• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Topic: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    http://mixonline.com/recording/mixin..._new_sampling/


    The study was published in this past September's Journal of the Audio Engineering Society under the title “Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted Into High-Resolution Audio Playback

  2. #2

    Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    In my non-scientific tests with Yes' Close to the Edge on CD and DVD-A, the difference I heard was a better soundstage with DVD-A. I'm 100% positive that I could identify which disc was playing between the two.

    Of course, there could be differences in mastering and such between the discs...

    That said, most of my listening to other people's recordings is while doing other things. For that, CD is good enough.

  3. #3

    Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    Where I live, there is a TV station that broadcasts sports events in HD and SD simultaneously. The HD version looks great, but for the SD version, they use such a low bitrate that it just looks terrible, much worse than what SD is capable of. I think something like this might be true for CD vs. DVD-A, too. The author also mentions this possibility.

    What I found very interesting in this article is that someone found out that the human ear can detect delays of 15 microseconds, sometimes even 5 microseconds. The audio latency of my computer is a thousand times as long...

    Martin

  4. #4

    Cool Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    As a self-proclaimed audiophile who has invested in the equipment for SACD/DVD-A, I can honestly say, I agree more or less with the article. Particularly the talk of listening position. However, I do think with the expanded bandwidth, dynamic differences are enhanced, especially in classical recordings that have a wide range from a true pianissimo to ear shattering fortissimo (or as some call it fortis-sissy-if-you-can't-stand-it-mo, for people like me ). This usually can't be measured without having 2 recordings of the same material in standard format and one of the hi-res formats. Engineering can have a big impact on that. I have a Verdi Requiem recording that can reveal these differences, even to your average listener. But again, is it the format, or the engineering? Or is it surround mixing compared to the CD format stereo?

    When it comes to sample rates, I really find it most important when I am recording, mixing and mastering sound, since applying effects at higher bitrate doesn't degrade the original sounds as much (but that could be a whole 'nother round of debate - the application of effects always colors or "degrades" the original sound source, no matter what the plug-in claims).

    With that said, I still like to think I am gaining something by listening to the SACD/DVD-A. Especially if it means the extra love my friendly sound engineer puts into it to keep it as pure to the source sound as possible, without compression. It's all subjective - just like Mr. Winer has stated for years (I'm a follower of writing online).

    My 2 cents
    Trevor Blu Rutkowski
    Colorado, USA

  5. #5

    Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Boy Blu View Post
    With that said, I still like to think I am gaining something by listening to the SACD/DVD-A. Especially if it means the extra love my friendly sound engineer puts into it to keep it as pure to the source sound as possible, without compression.
    Maybe the "loudness war" doesn't apply to SACD/DVD-A? This might be a real reason to upgrade .

    Martin

  6. #6

    Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    Quote Originally Posted by NYC Composer View Post
    all of this in a world where the new audio standard is 128 or 160 kbps MP3s, and the vast majority of music listened to isn't paid for.

    Am I the only one picking up some irony here?
    Just want to point out that bit rate and sampling rate are decoupled and that 128 kbps MPEG 1 layer 3 encoding (which I guess you're referring to) can be compared with FM-radio quality (but obviously a modern encoder will give you better quality than a ten year old one) that traditionally been one of the most important outlets for music (otherwise there wouldn't been any payola scandals). Ironic isn't it?
    Anders Dahnielson

    Ardour2, Qtractor, LinuxSampler, M-AUDIO Delta 1010, AKAI S2000, E-MU Proteus 2k, Roland JX-10, 4GB RAM Intel Pentium Dual CPU E2160 @ 1.80GHz Gentoo Linux 64 bit

  7. #7

    Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    I don't really see any irony. For one thing, the weakest link in most people's listening environment chain in not their crappy 16bit cds. It's the amp, speakers, room, etc. So for the vast majority of people, hi-def audio is meaningless, cuz they were never gonna redesign their listening environment in the first place.

    For another, most people want the audio quality to be good enough so that they can get off to their favorite tunes. They listen for the music, and mp3s are way good enough to convey the music.

    So I guess audiophiles are a freakish niche!

  8. #8

    Re: The Emperor's New Sampling Rate

    I would have been interested to know how many people (Audiofiles and casual listeners) could tell the difference in sample rates when using good studio quality headphones. I think the room is probably the biggest factor in evening things out. Which doesn't make the article less valid. Perhaps even more so. How many people listen to their music in a perfect room in the perfect location without moving their head?

    Personally--I'd prefer to listen to the Beatles or Pink Floyd on 8 track tape before Britney or Natasha Bedingfield in SASD or Dolby 5.1 surround.

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •