what actually uses 192 khz?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dopey
  • Start date Start date
D

dopey

New member
I know this has come up before, but the search function won't work for only 3 characters.

So I wonder what actually uses 192 khz?

Is this a corner that can be cut for most musicians on a budget? Like would most plain power trio groups not need more than 96 khz?

I have been reading and researching constantly, and I don't feel very much closer to deciding on what I am gonna buy to improve my recordings.
 
if you gotta ask, then you don't need it
(I know this sounds stupid, but honestly, it is true. )
 
dopey said:
So I wonder what actually uses 192 khz?
Click to expand...

DVD Audio.

Probably SACD as well, although I'm not sure on that one.
 
yep

yes..dvd audio and SACD both use 192 khz in stereo...96khz in surround.

If you are trying to appeal to a large audience then you would have to go with hybrid SACD so everyone would be able to listen to it and then you would have regular cd-quality on the cd portion of it. Thats not going to be a reality unless you are a big shot and if thats the case you won't be worried about your budget :P

DVD-Audio is a bit more affordable but still not cheap by a long shot...
 
yes that is a good use of it surely.


I am not working with any surround encoded pieces right now... it would be nice for certain advertising jobs...

Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of instruments... I was wondering which instruments it would matter with more than others, I can only assume certain midi patches, or I guess just to have a higher raw recording standard. I just wonder how much more space it would take on your harddrive? Whatever, thanks for the responses, I do think that is a corner I can cut in my search for the right interface solution for my DAW


right now i am just using a mixer with the audigy i have, and that ONLY does 16 bit 44.1khz.... ! how crappy is that ?! hehehe it's actually fine, but might as well get something good with a few goodies.... I have been looking at the tascams a bit, but I think i may save up for the motu 828, just for more options, and still portable, which i think is f*cking great! Some things are better these days despite the some that are not....:D
 
Boosting the bit-rate from 16 to 24 will give you improved results, even at 44.1 kHz.
 
I agree with Mad Audio, I only noticed a real difference between bit rate (16 to 24) and not so much in sampling rate (44.1 to 192 khz) with 24/192 there just seems to be more clarity in some of the higher frequencies.

There are a couple affordable options if you want to go 24/192: The Edirol FA-101, the new E-MU 1820, or the Ego Sys Quatafire (hard to find though). I've got the FA-101 and every once in a while I'll record at 24/192, but it's not such a big deal (not to me anyway)...but all my other soundcards are 24/96khz which is fine.

I still pull out my old VS-880EX from time to time, and that only goes to like 16/48 and it works great!!. As long as you're careful and process correctly, you'll come out with a decent sound.
 
The i believe the thing you get with higher sampling rate is more depth.

Considering our ears only hear up to 22Khz anyway. Infact, if i remember correctly, frequencies above 16Khz are there to tell our brains the distance of the sound.

So if you are getting frequencies above these it just helps with the depth perception.

Actually if you look on alot of professionally mastered cds (even classical), its common to see a hi cut at 16Khz. With rock its normally completely cut. With classical they will bring up frequencies that they want for the distance.

I might be off on why they are normally like that, but this is what ive assumed.

So if its common to cut above that, we almost dont really need 44.1. However, the bit depth definately makes a difference. However, i debate with myself how much of a difference it actually makes after dithering.


Danny
 
I actually had the same question awhile back. But it was an even more in depth question which can refer to why we use DVDs or even SACDs....Why use a higher sample rate when monitors usually only have a freq. response of up to 20Khz??? So I didn't see the point of trying to capture frequencies above that. But what someone told me is that these higher frequencies help reinforce the lower ones. It's all harmonics. You may not be able to hear them, but you can definitely feel them. Plus, more sample rates mean more samples per second. Bringing it closer to an analog signal. This is why a lot of people like recording to tape...truer wave form representation. However I do suggest creating a higher bit depth before sample rate. You'll get a better result out of your music with bit depth. :cool:
 
Yah but if the speaker isnt really producing frequencies that high, then we still cant feel them.

I would like to see some really scientific fact that these things are true. It seems to me that those assumptions are the same as sayings like balanced cables sound better than non balanced. People swear that it does make a difference, but scientifically there really is no difference except for better grounding. So if your not going long distances, there really is no difference. But people still swear they can hear a difference.

Maybe there is scientific explanation? Can someone find something on this?

Danny
 
thank you thanks thank you

thank you all for the great responses!

very good point about the monitors typical responses bennychico.... and then you have to consider that most people DON'T have a decent stereo... but whatever, you make it good and then it flies out into the world on it's own wings...

So as a bit of an update... I am seriously considering the e-mu 1820M

It looks like it covers nearly all the bases i am interested in. 2 Preamps, good software support (supposedly) and 6 channels... +++

anyway, I don't see the harm in a higher sampling rate.
again, bennychico, that's a good point about how people swear by analouge tape, It would be best to try to get it as smooth as possible.

what you said about distances was interesting as well darnold... thanks for all the input everyone, I guess a moderator can close this now, unless it's worthy of archiving :D
 
darnold said:
Yah but if the speaker isnt really producing frequencies that high, then we still cant feel them.

I would like to see some really scientific fact that these things are true. It seems to me that those assumptions are the same as sayings like balanced cables sound better than non balanced. People swear that it does make a difference, but scientifically there really is no difference except for better grounding. So if your not going long distances, there really is no difference. But people still swear they can hear a difference.

Maybe there is scientific explanation? Can someone find something on this?

Danny
Click to expand...

http://soundwave.com/Htm/SoapBox/soap2_Apogee.htm
This can help explain about why we should use higher sample rates. Look down at the Ultrasonic section of the page.

