4 ms·

Now you're gonna tell me I don't need more than 44,100 Hz for sound.

jhoechtl 3y ago
I don't know if that is meant to be tounge in cheek, but for most ears it is physically impossible to discern any broader audio spectrum.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Actually it is, but I'm stoned to death even when I share audible sound deltas between lossy and lossless codecs, so I'll just leave it with one sentence: Higher sampling rates and higher quality encodings result in a broader, more impressive and immersive sound stage primarily, and more details are secondary, and in some cases are elusive to run after.
  - kuschku 3y ago
    "more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      Here we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
      - kuschku 3y ago
        I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
        bayindirh 3y ago
        I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?
  - krageon 3y ago
    A sound stage is not quantifiable, subjective and probably not real. I've heard similar things said many times for a number of audio systems and encodings and in a blind test it is just not discernible IME.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      It's discernible and measurable. It's called stereo separation and instrument placeability in mastering parlance. iZotope Ozone has a nice stereo imaging view to show the stereo separation in tracks. When you mic a big orchestra (or any orchestra) clearly, you can capture the stereo image (which is generally done with non-instrument ambient microphones), too. Mixing this ambience into the final stereo mix can increase the instrument placing when done correctly, but needs a good room with good acoustics. This is why we have Atmos and other tech. It allows you to virtually position channels in a room, and increases this separation, in theory. Nice when done subtly, ugly when done overboard. Also, speakers' sound rendering has something with it. For example, the Celans I have can fill a room with positionally correct instruments fairly impressive. What's more impressive is, Creative Gigaworks speakers also capable of doing this while being desk speakers (yet they have kevlar cones and silk tweeters too). There's a sensible upper limit to pay for audio systems. Mine is neither top of the line, nor too cheap to be true. It's a powerful, yet vintage all analog powerhouse, and I have it for 30 years or so. After some point, even if the resolution provided by the system is justified by the money it requires, finding sources to saturate is impossible to find. So, when you find something you like for the first time, you stop there. I plan no changes in my audio system for example. There are infinite number of variables in audio (system, source, room, placement, etc.), but sound resolution and soundstage are not placebo effects. If it was, a $4 headphone would sound the same wth $44 or even with $440 one, yet they don't. Same for speakers, amps, etc. Until a certain point as I said.
  - rbanffy 3y ago
    When you hit a drum there are all sort of short duration high pitched components that make that chest thumping all the more impressive.
SirMaster 3y ago
You don’t need more than 44,100 kHz thanks to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_the...
- rightbyte 3y ago
  If you got an ideal filter maybe. Having margin to half the sampling frequency helps filter design. Then again, the frequency response of the loud speaker is not flat so I dunno if the sampling filter cutoff frequency matters.
  - bandrami 3y ago
    The real rabbit hole is when you start looking into the frequency response of your eardrums
    - rightbyte 3y ago
      Sure but I guess the goal is for the replayed sound to sound the same as the original would. According to Wiki the absolute max an amazing(?) ear can hear is 28kHz. You can maybe hear aliasing of higher frequencies too? I can't hear any difference between 44.1kHz and faster sampling, but we can't refute it on purely theoretical ground.
      - bandrami 3y ago
        That's not what I'm getting at. For most purposes the 22KHz limit is a hard one. What I mean is that the eardrums do not have a linear response at any frequency.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    Yeah but you can keep source material at 44.1k and oversample before the DAC. And 24 bit is nice purely because you can regulate volume in software without losing fidelity (if DAC is good enough). But again, no such requirement on source, just the processing pipeline
kaetemi 3y ago
Unless you're editing. 192kHz recordings slowed down to the audible spectrum are gorgeous.
- kuschku 3y ago
  Tbh, if you're editing, remixing, etc, 32-bit float at higher sample rates obviously make sense. But not for a final delivery, and not for your playback devices. Even when I edit 192kHz 32-bit float audio (e.g. for a slow-motion video sequence where I need to slow the audio to match) my playback setup still only supports 16-bit 48kHz (and I don't need more).
timc3 3y ago
48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates - and besides it’s the standard for audio alongside video so you might as well use it for everything. So yes, for that reason alone you need more.
- kuschku 3y ago
  And if you'll edit, remix, and slow the audio down, you might want 96kHz or 192kHz, sure. But for the final delivery, there's no need to ever go beyond 48kHz at 24-bit.
  - haspok 3y ago
    Why do you keep repeating 24 bits? It is way too much, even at 16 bits the dynamic range is far more than what you can reasonably hear (unless you want to damage your ears!) - especially if you are listening in a real world environment, and not in a completely silent room... Vinyl has a significantly worse dynamic range, yet it is loved by hi-end fans, sometimes even preferred to CD! 24 bits is useful for mixing various sources, but otherwise it is a waste of space.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - kuschku 3y ago
      You're absolutely right. Personally, my two most used playback setups cap out at 44.1kHz and 16-bit and that's good enough.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > 48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates Is the half sample per frame at 44,100 Hz and 24 fps really an issue? DVDs support 48kHz, but they only support 25 fps and 29.97 fps. You're going to run into so much NTSC content that I'm not sure even divisibility is a thing.

