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?

[pappaapa]

Question:

Shouldn't the rest of the worlds acoustics be considered as well?
I mean, non audible frequencies pass through materials and become audible. So they need to be there if you want a natural sound reproduction.
It's not just our eardrums in the room, is it?

To make a comparison with light:
Your day at the office would be pretty dark if you were to take the non visible part of the spectra out of the equation.
As the flourecent lights fully depends on ultraviolet light, a higher frequency light just outside the visible spectra.

NOTE: I'm a musician and an audiophile, not a scientist. So I could be horribly wrong.
And maybe this has been said a million times before.
But to me it feels pretty obvious.

You should start to slow the soundwaves down right at the speaker covers.

/Levi

[2Bdecided]

To make a comparison with light:
Your day at the office would be pretty dark if you were to take the non visible part of the spectra out of the equation.

It wouldn't make any visible difference, because they're non visible.

As the flourecent lights fully depends on ultraviolet light, a higher frequency light just outside the visible spectra.

But speakers don't depend on ultrasonic sound to create audible sound (well, there's a device that does, but it's not a normal speaker).

Any hypothetical intermodulation of ultrasonics from the original instruments, mixing in air to create audible components, will be strongest near the instruments themselves - and will be captured, in the audible range, by the microphones at the original event. So you don't need to create them in the listening room - they're already in the recording if they exist.

Far more real (i.e. measurable and sometimes audible) is unwanted intermodulation in the speakers themselves. That never exited in the original performance, and can be measurably reduced by removing all ultrasonics cleanly.

Cheers,
David.

This post has been edited by 2Bdecided: Nov 8 2011, 18:02

[pappaapa]

Any hypothetical intermodulation of ultrasonics from the original instruments, mixing in air to create audible components, will be strongest near the instruments themselves - and will be captured, in the audible range, by the microphones at the original event. So you don't need to create them in the listening room - they're already in the recording if they exist.

@ David & Soap
Sorry guys I didn't fully understand this explanation when I first read it. Learning as I go along.
Very true, this!

But still, it leaves out all the sounds that hasn't been recorded through a mic. Synths, or a lined bass.
And more important (i'm guessing) it leaves out all the sounds together, in a mix.

One more try with the sleep thing.
Levi

[Soap]

But still, it leaves out all the sounds that hasn't been recorded through a mic. Synths, or a lined bass.
And more important (i'm guessing) it leaves out all the sounds together, in a mix.

What you are now describing is audio harmonics the artist themselves would not have heard.



That is (unless we're talking calculated harmonic interference ala someone like The Hafler Trio or Aphex Twin) by definition outside the scope of artistic intent and thus undesirable noise - distortion.


If we ARE talking calculated harmonics only present on playback then clearly the artist would publish in a medium capable of creating said harmonics.