A/D Converter High Res No high pass
- Thread starter Ryan Murphy
- Start date
The obvious course of action here would be to ban Ryan but the only real reason to do that would be because his ravings could confuse newbs and others who do not have a good grasp of the concepts here.
That would give some people the idea that HR is not an open, free speech* forum and that "truths" are being withheld, possibly so as not to offend powerful, commercial interests?
Therefore, so long as he refrains from personal attacks etc, I think we must put up with him and just point out from time to time his errors, such as confusing imperial and metric values.
Maybe I shall have one more stab to get him to see sense? There is only SO much information in a signal of limited bandwidth and so for 20-20k sound a 44.1kHz sampling rate grabs it all. A crude analogy would be trying to get better resolution from a newspaper 'dot' photograph.
*Free in the philosophical sense. No one is 'free' to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Dave.
That would give some people the idea that HR is not an open, free speech* forum and that "truths" are being withheld, possibly so as not to offend powerful, commercial interests?
Therefore, so long as he refrains from personal attacks etc, I think we must put up with him and just point out from time to time his errors, such as confusing imperial and metric values.
Maybe I shall have one more stab to get him to see sense? There is only SO much information in a signal of limited bandwidth and so for 20-20k sound a 44.1kHz sampling rate grabs it all. A crude analogy would be trying to get better resolution from a newspaper 'dot' photograph.
*Free in the philosophical sense. No one is 'free' to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre.
Dave.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
It's not so much a question of banning anyone...but this is either intentional trolling or very confused BS...neither of which falls under the "free speech" umbrella, IMO, when it's continual.
Any time there is a person who comes here to ask questions...and then proceeds to reject all answers that the rest of the world agrees on...you gotta wonder which of the above two explanations apply.
I think it's trolling...though it may be driven by some confused understanding.
Any time there is a person who comes here to ask questions...and then proceeds to reject all answers that the rest of the world agrees on...you gotta wonder which of the above two explanations apply.
I think it's trolling...though it may be driven by some confused understanding.
I agree with you Miroslav, almost certainly a troll but we must reserve judgement until he steps over the civilized discussion mark?
Dave.
Ryan Murphy
New member
it says 9. I use inch not metric. No math involved in the making of that. I still dont understand whybyou guys are still be so hostile, when the 384k audio is more clear than the 96k.
Righr now youbguys are disputing simple 3rd grade math in Elementry school. That is what is happening here right now. This is not a troll post. you refuse to beleive 384k > 96k
Now you have to call me a troll because you dont no math. I'm the only person so far who uses Math on this forum. You guys are confusing language with and the English word math for being accual arithmic algebra.
Just like your confused with digital media. I have digital hifi recordings that Ibhave never heard anywhere before. thats because everybody is sharring the LAME audio compressed mp3's that fail to recreate the sound for how it truly is. I've got 192k stuff that just doesn't work in 96k.
For instance I compress it to 24 bit .ogg Now it will keep the general feel of the track, but with more distortion. I dont hate it. Or i play a 192k flac file over a 48k DAC 96k. Not everything makes it through. That tardia song the reverb from the elecrric guitar doesnt come through unless you play it through a 192k DAC. Just not enough space for all that data on the others.
The current motherboard in question here is a strx40 AsRock Taichi with realtek 1220 audio codec. Im thinknof selling and getting Asus Prime strx 40. or selling the cpu also and get old intel comp and with money from that go back to tape.
Here is a 48k hd mic from cell phone recording. I think Samsung dose a really good job at recreating the detail of these instruments played. I think they have the best alogrithm for doing this. But even so. They manage to recrete the exact detail for what the instruments truly sound like in 48k audio. There is a certian meatyness that is missing.
https://soundcloud.com/ryankm/life-in-peril?ref=clipboard
Righr now youbguys are disputing simple 3rd grade math in Elementry school. That is what is happening here right now. This is not a troll post. you refuse to beleive 384k > 96k
Now you have to call me a troll because you dont no math. I'm the only person so far who uses Math on this forum. You guys are confusing language with and the English word math for being accual arithmic algebra.
Just like your confused with digital media. I have digital hifi recordings that Ibhave never heard anywhere before. thats because everybody is sharring the LAME audio compressed mp3's that fail to recreate the sound for how it truly is. I've got 192k stuff that just doesn't work in 96k.
