErik;316893 Wrote:
I carefully listened to the two versions, and even if I wanted badly the
hi-rez file to sound best, I just couldnt hear any difference. The
reason for this? Could it be that the source materials (the vinyl) is
too limited in frequency response and dynamics? The noise
alekz;316914 Wrote:
I think the point of this discussion is making sure that you get what
you pay for. If I pay for a 24/96 record, I expect it to be a 24/96 one
and not upsampled 16/44.1. A well-known example is Norah Jones' Come
away with me SACD
I dont say that I cant hear any difference between the analog original
and a 16/44.1 recording. Such direct comparison is difficult to do in a
controlled form, and I would expect that in real life the analog
playback would actually sound worse because of acoustic feedback to
the turntable,
StigErik, I meant your vinyl - digital conversion. Not the original
24/96 recordings. I would use 24/96 (or at least 24/48) format just in
case, as a future proof solution, even if there is no obvious
difference at the moment.
--
alekz
alekz;316950 Wrote:
StigErik, I meant your vinyl - digital conversion. Not the original
24/96 recordings. I would use 24/96 (or at least 24/48) format just in
case, as a future proof solution, even if there is no obvious
difference at the moment.
As I said, it would be difficult to compare
StigErik;316956 Wrote:
As I said, it would be difficult to compare directly but I have a
strong feeling that the finished recordings generally sound better than
playing back the LP. I especially notice that the bass is much firmer
and better defined on the recordings. The main reason is
So, a few more hi-res files analysed by Adobe Edition 3.
These tracks were taken from (in order) -
1) Linn Records, 24/88 Studio Master of Mozart Symphonies
2) The Doors, The Doors 24/96
3) Philip Glass, Koyaanisqatsi, so-called 24/96!
I feel that many people forget the masking effect of frequencies at
higher levels than these audiophile frequencies above 20Khz. In the
general course of a piece of music there are few occasions when there
is space in the overall sound to hear high frequency material. If the
high frequencies are
pfarrell;316486 Wrote:
This shows all the over 20kHz stuff down 90 to 100 dB.
That means it is realistically non-existent.
Typically, down 70 dB means cut out completely since humans only
have about 90dB of range. Plus a quiet living room is typically 35dB,
and threshold of pain is about
It may be that as Linn have been recording specifically for SACD, that
they have DSD recording equipment. The peak at 30k could be DSD
artifacts.
--
bigfool1956
David Ayers
Music is what counts, hifi just helps us enjoy it more
May it be the high energy in the upper freqs is only dithering noise if
the source was dsd? Would make sense to shift strong dither up there.
--
Wombat
Transporter - Avantgarde based monoblocks - self-made speakers
Not quite sure what you are all driving at here, but IME there is very
little to be recorded at elevated frequencies, what there is is very
low in level and even then we can't hear it.
I never believed that 24/96 or higher was anything to do with (the need
for) capturing high frequencies that
So, I used Adobe Audition 3 to perform a frequency analysis of a
24-bit/96Khz 'Studio Master' file from Linn Records (it's the 'Amen'
from the Mozart Requiem). The FLAC was converted to WAV by foobar2000
before loading into Audition BTW.
I'm wondering why there's a bunch of high frequency
That's interesting... This is what SND said about B.Britten: Simple
Symphony, Op. 4, downloaded from http://www.2l.no/hires/index.html
(Stereo WAV 24/96):
' [image:
http://s263.photobucket.com/albums/ii158/alekz-net/audio/samples/th_2L50SACD_tr1_96k_stereowav.png]
'
For example, here is the Neumann site's spec sheet on the U87 mic, a
classic go to mic for vocals
http://www.neumann.com/zoom.php?zoomimg=./assets/diagrams/u87ai_diagrams.htmzoomlabel=Diagramw=878h=278
The classic Neumann M50 is spec'd at Frequency response: 40 - 16 000
cps
meaning 40 hZ to
The energy _must_ go to zero before reaching 48KHz because that is the
nyquist frequency. Note the log scale - that is exactly what happens,
although it may not look it at first glance.
But that is a very sharp drop indeed, and it's hard to say why it rises
so quickly after 22KHz before hitting
seanadams wrote:
The energy _must_ go to zero before reaching 48KHz because that is the
nyquist frequency. Note the log scale - that is exactly what happens,
although it may not look it at first glance.
True, that doesn't explain the relative peak from 30kHz to 40k or so.
Note, its down 35+
alekz;316365 Wrote:
This is the link to the picture:
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii158/alekz-net/audio/samples/2L50SACD_tr1_96k_stereowav.png
This shows all the over 20kHz stuff down 90 to 100 dB.
That means it is realistically non-existent.
Typically, down 70 dB means cut out
20 matches
Mail list logo
