Hi all =AD just thought I=B9d chime in on this one:
There is definitely a benefit to higher sample rates when recording some
sources =AD many dolphins, for example, communicate at frequencies that won=
=B9t
even register @ a 44kHz/16 bit sample rate. I have 1st hand experience of
this recording pink dolphins in the amazon =AD there were several of us usi=
ng
more or less comparable equipment, and when doing a spectographic
comparison you could clearly see that those recording at 96/24 were
capturing a lot of activity in the upper frequency ranges that the rest of
us weren=B9t. Of course, you couldn=B9t hear it unless it was pitched down,=
but
there were some fascinating sounds...
On 9-01-13 6:15 PM, "Robin" <> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Raimund wrote:
>> >
>>> > > I'm guessing this is purely techno babble.
>> >
>> > Hi Max,
>> >
>> > I fully agree on that. We recently talked here about the misinformatio=
n
>> that is circulating in the professional audio domain and this is a good
>> example for that (thanks very much to Eric for providing safe informatio=
n on
>> the subject).
>> >
>> > The strange thing is that a hole industry is partly built on false
>> assumptions. Why do they advertize mass-market recording equipment suppo=
rting
>> sample rates of up to 96 or 192 kHz if nobody can hear anything above 18=
kHz?
>> In fact it is just a waste of resources...
>
> I believe there is much research to the contrary, though it is not my are=
a, so
> unfortunately references are not forthcoming.
>
> I do remember the days before CD, reading the white papers as the tech
> departments tried to bash out the standard. I recall, hopefully not false=
ly,
> that Sony wanted a 100 KHz sampling rate, or thereabouts. Now, of course,=
we
> have 96 KHz as a hi-end alternative, but this was far from being delivera=
ble
> at the time.
>
> Still, Sony held out for a higher rate since psychoacoustic research had =
shown
> that frequencies well above the so-called 20 KHz maximum affected one's
> impression of a sound. (I additionally recall they used solo piano as a t=
est
> case.)
>
> Whereas Philips wanted 32KHz or lower, because their concern was to make
> something cheap and get it out the door. The compromise was 44.1 KHz, as =
we
> know.
>
> I could once hear a clear but subtle difference between the CD standard a=
nd
> higher sampling rates. But only in the studio with excellent source mater=
ial.
> Thankfully/regrettably I am older now, and doubt I could do the same.
>
> I also used to be able to hear bats. The sound was most uncomfortable to =
me.
> In fact, I would not characterise it as a "sound" as such. Maybe others w=
ith
> more experience know what I mean.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> ....................................
>>>
>>> http://michaeltrommer.blogspot.com/
>>> http://soundcloud.com/sans-soleil/
>>> http://michaeltrommer.bandcamp.com/
>>> http://www.mixcloud.com/sans_soleil/
|