Recording at 44 vs 192

What's Hot
13

Comments

  • Winny_PoohWinny_Pooh Frets: 7731
    normula1 said:
    I do a fair bit of digitising Vinyl for use on my phone which has a HiRes DAC. My turntable also has a built in HiRes DAC which connects via USB and records at 192k/24bit. I then convert down to 48k/24bit and can definitely hear a difference between the two. However given the huge file size of the 192k recordings I tend to use the 48k ones.
    Conduct an ABY test, you may be surprised to realise that you are not hearing what you think you are.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    normula1 said:
    I do a fair bit of digitising Vinyl for use on my phone which has a HiRes DAC. My turntable also has a built in HiRes DAC which connects via USB and records at 192k/24bit. I then convert down to 48k/24bit and can definitely hear a difference between the two. However given the huge file size of the 192k recordings I tend to use the 48k ones.
    Conduct an ABY test, you may be surprised to realise that you are not hearing what you think you are.
    That's it, I'm surprised how often people trust their ability to hear such subtleties, it's so susceptible to placebo and other biases.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Winny_PoohWinny_Pooh Frets: 7731
    thegummy said:
    normula1 said:
    I do a fair bit of digitising Vinyl for use on my phone which has a HiRes DAC. My turntable also has a built in HiRes DAC which connects via USB and records at 192k/24bit. I then convert down to 48k/24bit and can definitely hear a difference between the two. However given the huge file size of the 192k recordings I tend to use the 48k ones.
    Conduct an ABY test, you may be surprised to realise that you are not hearing what you think you are.
    That's it, I'm surprised how often people trust their ability to hear such subtleties, it's so susceptible to placebo and other biases.
    Its been theorized amongst some pros that many of the discrepancies listeners percieve are due to small differences in listening position rather than actual audible differences. (especially in relation to tweeters) 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    thegummy said:
    normula1 said:
    I do a fair bit of digitising Vinyl for use on my phone which has a HiRes DAC. My turntable also has a built in HiRes DAC which connects via USB and records at 192k/24bit. I then convert down to 48k/24bit and can definitely hear a difference between the two. However given the huge file size of the 192k recordings I tend to use the 48k ones.
    Conduct an ABY test, you may be surprised to realise that you are not hearing what you think you are.
    That's it, I'm surprised how often people trust their ability to hear such subtleties, it's so susceptible to placebo and other biases.
    Its been theorized amongst some pros that many of the discrepancies listeners percieve are due to small differences in listening position rather than actual audible differences. (especially in relation to tweeters) 
    Great point - that absolutely makes a difference among many many other things. For me discovering the truth about subtleties just allowed me to be happy in not bothering with tiny things like a tape sim for example - unless it's an exaggerated effect it's just going to make so little difference to the listener compared to so many other things.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • normula1normula1 Frets: 639
    My son and I did blind listening tests switching randomly between the recordings and invariably we could pick out the hires ones which was a bit of a surprise as I'm by no means a hifi cork sniffer.
    This will read like complete b*llocks but it was more the sense of space or I suppose openess rather than the music itself that was more pleasing to listen to.

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • mr-macmr-mac Frets: 200
    No need for aby or ABX as non believers always sling at people who hear a difference.... A totally blind AB would work better if you get to hold the switch so can flick back and forth between the different files playing same music as and when you wish.

    My dac comes in 3 boxes one being a totally disconnected battery psu.  Totally blind on headphones i could pick within 3 flicks of switch if it was in battery or ac (even though a hifi reviewer reckoned the battery psu made very little difference.  it did abd was certainly noticeable and easy to pick).

    I reckon AB with ability to choose when it flicks is best test as you cab flick as often or as little as you like between the two.  Now pick best and repeat test a few times with A and B allocated randomly and see if pick same one over and over.

    it is also easy to hear it doesn't all sound he same by how people build systems.  Give two people same budget and tell em to buy a hifi.  One may come back with all one make and nice sounding system... The other comes back with auditioned separates which sounds night and day better than other system.  Well if we can't hear it and difference doesn't exist how come people can put together separates that sound much better than a random selection? Cos you can hear it.  Yes i am sure one day to next and mood, or moving head, or expectations can come in to it but differences also exist and can be heard too.

