Even 22 KHz does not sound really bad to my ears...

To me it definitely sounds like it has much less definition, much more grittiness.

Yes.

If the answer is "No", "Maybe", "I am not sure", or "I don't know"  I am pretty sure 96 KHz or more will not bring much or any hearable improvement.

Even 22 KHz does not sound really bad to my ears...

But still there are other interesting reasons to buy the Pro version !

Personally I think I'll stick to the standard version. I am more interested in good piano presets than in maximum tweakability.

Soon I'll hope to see the FXP creations of creative Pianoteq Pro users appear in the user area of this website. And I will be able to use these creations with Pianoteq 3.5 Standard version, am I correct ?

But I still want to satisfy my intellectual curiosity. I have a background in physics, and have always had a technical interest in audio. I need to know what's going on!

Anyway, you promted me to do some more research, and as Funkasizer says, it all seems to be about signal processing, either in the digital chain, or the DAC roll-off filter. CD players etc will typically over-sample by a factor of 8 to get round these problems. Also, any processing you add in the digital signal path (EQ, effects, reverb etc) probably has less than perfect implementations of digital filters, and running the whole system at a higher sample rate can reduce the errors that they introduce (but be warned, some processors can apparently add more noise at higher sample rates!). At the end of the chain, dithering to 16bit/44.1kHz should be fine for actual listening, unless you have dog ears.

It seems that the same benefits could be obtained by running a 48kHz Pianoteq through a high quality 96kHz upsampler before it passes through the rest of the chain. Maybe that would use less CPU, but if you *can* afford to run the source at 96, then why not.

the audio artifacts are shifted to frequencies that only dogs can hear.

And this is only if your speakers can reproduce those freqs. Otherwise, it's largely wasted CPU bandwidth.

You know, I would just say that if you don't personally hear a difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz or 192kHz, then don't worry about it. Just keep using 44.1kHz.

Which brings us back to my original question: are there any Pro users out there that hear a noticeable difference at higher sample rates?

As to the discussion whether or not we can hear supersonic detail, I think possible differences in audio quality at different sample rates has more to do with the roll-of filters in AD/DA converters. These are less then perfect, and at 44.1 kHz may introduce audio artifacts in the audible spectrum. By using higher sample rates, if I understand this correctly, the audio artifacts are shifted to frequencies that only dogs can hear (there you go, Beto-music). 192 kHz is definitely overkill, but 88.2 or 96 kHz can make a noticeable difference.

Cheers,

Jack

P.S. I am monitoring through Genelec 8040's using Prism Orpheus converters.

I certainly do believe in mathematics. What I was getting at is that the "interaction" explanation explains why we *might* hear some extra stuff at 96kHz, but I just don't yet accept that we actually do. My suspicion is that those effects are insignificant. Hence why I'd like to see some evidence.

You know, I would just say that if you don't personally hear a difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz or 192kHz, then don't worry about it. Just keep using 44.1kHz.

There are definitely people who hear a big difference, but seriously, if you don't personally hear any, then by all means stick with the sample rate that's working well for you.

There are an awful lot of white papers on this, and the AES has a lot of resources out there if you want to read stuff. But at the end of the day, the only real "evidence" that will matter is if you personally hear a difference. If you are happy with how things are sounding with your setup, then you should definitely stick with it.

What you need is a copy of Pianoteq Pro and a MIDI file,
and record it playing the MIDI file at 48k,
and then again at 96k,
then flip the phase of one of the resulting WAVs,
play them both together,
and then you will be able to hear what the difference between them is.

I can't do it for you cos I don't have Pianoteq Pro yet I'm afraid.

You don't believe in mathematics and the principle of linear superposition of waves?!?

How do you think Pianoteq works? Do you think there are little men inside your computer, playing a tiny invisible piano?

With nano-technology, maybe one day!

I certainly do believe in mathematics. What I was getting at is that the "interaction" explanation explains why we *might* hear some extra stuff at 96kHz, but I just don't yet accept that we actually do. My suspicion is that those effects are insignificant. Hence why I'd like to see some evidence.

I tried an experiment. I generated two sine waves of frequencies 22kHz and 23kHz at 96kHz sample rate. I played them through a soundcard and amplifier that can both apparently go up to 40kHz. I turned up the volume, but couldn't hear a thing over the background hiss.

Do you think there are little men inside your computer, playing a tiny invisible piano?

Just one gremlin (he regulates, too!), and the piano's _not_ invisible.  I can see it next to the memory.  Hiccup!

;^)

Yeah, OK, I've heard something along those lines before! I just don't buy it. I want some evidence.

You don't believe in mathematics and the principle of linear superposition of waves?!?

How do you think Pianoteq works? Do you think there are little men inside your computer, playing a tiny invisible piano?

You will NOT hear it - you've probably lost quite a bit of your ear frequency response. I'm 23 and mine is down do 16 kHz.

BUT; there are psychoacoustic phenomena happening when ultrasonics and infrasonics are involved. Meaning - you can't hear those frequencies, but you can definitely FEEL them. They influence you even though you're not able to hear it.

Doubling the frequency up to 96k produces an extra octave of supersonic sounds. Although your ears cannot detect these sounds directly,
these soundwaves can and do interact with each other and the rest of the piano sound (e.g. sum and difference tones), and can thus in principle produce audible partials within the frequency band that your ear *can* detect.

So there you go

Yeah, OK, I've heard something along those lines before! I just don't buy it. I want some evidence. Maybe someone could provide me with some supersonic samples that I could mix and hear some wonderous audio. Or perhaps we could pipe 96kHz Pianoteq through a supersonic high pass filter and see if we can still hear anything.

If I understand right, the generation of lower frequencies must be a non-linear effect. So it must be happening in the amp and speakers, and the ears if any high frequencies survive. If there is an effect, it's probably highly dependent on your equipment and you could be hearing something quite artificial. If there is an ideal result, then maybe that could be encoded in a plug-in that takes the 96kHz and spits out a richer 48kHz!

Anyway... maybe I should stop worrying and go and write some music...

it is this:

Doubling the frequency up to 96k produces an extra octave of supersonic sounds. Although your ears cannot detect these sounds directly,
these soundwaves can and do interact with each other and the rest of the piano sound (e.g. sum and difference tones), and can thus in principle produce audible partials within the frequency band that your ear *can* detect.

So there you go

The most dramatic example of this principle is the electronic instrument called a "theremin", I'm sure you've heard one?  IIRC, this produces two very high frequency tones, however when your hand moves about and alters one slightly due to changing the capacitance, you can hear the difference tone move into the audible band and change in pitch