And it's quite apparent in spectral view (of 'Epitaph', here)...no content above 24kHz even though the 'container' has a bandwidth of 48kHz. Silly audiophile blingery...
ELP Sample Rate Tangent
- Thread starter ssully
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
And it's quite apparent in spectral view (of 'Epitaph', here)...no content above 24kHz even though the 'container' has a bandwidth of 48kHz. Silly audiophile blingery...
There's no content above 24 kHz because a sampling rate of 48 kHz will have a cutoff frequency (or Nyquist frequency) at 24 kHz in order to prevent aliasing from occurring. So even for discs that have 96 kHz audio, you won't see any content past 48 kHz.
Yes, I know. Like I said, [48kHz SR-limited content mastered at 96kHz SR] is silly audiophile blingery.
Afaik a record can capture more details of the music with applying a higher sample rate even if the music doesn't have information above a certain frequency.
Plan9
800 Club - QQ All-Star
Don't go there with him.
Yeah, sampling theory, it's just another religious faith...don't go there. And it's just a theory. No one know how it really works.
NB that the later KC issues were released in...48/24. My god, they abandoned the detail!
NB that the later KC issues were released in...48/24. My god, they abandoned the detail!
jimfisheye
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 3,025
I shouldn't get sucked into religious arguments being an atheist and all...
In my experience higher sample rates have everything to do with the hardware converters running better and zero to do with capturing extended frequency range. You give the audible band a very wide margin. No more, no less. That an artifact of the system is it can capture frequencies above the range of hearing (and most loudspeakers) is a moot point.
My Apogee units sound pretty much just as good at 44.1k as 96k. Cheaper units will be more of a striking difference (like my MOTU converters). The loss from reduction to 16 bits at any sample rate is much more apparent. And even that needs a full range system to hear it. 24/96 is a really good modern format IMHO. Overkill in many circumstances for sure but so what. Audio delivery is covered. You REALLY have to go digging into the decimal dust if you have some kind of problem with that level of quality sound capture. Myself, I'm happy with anything 24 bit and free of lossy compression. I have converters of high enough quality to handle the lower sample rates elegantly.
16 bit CD's...
I mean this is still (or can be) very high fidelity in the big picture. It's just that it's 2015 and I'm not interested in someone reducing a 24 bit recording to 16 bit just because some people are still used to the 35 year old round shiny disc format.
The bigger problem with CD's is when someone realized that you needed a certain bit depth for a base for the quietest parts (ie. the low end of the dynamic range), you actually didn't have a very large usable dynamic range left. And this is the thing you hear with the format. But then they went too far with the volume war thing. The thing wrong with most CD's is the brick wall limiting and the high end eq hyping that happened before the audio was even converted to 16 bit.
As for this ELP release, not including a high def (ie. 24 bit) copy of the original master raises an eyebrow. If the tapes aren't missing... If the intention was for this to be an addendum to the album, the inclusion of a 16 bit reduction of the original master is awkward at best. If this was to be a definitive edition of the album (what it looked like), it's kind of an insulting blow to the original. With the missing material, dismissing the original mix by only including a 16 bit reduction and presenting the new mixes as the definitive replacement with loose studio jams (charming as they are) in place of the missing originals would have horrified the band back in the day.
If you're a surround sound lover and into ELP, these 5.1 remixes are excellent to have.
As a definitive edition, this manages to come across more like a bootleg in spite of the excellent high def surround mixes included. Considering the price this 'special edition' is selling for, I think that critique is warranted.
In my experience higher sample rates have everything to do with the hardware converters running better and zero to do with capturing extended frequency range. You give the audible band a very wide margin. No more, no less. That an artifact of the system is it can capture frequencies above the range of hearing (and most loudspeakers) is a moot point.
My Apogee units sound pretty much just as good at 44.1k as 96k. Cheaper units will be more of a striking difference (like my MOTU converters). The loss from reduction to 16 bits at any sample rate is much more apparent. And even that needs a full range system to hear it. 24/96 is a really good modern format IMHO. Overkill in many circumstances for sure but so what. Audio delivery is covered. You REALLY have to go digging into the decimal dust if you have some kind of problem with that level of quality sound capture. Myself, I'm happy with anything 24 bit and free of lossy compression. I have converters of high enough quality to handle the lower sample rates elegantly.
16 bit CD's...
I mean this is still (or can be) very high fidelity in the big picture. It's just that it's 2015 and I'm not interested in someone reducing a 24 bit recording to 16 bit just because some people are still used to the 35 year old round shiny disc format.
The bigger problem with CD's is when someone realized that you needed a certain bit depth for a base for the quietest parts (ie. the low end of the dynamic range), you actually didn't have a very large usable dynamic range left. And this is the thing you hear with the format. But then they went too far with the volume war thing. The thing wrong with most CD's is the brick wall limiting and the high end eq hyping that happened before the audio was even converted to 16 bit.
As for this ELP release, not including a high def (ie. 24 bit) copy of the original master raises an eyebrow. If the tapes aren't missing... If the intention was for this to be an addendum to the album, the inclusion of a 16 bit reduction of the original master is awkward at best. If this was to be a definitive edition of the album (what it looked like), it's kind of an insulting blow to the original. With the missing material, dismissing the original mix by only including a 16 bit reduction and presenting the new mixes as the definitive replacement with loose studio jams (charming as they are) in place of the missing originals would have horrified the band back in the day.
If you're a surround sound lover and into ELP, these 5.1 remixes are excellent to have.
As a definitive edition, this manages to come across more like a bootleg in spite of the excellent high def surround mixes included. Considering the price this 'special edition' is selling for, I think that critique is warranted.
Jim the Oldbie
My right elbow hurts.
Jim the Oldbie
My right elbow hurts.
Yup! Darwin, Nyquist... Who were they, anyway? Just a coupla guys like you & me.
-- Jim
Jim the Oldbie
My right elbow hurts.
As the caffeine kicks in:
There's also reasonable argument out there that simple oversampling at A-D and D-A will achieve most if not all of the hardware benefits of all this resource-hogging extreme-sample-rate stuff (especially 192K & up). Here are a few "secular" links:
Sampling, Oversampling, Imaging and Aliasing
The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better — And When It Isn’t)
24/192 Music Downloads - And Why They Make No Sense
-- Jim
There's also reasonable argument out there that simple oversampling at A-D and D-A will achieve most if not all of the hardware benefits of all this resource-hogging extreme-sample-rate stuff (especially 192K & up). Here are a few "secular" links:
Sampling, Oversampling, Imaging and Aliasing
The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better — And When It Isn’t)
24/192 Music Downloads - And Why They Make No Sense
-- Jim
Plan9
800 Club - QQ All-Star
I was just answering a question -please note I refrained commenting about the supposed, perceived or objective quality of the sound- and here we are.
Again. And again. And again.
Every single time sample rates or bit depth are mentionned, or even just hinted at, people are coming in to extol their knowledge. Personally I stopped writing about this. It's really religion to some people: one group always looking down, insulting, and finally trying to convince the other group. And conversely.
Can we go back to this particular ELP release?
Again. And again. And again.
Every single time sample rates or bit depth are mentionned, or even just hinted at, people are coming in to extol their knowledge. Personally I stopped writing about this. It's really religion to some people: one group always looking down, insulting, and finally trying to convince the other group. And conversely.
Can we go back to this particular ELP release?
Jim the Oldbie
My right elbow hurts.
You're right, this was not the time or the place. I apologize for the thread creep (and the snarkiness).
-- Jim
Plan9
800 Club - QQ All-Star
Jim, no worries. Honestly that was more of a general rant...
Similar threads
