24bit/192KHz is worthless

wheelema

wheelema

Boner-obo
Actually it's a little bit worse then worthless.

In the past few weeks, I've had conversations with intelligent, scientifically minded individuals who believe in 24/192 downloads and want to know how anyone could possibly disagree. They asked good questions that deserve detailed answers.

I was also interested in what motivated high-rate digital audio advocacy. Responses indicate that few people understand basic signal theory or the sampling theorem, which is hardly surprising. Misunderstandings of the mathematics, technology, and physiology arose in most of the conversations, often asserted by professionals who otherwise possessed significant audio expertise. Some even argued that the sampling theorem doesn't really explain how digital audio actually works [1].

Misinformation and superstition only serve charlatans. So, let's cover some of the basics of why 24/192 distribution makes no sense before suggesting some improvements that actually do.
Click to expand...

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
 
I wouldn't say worthless, but it is overkill. The main reason for sampling higher than 44.1 is so the brick wall low pass filter can be placed well above the audible range. (Yes, some people can hear the cutoff, although those people should be relatively few.) 48 kHz is sufficient for that.
 
diggy_dude said:
I wouldn't say worthless, but it is overkill. The main reason for sampling higher than 44.1 is so the brick wall low pass filter can be placed well above the audible range. (Yes, some people can hear the cutoff, although those people should be relatively few.) 48 kHz is sufficient for that.
Click to expand...

Oversampling solved that issue years ago. Conversion at 44.1 is not subject to the radical analog filtering formerly necessary.
 
diggy_dude said:
How high would you go before you consider any higher to be pointless?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with 48kHz. I think that's more than adequate for recording/mixing and it's compatible with film/video. More than that doesn't have much benefit and it has to be filtered down to 20kHz anyway.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
I'm fine with 48kHz. I think that's more than adequate for recording/mixing and it's compatible with film/video. More than that doesn't have much benefit and it has to be filtered down to 20kHz anyway.
Click to expand...
+1. A lot of the misinformation about sampling, like the brickwall filter thing, used to be true 20 or so years ago, but has since been addressed.

The digital is cold thing was started when digital first came out and engineers were still expecting the recording medium to do half the work of making things sound good. It also wasn't helped when some of the first transfers to cd were done from masters that had pre emphasis required for cutting vinyl, which made it sound thin, brittle and harsh.

Metallica's black album was mastered from a 16/44.1k dat backup. It sounds great and sold over 20 million albums. I doubt it would have sounded any different or sold any better if it was mastered from a 24/96k master.
 
It's one of these things, isn't it.
Few people understand it (myself included), but too many people think it's the problem.

If you can't make a good recording at 16bit/44.1, you can't make a good recording.
That's just my opinion.

I record at 24bit/48k because I'm a sheep. I've read plenty of debates and never felt there was enough strength on either side to make me care.
Good ol' middle ground never fails. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top