For instance I compress it to 24 bit .ogg Now it will keep the general feel of the track, but with more distortion. I dont hate it. Or i play a 192k flac file over a 48k DAC 96k. Not everything makes it through. That tardia song the reverb from the elecrric guitar doesnt come through unless you play it through a 192k DAC. Just not enough space for all that data on the others.
The current motherboard in question here is a strx40 AsRock Taichi with realtek 1220 audio codec. Im thinknof selling and getting Asus Prime strx 40. or selling the cpu also and get old intel comp and with money from that go back to tape.
Here is a 48k hd mic from cell phone recording. I think Samsung dose a really good job at recreating the detail of these instruments played. I think they have the best alogrithm for doing this. But even so. They manage to recrete the exact detail for what the instruments truly sound like in 48k audio. There is a certian meatyness that is missing.
https://soundcloud.com/ryankm/life-in-peril?ref=clipboard
Last edited:
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
OP just wants to go round in circles.
If OP prepared a research paper that outlined his thesis and provided the evidence, he would qualify for a Nobel prize, because he would revolutionize the science of audio electronics, overturning the consolidated work of thousands of physicists, including Nyquist, over a couple of hundred years.
OP has not addressed any of the credible explanations provided here, but seems to be basing his conclusions on a simple mathematical operation that bears no relation to the science of audio electronics.
As OP is fixed in his views, there seems little point in any further engagement.
If OP prepared a research paper that outlined his thesis and provided the evidence, he would qualify for a Nobel prize, because he would revolutionize the science of audio electronics, overturning the consolidated work of thousands of physicists, including Nyquist, over a couple of hundred years.
OP has not addressed any of the credible explanations provided here, but seems to be basing his conclusions on a simple mathematical operation that bears no relation to the science of audio electronics.
As OP is fixed in his views, there seems little point in any further engagement.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Wow...
...you're talking about "detail of the instruments"...but you don't notice how out of tune everything is, and the overload distortion that is so obvious in your audio clips.soundcloud.com/ryankm
Now you definitely remind me of a troll we had here not too long ago...he would post clips of his awful, out of tune singing and crazy screaming...and constantly ask if he was improving, but it was always the same thing, over and over...and in the end, it turned out he was trolling other sites with the same nonsense, just to get a rise out of people.
Anyway...good luck with your music, with your 384 kHz conversions, and your "9 ips" high quality cassette mixing.
You're onto to something that no one else has discovered.
Last edited:
jimmys69
MOODerator
Wow...
Now you definitely remind me of a troll we had here not too long ago...he would post clips of his awful, out of tune singing and crazy screaming...and constantly ask if he was improving, but it was always the same thing, over and over...and in the end, it turned out he was trolling other sites with the same nonsense, just to get a rise out of people.
Anyway...good luck with your music, with your 384 kHz conversions, and your "9 ips" high quality cassette mixing.
You're onto to something that no one else has discovered.
Ok,this mod has derived this one is a troll of sort. Or just confused...
I do like some entertainment however, so I don't feel banning is necessary.
As Miro stated, the problem is his...
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
Ryan Murphy said:
Apparently Realtek doesn't publish specs for the 1220 chip/codec. I've seen reference to auto impedance sensing headphone output, multiple channel (surround) capability, and PCM audio support up to 192 kHz.
I found a forum where someone was complaining about the sound of the mic input in Linux and provided a printout of the codec info.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with 384 kHz sampling, as the only 2 ADC's you mention cap out at 24 bit 192 kHz.
I'm not trying to be hostile, but we need to do some fact checking. Random claims about 9 IPS cassettes and 384 kHz converters aren't worth much without the hardware that can support those rates. Don't take it personally, but it seems that's not what you have.
Once again, personally I wouldn't be trying to do any serious high fidelity audio work with any kind of Realtek or Soundblaster grade stuff. It seems that both your Realtek and your Edirol max out at 24/192, but I suspect the Edirol at base rates would smoke the Realtek at any rate.
Ryan Murphy said:
Yes indeed. That's like 1/4 mile drag racing in an electric golf cart with a dead battery.
Just sayin'.
By all means, do whatever pleases you.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
I don't care what you believe. I'm not interested in changing your demonstrably incorrect beliefs, but I don't want someone coming to this site for information getting misled by your bogus claims. So here's the correct information on the tape machine you specified, direct from YAMAHA MT100 OPERATION MANUAL Pdf Download | ManualsLib.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
The only difference between inches and centimeters is a factor of 2.54. This is an exact conversion.
in. x 2.54 = cm
cm / 2.54 = in.
in. x 2.54 = cm
cm / 2.54 = in.
