Topic: Sampling frequency
Can anyone honestly say they hear a difference in audio quality through using 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz when playing live?
Ian
- Beemer
- Member
- Offline
- Beemer
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Luc Henrion wrote:
Nobody could. Simple.
Not so simple. A young person might be able to hear 24kHz
Ian
- Luc Henrion
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
1. not true. you need a dog's ear for this !
2. anyway, he still couldn't tell the difference between a 44.1 and 48 KHz sampling rate. There are many, many more important elements in the equation: quality of DA converters & associated filters being the most important.
- DonSmith
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
After a certain range is it more to do with the feeling of depth and body in the sound?
- EvilDragon
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Luc Henrion wrote:
1. not true. you need a dog's ear for this !
True. Some (as in - not all) younger people CAN hear over 20k. I know several of them.
Last edited by EvilDragon (25-12-2014 17:11)
Hard work and guts!
- Philippe Guillaume
- Admin
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Is it important whether you can hear up to Eb9 (20 kHz) or up to F#9 (24 kHz)? It's only a minor third, not much compared to the 10 octaves 20 to 20 kHz... .
(sorry for repeating an argument already used in another thread)
- EvilDragon
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
If you're doing mixing and mastering, sure it is.
Hard work and guts!
- Philippe Guillaume
- Admin
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
You are surely right, although I have been told from mix engineers that many of them have audition capabilities damaged by the many hours spent on listening too loud. Surely an issue if unexpected high frequency whistles produced by some devices appear in the soundscape.
- jcfelice88keys
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Philippe Guillaume wrote:
You are surely right, although I have been told from mix engineers that many of them have audition capabilities damaged by the many hours spent on listening too loud. Surely an issue if unexpected high frequency whistles produced by some devices appear in the soundscape.
Please note: My response is somewhat off-topic to the subject matter, namely, sampling frequency.
To confirm Philippe's response, I find that it is useful to "put away" a given mix for a few days if one can afford to do so. Why? That's because our senses of hearing tend to become fatigued upon long mixing sessions, especially at high volumes of performances containing extended high frequency content. When I personally return to a given mix after my ears have had a chance to "cool down", I usually use this mix as a learning device to decide how to re-record the live performance, rather than fixing it in the mix with post-processed EQ, compression, etc.
Personally, some of the submissions I have heard on this website (and on others) tend to sound as though they were among the first takes made with no mistakes; the performer was so happy with the technical excellence of his performance that he ignores (comparatively) the way that performance "sounds" to the ear.
Cheers,
Joe
- Luc Henrion
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
I fully agree about the fact that you preferably not record and mix the same day. In fact, apart from being tired, I would say that you're not listening the same way. Just my opnion.
Well, back to the topic: "Can anyone honestly say they hear a difference in audio quality through using 48kHz rather than 44.1kHz when playing live?"
And I say "no" again. Let's suppose someone hears above 20 KHz (I still doubt, but OK, let's say someone "perceives something", that's something I may admit), but that's not enough to hear the difference between 44 and 48 K. As I wrote before, there are many other factors in the equation: for example, some converters perform better @ 44.1 than 48 (or higher rates), because of their filtering design.
But OK, that's only my personal opinion. Again. :-)
- EvilDragon
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Philippe Guillaume wrote:
You are surely right, although I have been told from mix engineers that many of them have audition capabilities damaged by the many hours spent on listening too loud. Surely an issue if unexpected high frequency whistles produced by some devices appear in the soundscape.
True... that's why there are recommended loudness levels for extended mixing hours...
Hard work and guts!
- Beemer
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Luc Henrion wrote:
1. not true. you need a dog's ear for this !
2. anyway, he still couldn't tell the difference between a 44.1 and 48 KHz sampling rate. There are many, many more important elements in the equation: quality of DA converters & associated filters being the most important.
Luc,
Yes I do believe your comment. I'm uncertain as to why using 48kHz is beneficial when recording with Pianoteq?
Ian
- EvilDragon
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
48k is standard used in audio-video production. 44.1 is when doing purely audio production.
Hard work and guts!
- delt
- Member
- Offline
Re: Sampling frequency
Interesting video on the topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_0DXxNeaQ0
http://soundcloud.com/delt01
Pianoteq 5 STD+blüthner, Renoise 3 • Roland FP-4F + M-Audio Keystation 88es
Intel i5@3.4GHz, 16GB • Linux Mint xfce 64bit
Pianoteq 5 STD+blüthner, Renoise 3 • Roland FP-4F + M-Audio Keystation 88es
Intel i5@3.4GHz, 16GB • Linux Mint xfce 64bit