Also, as far as why we should still use it even though our monitors can't reproduce those frequencies....the way I see it is that all the ultrasonic freq. are interacting with the lower freq. before it even gets to the speakers. Again, it's all harmonics. The lower harmonics come out with more clarity as it's recorded. So you're just hearing the result through the monitors after it's done. I think the best statement he made on that page is:
"Think of higher sample rates and longer word lengths as a kind of “headroom.” We need higher resolution in the studio than consumers so we can start with a higher level of quality in case some gets lost on the way – which might well happen."

And the reason we use balanced cables is not because of grounding issues. Unbalanced cables are still grounded...hence the shield. We use them to cancel any RMI or EMI signals that may enter our cables. I'm sure you'd be able to hear the difference if noise got recorded with your signal. So whether you're going 1 foot or 100 feet, it's best to play it safe. :cool:
 
dopey said:
anyway, I don't see the harm in a higher sampling rate.
Click to expand...

24/192 will result in file sizes 6 times larger than CD audio. While that might not be harmful, it is a consideration.

I wonder what the anti-aliasing filters are on a 192kHz converter. There is some rationale to using 96kHz as it allows use of a more gentle filter, but 192 just seems silly to me. Every spec I've looked at on prosumer 96kHz converters only claim a frequency response up to 22-25kHz; most mics take a nosedive starting at around 16kHz; most speakers don't reproduce above 20 kHz.

So most mics don't pick up ultrasound, anti-aliasing filters eliminate it, and speakers can't reproduce it. Yeah, I don't see the point to 192kHz.

Also SACD uses a different principle entirely; I believe it's like 1 bit/2mHz. If I recall since pro studios use 24 bit PCM, another conversion is necessary to SACD format.
 
bennychico11 said:
So whether you're going 1 foot or 100 feet, it's best to play it safe. :cool:
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that since gear processes unbalanced signals, the signal can be degraded by the series of transformers or amps necessary for constant balanced/unbalanced conversions. Arguably it's better to use unbalanced lines inside your rack and shield the rack, but that's not really possible since a lot of gear is designed to use balanced lines.
 
benny - We use balanced cables to get rid of RMI and EMI signal in what way? Using better grounding. I do believe those help, but when your running under like 10ft, there really isnt a problem with those signals anyway.

Dont get me wrong, i use balanced cables on everything i have in the studio. But im just trying to explain how it really doesnt match up scientifically that we use balanced over unbalanced in such short distances.

What it would really come down to is the price difference between the cables. Balanced definately cost more money than unbalanced cables. But are we just spending money on something we dont entirely need, scientifically.

I feel this is the same kind of issue, because if you decide to go into even the 96Khz range, the price range between the two would be significant. Scientifically, the 96Khz in the end (if your putting it on CD) wont really do much. Because once those frequencies are gone, so are those harmonics that are making it sound better. It wouldnt only be a matter of upgrading the converters, but also just about everything else to really know the difference.

You also need to take harddrive and processing into effect. Have you ever tried to process a nice reverb under 24/96? Even with the UAD1 it will massacre your CPU. Its the same with all other effects.

So you will have to make a major upgrade there also.

Most Post Production Engineers that i know still dont do their work in 96Khz. Even though it is being printed on DVD.

Danny
 
darnold said:
Most Post Production Engineers that i know still dont do their work in 96Khz. Even though it is being printed on DVD.

Danny
Click to expand...

Just so we're clear, DVD Audio does not have the same audio specification as a video DVD. That is why all DVD players won't automaticlaly be able to play DVD Audio disks.
 
You can hear up to 20khz. Nothing to do with distance. (actually , i can hear 22kHz... LOL call me superman) which is very annoying by the way cus i hear all kinds of high pitched sounds that drive me crazy while my girlfriend thinks i'm going mad.. (some tv's hurt my ears... )

But it was something like oversampling made errors decrease.. don't remember exactly though...
 
It's the Nyquist Theory. He stated that to have a lossless digital system, you want to sample at at least twice the upper range of human hearing - which is 20 kHz. Doubling that gives you 40 kHz. They goosed it up a little just to be sure, resulting in 44.1 kHz...
 
One of my co-workers is digitizing audio for the Save Our Sounds project. He's sampling at 96kHz.

By the way, the 'H' in "Hz" or "kHz" is capitalized because it's named after someone. Wanna guess his name?
 
I was pretty sure that up in that range it had more to do with distance relation. I guess not that you cant hear it, but our brains dont perceive them with definition. Kind of like a dog whistle, you can hear it, but its not very defined. Kind of like sub frequencies. Our ears dont necessarily hear them, we feel them. The base of the human hearing is at 1Khz.

It does make sense because of the Nyquist theory that 96Khz sampling would work. Because the problems actually start earlier at around 12-14Khz, not just up to 22Khz. The frequencies in that area and above start to form into square waves, instead of sine waves. But it is because of those kinds of filters, that digital has become so much better. If the sample rate is 96Khz, the problem will start much much higher and way past our hearing.

But the problem, as soon as you sample it back down to 44.1 one, the problem is still there. And if the resampler is of poor quality, you will have the same effect as using a poor quality A/D converter.

My main point i guess through this whole thing, is think about where your own needs are. Most of the stuff you like to hear is done on 44.1/16 (24 bit is common now). Although there is more and more professional switching to the 96Khz. If it sounds good, then it is good. The results of 96Khz probably are better in the end, but still minuscule. Is it really worth forking up the extra cash just to be 96Khz compatible?

I am 96Khz compatible and i hardly use it. It is nice to know that i am compatible incase i ever need it. But i am also a professional who can afford to do it. If you are a homerecorder doing this as a hobbie, that extra money could possibly go somewhere else.

Danny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top