96Khz vs 192Khz

[4-earredwonder]

Notice how the CD worshipers have to use name calling, insults and wrong assumptions. That shows how low class they are.

 

[scifi]

You anti-high res bums probably listen to garbage, too, as well as ruined your ears after listening to your head banging music so it doesn't matter with you derelicts, anyway.

 

[JediJoker]

Notice how the CD worshipers have to use name calling, insults and wrong assumptions. That shows how low class they are.

You anti-high res bums probably listen to garbage, too, as well as ruined your ears after listening to your head banging music so it doesn't matter with you derelicts, anyway.

Pot, kettle... Like what you like. Just don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Yowza...

 

[MidiMagic]

I am still using most of the same equipment I was using back in the days of quad.

I still have the same turntables (and I bought up a supply of drive wheels and styli shortly after they stopped selling records).
I still have the same pre-amps.
I still have the same speakers.

I didn't have to do anything to play the new records except buy a reamer. Many of the new records are not made to RIAA specs. The center holes are too small to fit the spindles on my turntables.

RIAA specifies that the spindle is 1/4 inch and the record hole is 5/16 inch. Many of the new records have 1/4 inch holes.

I actually have noticed differences between LPs I have and the same albums on CD (before they started messing with the mix). There are subtle feelings of being at a live performance on many LPs I have that are not there on the CD that otherwise sounds like the same recording. I wondered if the tiny subtle sounds were lost in the pixel dust of digitization.

 

[marcb]

Neil Young has made it plain over the years that he has no clue about digital audio.

That’s not an exclusive group by any stretch of the imagination...

 

[Marplot]

I always enjoy these technical conversations and appreciate the input and lack of rancor.

I guess it is time to recant this post since this thread has now turned into a school ground pissing contest; that is a shame since it so rarely happens here.

 

[ssully]

That’s not an exclusive group by any stretch of the imagination...

By no means. He's just been one of the more vocally ignorant.

(Looks like he has a competitor on this thread.)

 

[ssully]

I actually have noticed differences between LPs I have and the same albums on CD (before they started messing with the mix). There are subtle feelings of being at a live performance on many LPs I have that are not there on the CD that otherwise sounds like the same recording. I wondered if the tiny subtle sounds were lost in the pixel dust of digitization.

Possibly you are hearing imperfect channel separation...an inherent flaw of vinyl playback. It can have the spurious effect of making output sound 'bigger'.

That is 'lost' on CD playback because digital playback is more accurate to its source.

But if you care to, you can digitize the output of your turntable preamp when you play an LP, and the 'magic' will be there when you play back the digital file.

 

[Mr. Afternoon]

I like how I started this thread for advice on recording and now I'm holding a bucket of popcorn in my hand and an Icee. Continue on! Everyone is making good points!

 

[ssully]

Of all the choices that can be put in 'which is better' opposition, 96kHz vs 192kHz sampling rate is quite possibly the silliest.

Sensible advice about it was given to you early on. Nothing revelatory has been added since, only the usual nonsense-followed-by-facts cycle about 'hi rez' vs CD -- which wasn't even the original topic.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Although I am partial to keeping it simple at 96K , my favorite analogy would favor 192 but the main point is this...the bigger the source, the better the copies are going to sound, so during any downsampling, it will keep those properties..

like THIS:

https://widescreen.org/aspect_ratios.shtml

 

[ssully]

Except it's not true in audio that the 'the bigger the source, the better the copies will sound'. (Even leaving aside that a copy is a copy...you seem to be referring not to a 1:1 copy, but to a downconversion)

Downsampling from 192 to 48 will not result in better sound than downsampling from 96 to 48. (I'm using 48 so we can avoid side-hysteria about the audibility of noninteger downsampling).

Audio tech is not video tech. A big reason being, seeing and hearing have different limits.

 

[Owen Smith]

Downsampling from 192 to 48 will not result in better sound than downsampling from 96 to 48. (I'm using 48 so we can avoid side-hysteria about the audibility of noninteger downsampling).