    Randomly allocated AB would seperste wheat from chaf.  ABX is flawed as its 3 options and your brain can hear one to next but can't then compare 1st to 3rd so easily.  And there is no need for the X when it really offers no advantag over a blind random AB with repeatable results .

    i remember i went to get an amp once and auditioned a pile of s/h hi-fi amps with high end atc monitor speakers.  Everything sounded good.  But the underdog we just chucked into mix as was in budget cleanly blew rest away.  My mate was with me and as soon as track we'd been using started we both looked at each other at same time and went holy shit.  It was a Sony ES amp which destroyed Marantz, quad a few others and even sounded better than a small krell integrated.  In my younger days when I could still heat bats I would happily have taken a blind AB test on hi-fi components and repeat and give same results.  Not sure if I'd be up for 192 v 48 these days though.  May try it at some point on good headphones and see if i can identify out a random a/b without being bothered which wins.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • mr-macmr-mac Frets: 200
    normula1 said:
    My son and I did blind listening tests switching randomly between the recordings and invariably we could pick out the hires ones which was a bit of a surprise as I'm by no means a hifi cork sniffer.
    This will read like complete b*llocks but it was more the sense of space or I suppose openess rather than the music itself that was more pleasing to listen to.


    again it could be your particular dac hardware just handles 192 better than 48 rather than the file itself being the issue 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    mr-mac said:
    No need for aby or ABX as non believers always sling at people who hear a difference.... A totally blind AB would work better if you get to hold the switch so can flick back and forth between the different files playing same music as and when you wish.

    My dac comes in 3 boxes one being a totally disconnected battery psu.  Totally blind on headphones i could pick within 3 flicks of switch if it was in battery or ac (even though a hifi reviewer reckoned the battery psu made very little difference.  it did abd was certainly noticeable and easy to pick).

    I reckon AB with ability to choose when it flicks is best test as you cab flick as often or as little as you like between the two.  Now pick best and repeat test a few times with A and B allocated randomly and see if pick same one over and over.

    it is also easy to hear it doesn't all sound he same by how people build systems.  Give two people same budget and tell em to buy a hifi.  One may come back with all one make and nice sounding system... The other comes back with auditioned separates which sounds night and day better than other system.  Well if we can't hear it and difference doesn't exist how come people can put together separates that sound much better than a random selection? Cos you can hear it.  Yes i am sure one day to next and mood, or moving head, or expectations can come in to it but differences also exist and can be heard too.

    Randomly allocated AB would seperste wheat from chaf.  ABX is flawed as its 3 options and your brain can hear one to next but can't then compare 1st to 3rd so easily.  And there is no need for the X when it really offers no advantag over a blind random AB with repeatable results .

    i remember i went to get an amp once and auditioned a pile of s/h hi-fi amps with high end atc monitor speakers.  Everything sounded good.  But the underdog we just chucked into mix as was in budget cleanly blew rest away.  My mate was with me and as soon as track we'd been using started we both looked at each other at same time and went holy shit.  It was a Sony ES amp which destroyed Marantz, quad a few others and even sounded better than a small krell integrated.  In my younger days when I could still heat bats I would happily have taken a blind AB test on hi-fi components and repeat and give same results.  Not sure if I'd be up for 192 v 48 these days though.  May try it at some point on good headphones and see if i can identify out a random a/b without being bothered which wins.
    The reason I think an abx is better than just ab is that it proves we are hearing a specific difference and can reliably tell when it's present or absent. When just deciding which we prefer out of 2 it is more abstract than specific.

    If anyone is wanting to do this, the media player foobar2000 comes with an abx tool built in.

    The only point of doing this is if you want to know the truth about what you can hear for yourself, it's pointless to prove anything to anyone else. Some people will believe things regardless of scientific proof as we all know.

    I'll just reiterate that doing this made a big positive impact on my productivity and enjoyment of mixing music and think it's worth doing for any mix decision you'd consider subtle.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • NelsonPNelsonP Frets: 3347
    edited June 2018
    This may be a noob question, but if you will eventually playback at 44.1khz then surely it's better to sample at this rate in the first place than at some other frequency that then needs to be rendered to 44.1.

    Any rendering would need to interpolate lots of data points and I can't see how it could do that as accurately as just sampling at 44.1khz (or a multiple of it) in the first place.

    Unless I'm missing something?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    NelsonP said:
    This may be a noob question, but if you will eventually playback at 44.1khz then surely it's better to sample at this rate in the first place than at some other frequency that then needs to be rendered to 44.1.

    Any rendering would need to interpolate lots of data points and I can't see how it could do that as accurately as just sampling at 44.1khz (or a multiple of it) in the first place.