Except, OUR inch (good riddance!) was not quieeeet the same as the US inch.
My son, now 48, was in secondary school when Britain went SI units and so he was taught both! The result is, he is lost in either system!
Dave.
rob aylestone
Moderator
People lose perspective in audio discussions - finding it impossible to isolate 'quality' from 'quality' because we all hear things and interpret them differently. The only real facts are that lab testing can reveal what happens above say 18K, and lab testing is the only way to analyse what happens up there. BUT - we determine quality by our brain processing the audio, not the audio itself. So listening to white, rather than pink noise sounds different - but that is not a better or worse judgement - just different. Listen to stuff recorded at 15IPS as a standard and you find tuning problems with machines being nearly 15IPS, but too the majority of listeners, it's fine. Many producers from the 60s and 70s loved varispeed - hearing perfection drift in and out. Di Brian Wilson really find one setting that jumped out and said wow, when others didn't? People with perfect pitch find 14.9IPS cringeworthy, but others don't notice. We MUST separate our perception from the technical, measurable one.
I'm firmly off the opinion that I cannot tell 44.1 from 48KHz, so there is no point recording twice as much data I cannot hear by using 96! Going higher, just because I can is pointless (to me) I personally discount the people who claim to be able to hear micro-quality increases as very subjective and probably un-testable or unrepeatable, but like religion and politics, it's a belief, and people are entitled to it. They cannot, however, object to serious questions about their unreasonable beliefs and promoting it on a public forum is always going to be divisive.
We live with Nyquist, and nothing so far has convinced me that higher sampling rates equate to better quality, once it goes past a threshold, which is the limits of human hearing. People bang on about it. They will never convince me because I'm sold on my view being correct to the same degree they believe their is the correct one. We call it a draw and move on. Trying to convince a flat farther never works does it. Why do we do it with audio?
I'm firmly off the opinion that I cannot tell 44.1 from 48KHz, so there is no point recording twice as much data I cannot hear by using 96! Going higher, just because I can is pointless (to me) I personally discount the people who claim to be able to hear micro-quality increases as very subjective and probably un-testable or unrepeatable, but like religion and politics, it's a belief, and people are entitled to it. They cannot, however, object to serious questions about their unreasonable beliefs and promoting it on a public forum is always going to be divisive.
We live with Nyquist, and nothing so far has convinced me that higher sampling rates equate to better quality, once it goes past a threshold, which is the limits of human hearing. People bang on about it. They will never convince me because I'm sold on my view being correct to the same degree they believe their is the correct one. We call it a draw and move on. Trying to convince a flat farther never works does it. Why do we do it with audio?
Absolutely Rob. The 'magic' hyper 20kHz bandwidth debate really only started with the Silicon planar transistor.
It is hard, not impossible, but very hard to make a valve mic pre amp that gets much past 25kHz (and the transformers will cost you a fortune!) so nobody really bothered to try, in any case, vinyl only went up to 18kHz and FM radio chopped off at 15kHz (and STEREO FM has a sampling rate of 38kHz. Hows about THEM apples Ryan?) A top grade Studer or Scully would get out to 30kH at 15ips but what do you do with it?
Commeth the Siptransistor and WOW! These 'audio' transistor still work at 20megs! 'K me! We are going to market a pre amp with a 3dB turnover at 200kHz(cos we can!) and THEN start a spin campaign to flog 'em.
Such pre amps and other 'RF receiving' audio kit has been around for decades and the snake oil and BS has been there with it but nobody, AFAIK has ever produce a double blind test that proved we NEED a response past 20kHz.
Dave.
It is hard, not impossible, but very hard to make a valve mic pre amp that gets much past 25kHz (and the transformers will cost you a fortune!) so nobody really bothered to try, in any case, vinyl only went up to 18kHz and FM radio chopped off at 15kHz (and STEREO FM has a sampling rate of 38kHz. Hows about THEM apples Ryan?) A top grade Studer or Scully would get out to 30kH at 15ips but what do you do with it?
Commeth the Siptransistor and WOW! These 'audio' transistor still work at 20megs! 'K me! We are going to market a pre amp with a 3dB turnover at 200kHz(cos we can!) and THEN start a spin campaign to flog 'em.
Such pre amps and other 'RF receiving' audio kit has been around for decades and the snake oil and BS has been there with it but nobody, AFAIK has ever produce a double blind test that proved we NEED a response past 20kHz.