I don't know if that is meant to be tounge in cheek, but for most ears it is physically impossible to discern any broader audio spectrum.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bayindirh 3y ago
Actually it is, but I'm stoned to death even when I share audible sound deltas between lossy and lossless codecs, so I'll just leave it with one sentence: Higher sampling rates and higher quality encodings result in a broader, more impressive and immersive sound stage primarily, and more details are secondary, and in some cases are elusive to run after.
- kuschku 3y ago
  "more impressive and immersive sound stage" is a nice way to say "placebo". Lossy codecs, at too low bitrates, can be a problem, yes. But every content can be recorded and played back as 48kHz 24-bit FLAC, which is perfect. No amount of money you spend can improve upon that.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Here we go. So I have a setup: Akai AM2850 Amplifier, a pair of HECO Celan GT 302 speakers, a Yamaha CD-S300 CD player, which has USB input with iPod interface and MP3 capability. A well mastered album (read: No brickwalling) like Wasting Light (Foo Fighters) or Brother in Arms (Dire Straits) will provide you a larger soundstage when you listen in front of this set from CD (or any lossless source, but let's keep everything in the same DAC), even compared with 320kbps MP3 (it's minimal, but audible). This can be ruled as placebo alright, but audio science is hard science. It's subjective, and there's an aura of lies around it due to great deal of real snake oil in this. Yet, I listen to same amplifier for 30 years, and I know how it behaves in any genre, any sound source and any input level, yet I can make sense of the subtle sound stage changes, because I'm so familiar with it. Honestly, I played in large orchestras and whatnot, but when listened intently, the difference is there. It's difference between a good cup of Tchibo vs good cup of Davidoff coffee, but it's there. I'm currently not at my home, but if you want I can provide you a fresh set of sound deltas (FLAC vs. 320kbps MP3) when I return.
    - kuschku 3y ago
      I agree that higher encoding quality can provide the differences you describe, but higher sampling rates (beyond 48kHz, that is) cannot. Personally, I try to acquire all music on CD or as FLAC from e.g. Qobuz or Bandcamp. But I see no reason to go beyond 24-bit 48kHz for any kind of audio unless I plan on slowing it down for e.g., a slow-mo video.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        I have a 24bit WAV version of Radiohead's "OK Computer Oknotok" directly from the band, and sounds absolutely beautiful, though I don't remember whether it's 48K or 96K. In any case, I really don't believe that I have a system can render 96K sound meaningfully different than 48K. I'm also not sure that I can tell the difference unless I try very intently, either. I also an avid Bandcamp shopper. Some of the people make really beautiful music there. Lastly, if I'm happy with the sound I get, I don't run after numbers. I use a Behringer Bass V-Amp as my bass processor, and even though it's far inferior on the paper, the result is not for my ears. Heck, if Haggard can use this thing for live and studio, why can't I?
- krageon 3y ago
  A sound stage is not quantifiable, subjective and probably not real. I've heard similar things said many times for a number of audio systems and encodings and in a blind test it is just not discernible IME.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    It's discernible and measurable. It's called stereo separation and instrument placeability in mastering parlance. iZotope Ozone has a nice stereo imaging view to show the stereo separation in tracks. When you mic a big orchestra (or any orchestra) clearly, you can capture the stereo image (which is generally done with non-instrument ambient microphones), too. Mixing this ambience into the final stereo mix can increase the instrument placing when done correctly, but needs a good room with good acoustics. This is why we have Atmos and other tech. It allows you to virtually position channels in a room, and increases this separation, in theory. Nice when done subtly, ugly when done overboard. Also, speakers' sound rendering has something with it. For example, the Celans I have can fill a room with positionally correct instruments fairly impressive. What's more impressive is, Creative Gigaworks speakers also capable of doing this while being desk speakers (yet they have kevlar cones and silk tweeters too). There's a sensible upper limit to pay for audio systems. Mine is neither top of the line, nor too cheap to be true. It's a powerful, yet vintage all analog powerhouse, and I have it for 30 years or so. After some point, even if the resolution provided by the system is justified by the money it requires, finding sources to saturate is impossible to find. So, when you find something you like for the first time, you stop there. I plan no changes in my audio system for example. There are infinite number of variables in audio (system, source, room, placement, etc.), but sound resolution and soundstage are not placebo effects. If it was, a $4 headphone would sound the same wth $44 or even with $440 one, yet they don't. Same for speakers, amps, etc. Until a certain point as I said.
- rbanffy 3y ago
  When you hit a drum there are all sort of short duration high pitched components that make that chest thumping all the more impressive.