    Unless I'm missing something?
    I think the advocates of higher sample rates are aiming for releasing as a download rather than CD.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ToneControlToneControl Frets: 11789
    If you are recording mostly acoustic instruments, in a real space (i.e. with ambience rather than adding all the reverb later), it's worth it. Otherwise probably not
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Winny_PoohWinny_Pooh Frets: 7731
    this is fun if you havent tried it already. I have to admit that I liked one or two of the lower bitrate options on two tracks more than the higher bitrates. This was listening on my set of Neumann kh120s too. 

    https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • mr-macmr-mac Frets: 200
    edited June 2018
    NelsonP said:
    This may be a noob question, but if you will eventually playback at 44.1khz then surely it's better to sample at this rate in the first place than at some other frequency that then needs to be rendered to 44.1.

    Any rendering would need to interpolate lots of data points and I can't see how it could do that as accurately as just sampling at 44.1khz (or a multiple of it) in the first place.

    Unless I'm missing something?
    effects work better applied at higher rates and cause less alaising.  So I'd always advocate capturing and working at a higher sympathetic sample rate 88.2 176.2 etc in case of wanting a 44.1 final product.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • mr-macmr-mac Frets: 200
    edited June 2018
    And moving from a sample rate that can directly be divided to 44.1 as i suggest causes zero iterpolation.  It's only when moving from non dividable 48, 96, 192, 384 to 44.1 does the result need to be interpolated

    if final product is to be 48 then use 96, 192 etc
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • mr-macmr-mac Frets: 200
    edited June 2018
    thegummy said:
    mr-mac said:
    No need for aby or ABX as non believers always sling at people who hear a difference.... A totally blind AB would work better if you get to hold the switch so can flick back and forth between the different files playing same music as and when you wish.

    My dac comes in 3 boxes one being a totally disconnected battery psu.  Totally blind on headphones i could pick within 3 flicks of switch if it was in battery or ac (even though a hifi reviewer reckoned the battery psu made very little difference.  it did abd was certainly noticeable and easy to pick).

    I reckon AB with ability to choose when it flicks is best test as you cab flick as often or as little as you like between the two.  Now pick best and repeat test a few times with A and B allocated randomly and see if pick same one over and over.

    it is also easy to hear it doesn't all sound he same by how people build systems.  Give two people same budget and tell em to buy a hifi.  One may come back with all one make and nice sounding system... The other comes back with auditioned separates which sounds night and day better than other system.  Well if we can't hear it and difference doesn't exist how come people can put together separates that sound much better than a random selection? Cos you can hear it.  Yes i am sure one day to next and mood, or moving head, or expectations can come in to it but differences also exist and can be heard too.

    Randomly allocated AB would seperste wheat from chaf.  ABX is flawed as its 3 options and your brain can hear one to next but can't then compare 1st to 3rd so easily.  And there is no need for the X when it really offers no advantag over a blind random AB with repeatable results .

    i remember i went to get an amp once and auditioned a pile of s/h hi-fi amps with high end atc monitor speakers.  Everything sounded good.  But the underdog we just chucked into mix as was in budget cleanly blew rest away.  My mate was with me and as soon as track we'd been using started we both looked at each other at same time and went holy shit.  It was a Sony ES amp which destroyed Marantz, quad a few others and even sounded better than a small krell integrated.  In my younger days when I could still heat bats I would happily have taken a blind AB test on hi-fi components and repeat and give same results.  Not sure if I'd be up for 192 v 48 these days though.  May try it at some point on good headphones and see if i can identify out a random a/b without being bothered which wins.
    The reason I think an abx is better than just ab is that it proves we are hearing a specific difference and can reliably tell when it's present or absent. When just deciding which we prefer out of 2 it is more abstract than specific.

    If anyone is wanting to do this, the media player foobar2000 comes with an abx tool built in.

    The only point of doing this is if you want to know the truth about what you can hear for yourself, it's pointless to prove anything to anyone else. Some people will believe things regardless of scientific proof as we all know.

    I'll just reiterate that doing this made a big positive impact on my productivity and enjoyment of mixing music and think it's worth doing for any mix decision you'd consider subtle.
    Umm and how does repeatable results from a hidden random AB not? ABX if flawed to hear the smallest differences as only hear two of them back to back and brain doesn't work that way

    if i can pick same item as best time after time in a random hidden AB then it also proves there is a difference. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    mr-mac said:
    thegummy said:
    mr-mac said:
    No need for aby or ABX as non believers always sling at people who hear a difference.... A totally blind AB would work better if you get to hold the switch so can flick back and forth between the different files playing same music as and when you wish.