Dave.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
rob aylestone said:
It's a valid opinion, and it's actually very popular in practice for folks to be using target rates of 44.1 or 48 for respective audio and video projects. There are valid arguments for using 96k as well, but it often goes full circle back to Nyquist and then people tend to rehash the same arguments over and over.
The basics start with the Nyquist Sampling Theorem. Dan Lavry's article on sampling theory expands on the principles a little and suggests an optimal sample rate of 60k to address real world design considerations for anti-alias filtering. Others with similar authority on the subject have come to similar conclusions. Key takeaways for me are that 1.) Nyquist was not wrong, and 2.) the function of anti-alias filtering is critical to the process.
IMO, the definitive answer is - it depends. There are 2 processes to consider, conversion and processing. A well built converter should have well designed and effective analog stages that consider headroom and phase coherence of the filter. Given a well designed converter that tries to be more or less bulletproof, it might be possible to set up a test of signal A and mult that through 2 identical high quality converters, say 1 running at 44.1 and 1 running at 96. Without processing the signal, it might be reasonable to conclude that it's very difficult to hear a difference. It might also be reasonable to do a similar test of converters not built to the same standard and hear an obvious difference between those rates. If there's some kind of overshoot or compromise to the filtering, it's possible and measurable to get foldback aliasing that deposits aliasing harmonics in the audible range of the reconstructed signal, right down to bass frequencies. Granted that modern oversampling converters do a lot to make the filtering easier, all things being equal, they're not.
Processing is another can of worms. Folks have made the observation that some plugins sound better at higher sample rates. Faster rates make it easier to satisfy Nyquist and reduce the possibility of foldback aliasing. A big consideration is the design and implementation of the plugin code. Developers have the option of oversampling within the internal process of the plugin from somewhere like 2 to 16 (16!) times. Or not. Processes like distortion or compression that generate harmonic content can be prone to problems. Once again, it depends. Some plugins sound better at higher rates, others don't matter so much. As with anything in engineering, it's a series of tradeoffs to design an effective system.
Processing power and CPU efficiency are important considerations as well. For a lot of people that run sessions with a lot of tracks and plugins, 96k will cut your resources in half from 48, and in some cases that's not feasable. With rock solid conversion and plugins that don't deposit the artifacts, it could be less of a concern.
Arguments like "384 > 96! OMG! OMG!" are an oversimlification that ignores how the system works. Again, Nyquist was not wrong, but filtering everything above Nyquist is critical to implementing it properly. If someone can hear a difference or not, and present a reasonable argument as to why, it's not really my place to suggest what people can or can't hear. Education on the subject can help, but it's easy to find people that are highly polarized to one side or the other which can erupt in internets controversy.
An interesting point from the Lavry paper is that as you start to run converters at super high rates, there's a tradeoff between speed and accuracy. It's at odds with blind market speak that more is more.
rob aylestone
Moderator
Do you remember Technics/Matsushita years back with their 1 bit sampling? Lots of theory as to how to take the exact same sample from the waveform and convert it faster rather than take 16 slightly different samples. Sounded very sensible and people swore they could hear it, until test proved you couldn't. We can edit down to individual samples and when we cut out clicks and re-draw waveforms, we consider it a success when the unwanted artefact isn't audible. However, the waveform is nicer to listen to, but less accurate. I have trouble balancing the two.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
ecc83 said:
I'm not familiar with that one. My line of work requires conversion between metric and imperial units for the most part.
The metric system is an attempt to replace a variety of different measuring systems with an international standard, but imperial units are still widely used and the US tends to do their own thing. We know what a ton is, but there's the long ton, the short ton and the metric tonne which are all different. US gallon is not the same as the imperial gallon. Whitworth threads, etc...
At least with metric, a litre only means one thing.
Pretty sure Snowy. The difference is minute and not going to bother even the most fastidious cabinet maker but could be a problem in a ICE?
Will look it up, not unusual for this old git to be remembering bollox!
"As a result of the definitions above, the U.S. inch was effectively defined as 25.4000508 mm (with a reference temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit) and the U.K. inch at 25.399977 mm (with a reference temperature of 62 degrees Fahrenheit). ... In 1930, the British Standards Institution adopted an inch of exactly 25.4 mm"
Ref, Wiki.
Dave.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
Well hey, I learned something new. (Old, actually). But what's 0.0000738 amongst friends? For machining purposes it's practical to have tolerances that typically don't get tighter than .0005", and temperature can bugger with it. Fortunately they reworked it so now it's just 25.4.