Bizarrely non integer downsampling can be less intrusive because it doesn't hit any nasty worst cases. Integer down sampling has to be done very carefully I believe.

 

[ssully]

I think you've got things backwards. I'd like to see a reference indicating that integer downsampling (decimation) is more fraught than noninteger.

Note that DSD sample rates were specified as integer multiples of 44.1 kHz. DSD was originally meant to be an archiving format, to be downsampled for commercial releases.

 

[Sal1950]

16/44 Redbook can deliver as good a SQ as you can hear. For public release anything more is just a waste of space. Read Mark Waldrep
The HD-Audio Challenge

 

[jimfisheye]

This thread with the interest in audio formats and their abilities looks like it should have a lot of people who collect for most accurate copy of the master.

How many of you make it a point to evaluate multiple releases of a recording? There can be a dozen or more digital releases for some albums. Lining them all up in tracks in a DAW, normalizing them for consistent volume for evaluation, and finally comparing them. You hear everything from identical copies to wild examples of extreme lo-fi.

Now, most often you aren't exactly sitting their with the actual studio master. So this will be subjective with everything being a copy. Does "sounds better" mean "sounds like the most accurate copy of the master"? Sometimes. Gross stuff like ear bleeding treble or saturation can call itself out as an obvious altered copy. Other generation loss has telltales.

Honestly, the truly subjective cases where you have many accurate copies and then maybe an excellent mastering job thrown in that many listeners would argue improves the sound from the original - are few and far between. The volume war mastered copies tend to really stand out as hack jobs. You hear stuff that's gross so far beyond low bit mp3 or whatever your least favorite format is. You could call out some of this listening on a phone speaker!

If you haven't done this, I'll suggest it's a more fun past time than comparing 96k to 192k. (As mentioned, that was just 100 cumulative copies followed by a null test one day.)

 

[Owen Smith]

I think you've got things backwards. I'd like to see a reference indicating that integer downsampling (decimation) is more fraught than noninteger.

Alas I have no reference, and I agree it is counter intuitive. But I remember reading something about this. Non integer sample rate conversion adds a little low level noise akin to things like triangle dither noise shaping, so you don't get any nasty surprises. Whereas integer sample rate conversion can hit some nasty cases and double up noise that was already there, or something like that. I'm sorry I'm being so fuzzy about this.

Note in the early days integer sample rate conversion was preferable, because anything else was awful. But we're well beyond that now.

 

[marcb]

16/44 Redbook can deliver as good a SQ as you can hear. For public release anything more is just a waste of space. Read Mark Waldrep
The HD-Audio Challenge

One can find and cherry-pick articles to cover every argument on this issue.

 

[MidiMagic]

Possibly you are hearing imperfect channel separation...an inherent flaw of vinyl playback. It can have the spurious effect of making output sound 'bigger'.

That is 'lost' on CD playback because digital playback is more accurate to its source.

But if you care to, you can digitize the output of your turntable preamp when you play an LP, and the 'magic' will be there when you play back the digital file.

The sounds I am missing are subtle sounds from a live audience. In the records I have, I hear people talking in the background (unintelligible speech) and other crowd noises. They are not there on the CD of the same live album.

I did digitize the recording.. I can record to CDs from analog or copy to computer files and then put them on CDs.

I recorded a track from one album to CDs. Whether the sounds are there depends on the level I recorded the music at. If I approached clipping to record the CD from analog, then I heard all of the subtle sounds.. If I recorded a CD from analog at a lower level (to prevent clipping) and then boosted the level in my studio software when making a mastering file to make a CD, the subtle sounds were gone. I heard no differences in the music.

The subtle sounds got lost in the pixel dust of digitization because they were low enough to change a bit only now and then.

Other possibilities:
- They had a live audience pickup mic on the master tape and left it out in a new mixdown for CD.
- They expanded down the final mix and removed the audience noises for the CD.