    My dac comes in 3 boxes one being a totally disconnected battery psu.  Totally blind on headphones i could pick within 3 flicks of switch if it was in battery or ac (even though a hifi reviewer reckoned the battery psu made very little difference.  it did abd was certainly noticeable and easy to pick).

    I reckon AB with ability to choose when it flicks is best test as you cab flick as often or as little as you like between the two.  Now pick best and repeat test a few times with A and B allocated randomly and see if pick same one over and over.

    it is also easy to hear it doesn't all sound he same by how people build systems.  Give two people same budget and tell em to buy a hifi.  One may come back with all one make and nice sounding system... The other comes back with auditioned separates which sounds night and day better than other system.  Well if we can't hear it and difference doesn't exist how come people can put together separates that sound much better than a random selection? Cos you can hear it.  Yes i am sure one day to next and mood, or moving head, or expectations can come in to it but differences also exist and can be heard too.

    Randomly allocated AB would seperste wheat from chaf.  ABX is flawed as its 3 options and your brain can hear one to next but can't then compare 1st to 3rd so easily.  And there is no need for the X when it really offers no advantag over a blind random AB with repeatable results .

    i remember i went to get an amp once and auditioned a pile of s/h hi-fi amps with high end atc monitor speakers.  Everything sounded good.  But the underdog we just chucked into mix as was in budget cleanly blew rest away.  My mate was with me and as soon as track we'd been using started we both looked at each other at same time and went holy shit.  It was a Sony ES amp which destroyed Marantz, quad a few others and even sounded better than a small krell integrated.  In my younger days when I could still heat bats I would happily have taken a blind AB test on hi-fi components and repeat and give same results.  Not sure if I'd be up for 192 v 48 these days though.  May try it at some point on good headphones and see if i can identify out a random a/b without being bothered which wins.
    The reason I think an abx is better than just ab is that it proves we are hearing a specific difference and can reliably tell when it's present or absent. When just deciding which we prefer out of 2 it is more abstract than specific.

    If anyone is wanting to do this, the media player foobar2000 comes with an abx tool built in.

    The only point of doing this is if you want to know the truth about what you can hear for yourself, it's pointless to prove anything to anyone else. Some people will believe things regardless of scientific proof as we all know.

    I'll just reiterate that doing this made a big positive impact on my productivity and enjoyment of mixing music and think it's worth doing for any mix decision you'd consider subtle.
    Umm and how does repeatable results from a hidden random AB not? ABX if flawed to hear the smallest differences as only hear two of them back to back and brain doesn't work that way

    if i can pick same item as best time after time in a random hidden AB then it also proves there is a difference. 
    Don't know what you mean in the first paragraph. If you listen to a then x back to back then you can compare them just as easily whether you know it's going to be different or not.

    I don't think it could be possible to compare ab blind with the same 2 pieces of audio a load of times and pick the same one every time but then fail an abx.

    If it's actually known in science that this is possible please do link any articles that explain it.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • flying_pieflying_pie Frets: 1806
    thegummy said:

    I don't think it could be possible to compare ab blind with the same 2 pieces of audio a load of times and pick the same one every time but then fail an abx.

    If it's actually known in science that this is possible please do link any articles that explain it.
    There is a perfect scientific explanation as to how that is possible:

    Chance. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    Been thinking about this while getting ready for work. If someone used software to blind AB test 2 pieces of audio (at least a dozen times) and chose that they preferred the same one at least 90% of the time then it would prove there must be an audible difference for it to be consistent. That person would definitely also pass an ABX test with the same 2 pieces.

    What could happen, though, is that someone could pass an ABX test and hear a subtle difference when comparing 3 files where 2 of them are different to the other but then in a blind AB test of preference, not necessarily prefer the same one each time if they have no reference and are just listening the the audio as a whole. That's probably why ABX is used as the standard - a quick Google didn't really suggest AB is considered as an alternative to ABX.

    The process itself would be much different for me - listening through the AB and choosing which one I preferred would be quite abstract and only at the end, the results may prove there was a definite difference causing me to prefer the same one each time. With the ABX, I'd know each time if I was confidently hearing which was X or if I was just guessing. Of course, the results would be all that mattered as the confidence could have been wrongly felt but if I knew I was guessing I'd know at the time.

    If there is software you know of that does the blind AB test I'd appreciate a link. Would be interesting to see if I could pass an ABX on something very subtle like 320kpbs MP3 vs 192kbps MP3 but then fail the AB version.

