IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test, perhaps here is the 1. listening test !
user
post Jan 30 2003, 12:42
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 873
Joined: 12-October 01
From: the great wide open
Member No.: 277



http://www.hfm-detmold.de/texts/de/hfm/eti...ten/seite1.html


http://www.hfm-detmold.de/texts/de/hfm/eti...ten/seite9.html

etc.

(seite = site / page)



it is a summary of German diploma work, written 1998, so it should be independent from companies like Zoony etc.

It was quite a good reading, I hope, somebody of the germans could translate important things, sorry, I have no time.

So, the result was:




44.1 kHz, 16 bit:

they used Tascam-DAT-Recorder DA-30 MKII as reference for CD standard, 44.1/16.

They tell, that this was picked out very clearly from the majority.

(btw, they show a graph, that says, that 16 bit has in mid frequency range a noise level, which is higher than our hearing abilities. very interesting !)

so, 44.1/16 is not sufficient.






48 kHz, 24 bit

one DAC was preferred over analogue original, but why could not be figured out. So there was difference but which ?

another DAC was able to reproduce the analogue original as best DAC of all tested, better than all the 96 kHz DACs !!!!!

in blind test it was 50/50 %, so this DAC could not be distinguihsed from original source.



96 kHz:

Dacs had worse performance than the 48 khZ ones.
but some were "beta-versions...".



Look at the graphs, especially site 9.

Sorry for this short post, but I think, it may interest you...

This post has been edited by user: Jan 30 2003, 12:43


--------------------
www.High-Quality.ch.vu -- High Quality Audio Archiving Tutorials
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
Bedeox
post Jan 31 2003, 10:40
Post #2





Group: Members
Posts: 246
Joined: 20-December 02
From: Quite quiet place in Poland
Member No.: 4181



Who wants to make such a test and has the equipment,
people and time to do it? Any volunteers?


--------------------
I've changed only because of myself.
Remember, when you quote me, you're quoting AstralStorm.
(read: this account is dead)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- user   96 vs. 48 or 44.1 kHz sampling --> scientific test   Jan 30 2003, 12:42
- - Garf   An dieser Stelle muss aber sicherlich berücksichti...   Jan 30 2003, 12:55
- - budgie   QUOTE so, 44.1/16 is not sufficient. HA... HA.....   Jan 30 2003, 13:23
- - Garf   Well, if I understand the German right, they did i...   Jan 30 2003, 13:30
- - user   just a moment, it doesn't help, if you cite si...   Jan 30 2003, 13:49
- - NumLOCK   Garf, I have not read this article yet but it seem...   Jan 30 2003, 13:55
- - user   QUOTE (Garf @ Jan 30 2003 - 01:30 PM)Well, if...   Jan 30 2003, 13:56
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE They had one very important test-setup for t...   Jan 30 2003, 13:58
- - F1Sushi   I think it's pretty clear from this "stud...   Jan 30 2003, 15:00
- - ChristianHJW   Here is how i would make such a test : 1. Record ...   Jan 30 2003, 16:33
- - budgie   Hey, hey, people... stop, please!!! So...   Jan 30 2003, 16:54
- - F1Sushi   You're certainly entitled to your opinion (so ...   Jan 30 2003, 17:25
- - SK1   This "study" is completely flawed. Until...   Jan 30 2003, 17:40
- - user   Sorry SK1, please tell me, what is flawed in thi...   Jan 30 2003, 20:00
- - F1Sushi   QUOTE (user @ Jan 30 2003 - 03:00 PM)"in...   Jan 30 2003, 21:23
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (user @ Jan 30 2003 - 08:00 PM)[...] wh...   Jan 30 2003, 21:26
- - user   Numlock, now I am even asking myself, if you have ...   Jan 30 2003, 22:11
- - jesseg   QUOTE (NumLOCK @ Jan 30 2003 - 02:26 PM)...I ...   Jan 30 2003, 22:57
- - ChristianHJW   I took the time and read the complete article. us...   Jan 30 2003, 23:25
- - Doctor   Least Significant Bit in this case.   Jan 30 2003, 23:37
- - jesseg   thanks, ill read up about its important, if someth...   Jan 30 2003, 23:39
- - AgentMil   Slightly OT Sound is so subjective, in that I th...   Jan 31 2003, 07:21
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (user @ Jan 30 2003 - 10:11 PM)Numlock,...   Jan 31 2003, 09:08
- - budgie   QUOTE ...it tells quite clearly, that 96 kHz is no...   Jan 31 2003, 09:16
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (budgie @ Jan 31 2003 - 09:16 AM)NumLOC...   Jan 31 2003, 09:23
- - Bedeox   QUOTE (ChristianHJW @ Jan 30 2003 - 07:33 AM)...   Jan 31 2003, 09:33
- - NumLOCK   Bedeox: Why not record the analog to 96kHz, 24 bi...   Jan 31 2003, 10:06
- - Bedeox   Lowpass filtering sound introduces differences... ...   Jan 31 2003, 10:18
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (Bedeox @ Jan 31 2003 - 10:18 AM)Lowpas...   Jan 31 2003, 10:34
- - Bedeox   Who wants to make such a test and has the equipmen...   Jan 31 2003, 10:40
- - Pio2001   What about the consumer products ? Even if 48 kHz...   Jan 31 2003, 12:44
- - NumLOCK   QUOTE (Pio2001 @ Jan 31 2003 - 12:44 PM)What ...   Jan 31 2003, 15:19
- - Bedeox   What is a 'typical' linearity? Every type...   Jan 31 2003, 15:30
- - mithrandir   Arguing over the wrong things... I would be perfe...   Jan 31 2003, 16:40
- - F1Sushi   QUOTE (mithrandir @ Jan 31 2003 - 11:40 AM)Ar...   Jan 31 2003, 17:17
- - Bedeox   You're so much right, mithrandir... a lot of m...   Jan 31 2003, 17:20
- - F1Sushi   Does anyone remember this article on compression a...   Jan 31 2003, 17:26
- - budgie   Uh?   Jan 31 2003, 20:24
- - F1Sushi   QUOTE (budgie @ Jan 31 2003 - 03:24 PM)QUOTE ...   Jan 31 2003, 20:38
- - Bedeox   Oh yeah... THE OTHER SIDE you say? From INSIDE of ...   Jan 31 2003, 20:43


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th April 2014 - 07:59