What's the point of higher sampling rates in audio?, Such as 96 and 192kHz. Options

[stranhoROX]

Could someone explain to me why there are some recordings with sample rates as high as 192kHz? If most of us hear up to 20kHz, wouldn't 44.1kHz or even 48kHz be enough? Or is there other practical aspects besides boosting maximum frequency in higher sampling rates I am not aware of?

[Cavaille]

Guys, you all disappoint me. The point of higher sampling rates is capturing at best quality possible, regardless if the quality improvement to 16/44.1 is only theoretical. The point is: you can always dowsample later. Really, all your shiny, biting and ironic arguments would have made sense ten years ago but in present times it´s completely superfluous: nowadays we have plenty of HDD space, more than capable hardware, fast processing (even 32/384.000 can be edited and processed very fast if I may be allowed to indulge in that exaggeration fantasy) and extremely fast internet connections. It just doesn´t make sense to use 16/44.1 or lossy compression nowadays and even less sense to promote it as the only format worthwile.

Did it occur to you that for example the Grammy foundation and the Deutsche Grammophon are doing backups of their precious analogue tapes with 24/192 before the tapes degrade and are lost? They are doing this because for example the IASA recommends it. They also don´t care if the quality is better or not, they just want to capture everything. They apparently do it according to the motto 'Better safe than sorry'. Are you calling them stupid or deluded? They obviously know the times they are in and behave accordingly, they exploit the technical possibilities they have and don´t stand still. Which is what has been missing here since a few years now. You guys are still doing comparisons of lossy formats at 96 kBit/s! Why? The world won´t need them for much longer. Furthermore, you make fun of people who don´t share your opinion. Granted, some of them deserve it. But for a few years now everyone who promotes something like higher samplerates, 24 bit, hell, anything else that deviates from established norms is treated like a little dumb child. You have become close minded people, living in their own secluded world that is becoming smaller and smaller every day.

This forum clearly has lost its edge, I really feel that the world has turned - but without you.

I will no longer participate here (you´ll applaud it, I´m sure) and I know that sentences will be put out of context. If there would be a delete-button for my profile I´d use it.

[C.R.Helmrich]

It just doesn´t make sense to use 16/44.1 or lossy compression nowadays and even less sense to promote it as the only format worthwile.
... You guys are still doing comparisons of lossy formats at 96 kBit/s! Why? The world won´t need them for much longer. Furthermore, you make fun of people who don´t share your opinion.

I completely agree with you on the fun-making part. Such people don't contribute anything but rather deteriorate a forum's reputation. But I strongly disagree with you on the rest.

Digital archiving of historical recordings is a completely separate issue, where data rate doesn't matter. So yes, if the analog tape creates distortion up to 48 kHz, digitize at 96 kHz, why not? But why at 24 or 32 bits? You won't capture any more information than with 16 (or 14) bits per sample. And, luckily, at HA many know a thing or two about information theory which most of the world's population doesn't.

Sorry to disappoint you, but already nowadays you hear more compressed than lossless audio in your daily life. Digital TV, radio, phone, basically every animation or stream on the Internet use it. Give me an application other than physical media (CD, Blu-Ray, etc.) and private FLAC/ALAC collections where lossless audio is being distributed/used by more than a tiny minority. That's why we test things like 96 kbps: to see how low you can go with lossy compression and still achieve excellent (but of course not transparent) quality, and to make other people aware of our findings. It's a hard truth, but I think we are reaching a point where lossless audio is becoming unimportant. The industry is e.g. pushing digital radio to channel bit-rates far below 100 kbps stereo! Which is ridiculous if you ask me, but that's how it is. So there are much more important things to worry about than whether to use 48 kHz or higher sampling rates.

Edit: Thought about it some more... Of course nowadays we would also want to archive e.g. some contemporary amateur cell-phone videos with "historical value". Isn't it more important to get the crappy cell-phone video and sound right in the next phone generation than to be able to preserve it in 24/96?

My 0.02 Euro.

Chris

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Oct 18 2011, 23:08

[hellokeith]

why at 24 or 32 bits?

Chris,

I was under the impression that 24 bits offers headroom (for lack of a better word) for destructive editing operations?

[C.R.Helmrich]

why at 24 or 32 bits?

Chris,

I was under the impression that 24 bits offers headroom (for lack of a better word) for destructive editing operations?

All of what I say here exclusively focuses on recording. Of course for editing/processing, it makes sense to work with 24 or more bits, just like you would work with a 24- or 32-bit image before creating an 8-bit GIF or PNG of it. Also note in response to punkrockdude that (in my wishful thinking) I assumed that nowadays, plug-in developers know what they're doing when it comes to audible aliasing and other distortions. From what people tell me here, it seems that this is not always the case...

Chris

This post has been edited by C.R.Helmrich: Oct 19 2011, 15:52