    Might be a fantasy thinking I'll actually have time to do this to be honest but I'd appreciate the link none the less.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • CirrusCirrus Frets: 8481
    edited June 2018
    mr-mac said:
    And moving from a sample rate that can directly be divided to 44.1 as i suggest causes zero iterpolation.  It's only when moving from non dividable 48, 96, 192, 384 to 44.1 does the result need to be interpolated

    if final product is to be 48 then use 96, 192 etc
    So, I know I'm going to look a bit like I'm trying to start a fight over some insanely geeky stuff, but I still think this is wrong. Just imagine we're having an argument with a smile on our faces over a pint in a pub, and also bare in mind (it it bare or bear?) that I'm totally happy to accept that you can hear the difference.

    It's been years since I looked into it but I've been doing a big of scouting around, trying to find old forums and articles.

    My understanding is that you'd be right, if converting to half the sample rate just involved dropping every other sample point. Then you can be happy, because the samples you're left with are all real samples that were actually measured by the converter as you recorded them.

    But it's not that simple. If you did that, it would be effectively like you recorded at the sample rate you're converting to, but had your nyquist filter set twice as high as it should be; have I explained that well enough? You've let signals into the digital domain that you're now not going to be able to reproduce because you don't have enough sample points any more - you've thrown half of them away. And in doing so you're not just throwing away the top octave of your bandwidth, as those higher frequency signals will still be present, modulating the samples you have kept hold of and producing aliasing.

    So, no matter what ratio of downsample conversion you do, the process isn't that simple because you still need to first brick wall filter the signal before the downsampling actually occurs. Now every sample point has been moved in amplitude. And that filtering process is far less transparent than interpolation of the signal's sample points. In fact, because filtering introduces phase shifts... your audio signal has been moved in time. Now, by the logic of avoiding interpolation, you're in hot water. Because *every* sample is now shifted relative to the audio signal* by different amounts for each frequency, by some tiny amount through the entire audio range! So you're not left with the actual sample values recorded, you're left with an entirely interpolated signal since the wave it's representing isn't the same any more.

    But that doesn't matter. because once you're in the box, once you're safely in the world of pure computation and you don't need to worry about the real-world practical side of digital sampling - analogue filters, quality of op-amps (distortion, slew rate), keeping power supply noise out the audio path, clocking errors - sampling theory is *perfect*. It's as certain as 1+1=2.

    So, the computer can calculate interpolated sample points when converting to a non-dividable target rate to an insane accuracy. It's got the whole signal perfectly recorded, and it can calculate any point along the theoretical band-limited analogue wave than the sample points would generate up to whatever precision you use to do the calculation. I'm not a maths or a programming guy, but I wonder how many decimal places you have to calculate to before any error is reduced below the ability of a human ear to pick out. And I wonder how many decimal places beyond that modern SRC processes go. I'd be interested to find out.

    Apparently in the olden days of digital sample rate conversion was a different process so simpler conversions used to be better, but these days it just doesn't matter. Personally, I'm happy that any error introduced will be so utterly insignificant that it can as well be discounted.

    It's also worth pointing out that as a mixer I'm mangling the audio in all kinds of ways - plugins do their own up and downsampling using different methods, the mix engine of my DAW moves audio about however it's been programmed to, dither may or may not be applied when it should, bit depths are constantly changing... there's so much going on.

    Now, on the subject of higher sample rates, this guy has made some fantastic plugs that I love;

    https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/968641-some-thoughts-quot-high-resolution-quot-audio-processing.html

    And he makes the point that by recorded a wider band than you want to end up with, you can end up introducing more distortion in the final product than if you'd ignored those higher frequencies from the off.

    Frankly, I think the whole world of digital sampling is fascinating and I'd *love* to understand it better.




    *or rather, the audio signal has been shifted relative to the sample points, which obviously don't move. But it's all relative!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • thegummythegummy Frets: 4389
    thegummy said:

    I don't think it could be possible to compare ab blind with the same 2 pieces of audio a load of times and pick the same one every time but then fail an abx.

    If it's actually known in science that this is possible please do link any articles that explain it.
    There is a perfect scientific explanation as to how that is possible:

    Chance. 
    Well there is a chance you could run a random number generator and the resulting binary code it generates could be a perfect mp4 encoding of the video of your great great grandfather's birth, it's all just down to probability lol

    So the tests would have to be done enough times to rule out chance as realistic. I think a surprisingly low number of tests would be needed before the probability of luck can be seen as very unlikely.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.