SirMaster 3y ago

You don’t need more than 44,100 kHz thanks to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_the...

rightbyte 3y ago
If you got an ideal filter maybe. Having margin to half the sampling frequency helps filter design. Then again, the frequency response of the loud speaker is not flat so I dunno if the sampling filter cutoff frequency matters.
- bandrami 3y ago
  The real rabbit hole is when you start looking into the frequency response of your eardrums
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Sure but I guess the goal is for the replayed sound to sound the same as the original would. According to Wiki the absolute max an amazing(?) ear can hear is 28kHz. You can maybe hear aliasing of higher frequencies too? I can't hear any difference between 44.1kHz and faster sampling, but we can't refute it on purely theoretical ground.
    - bandrami 3y ago
      That's not what I'm getting at. For most purposes the 22KHz limit is a hard one. What I mean is that the eardrums do not have a linear response at any frequency.
- ilyt 3y ago
  Yeah but you can keep source material at 44.1k and oversample before the DAC. And 24 bit is nice purely because you can regulate volume in software without losing fidelity (if DAC is good enough). But again, no such requirement on source, just the processing pipeline

kaetemi 3y ago

Unless you're editing. 192kHz recordings slowed down to the audible spectrum are gorgeous.

kuschku 3y ago
Tbh, if you're editing, remixing, etc, 32-bit float at higher sample rates obviously make sense. But not for a final delivery, and not for your playback devices. Even when I edit 192kHz 32-bit float audio (e.g. for a slow-motion video sequence where I need to slow the audio to match) my playback setup still only supports 16-bit 48kHz (and I don't need more).

timc3 3y ago

48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates - and besides it’s the standard for audio alongside video so you might as well use it for everything. So yes, for that reason alone you need more.

kuschku 3y ago
And if you'll edit, remix, and slow the audio down, you might want 96kHz or 192kHz, sure. But for the final delivery, there's no need to ever go beyond 48kHz at 24-bit.
- haspok 3y ago
  Why do you keep repeating 24 bits? It is way too much, even at 16 bits the dynamic range is far more than what you can reasonably hear (unless you want to damage your ears!) - especially if you are listening in a real world environment, and not in a completely silent room... Vinyl has a significantly worse dynamic range, yet it is loved by hi-end fans, sometimes even preferred to CD! 24 bits is useful for mixing various sources, but otherwise it is a waste of space.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - kuschku 3y ago
    You're absolutely right. Personally, my two most used playback setups cap out at 44.1kHz and 16-bit and that's good enough.
dehrmann 3y ago
> 48khz is better for video due to the way it can be divided more evenly with popular video frame rates Is the half sample per frame at 44,100 Hz and 24 fps really an issue? DVDs support 48kHz, but they only support 25 fps and 29.97 fps. You're going to run into so much NTSC content that I'm not sure even divisibility is a thing.