48 kHz?

This forum is for video and audio help and discussion.

Postby post-it » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:34 am

.. thought so; newbe!
.. Recording Studios use 2" perforated reel to reels which move at 30" to 60 " per second to kill background wow & flutter plus hiss is no longer an issue which was common knowledge to anyone in the Music Business up until a few years ago. The overall response was 2hz - 70khz at 32 channels with a depth of 160dbs. Larger studios ran at 3" which didn't really matter at that time because DBX was now helping to make background noise a thing of the past plus it helped improve the high end frequencies by encoding the bells shimmers - previously only heard inside the studio itself.
.. When CD's were introduced, the first thing everyone noticed was how FLAT and LIFELESS the recordings were; they were right - the shimmer and subtle vibrations were all but erased from the CD itself. CD's had a limitation of sixty DBs which was masked by the first fifty DBs being understood as a threshold .. artist's were not buying this theory back then .. we still don't buy that theory today. however, the tone-def number-crunchers kept people off balance long enough for CD's to become popular and make 44.1k a standard.
.. The advantage of Reel to Reels, Cassette and LP's were their ability to hide signals like "Quad Stereo" and "Stereo Quad" plus "FM carriers for CD-4" in those tapes and on those records. CD's came along and didn't have the bandwidth to hold those carriers. 48k was tryed and it failed. 88.2k would allow "SQ" to respond again and 92k allowed "QS" and "DBX" to be down-mixxed to 68K signals once more.
.. Digitally, 48k sampling rates just do not hold enough frequency response to be useful in the Music industry. Yamaha came out with a standard that the Digital world totally overlooked called VQF .. but you already know about its devide in threes' pattern don't you.
.. Once again I ask the question of, "Where Are These 96k Encoders" on the internet; if they make them then where are they, if not we'll have to program them.
.. I'm sure that LAME has a 96k sample rate joint stereo encoders somewhere; all I'm asking is "where are they hiding it at" ??
.. If such a beast has not been made; then make the bloody thing already - quit screwing around like BOB the BIAS here and get crack'n.

~fin~
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby bobbias » Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:44 am

I see what you're talking about here now (though your bad english makes it hard for me to read at times).

I will admit I don't know much about the older equipment used in recording. Nor do I know everything there is to know. I couldn't understand what you were asking, and assumed you were trying to upsample a 44.1khz CD signal to a higher samplerate in order to gain the frequency response which was lost when it recorded as 44.1khz.

I know CDs aren't the best, but they DO happen to be quite a bit more durable than tape.

Honestly, if you're going to be recording things in 96k, it's not worth it to use MP3. If you didn't already know MP3 is getting pretty old now, and the psychoacoustics systems that it uses to encode the data and drop certain frequencies is VERY damaging to anything over 20khz.

If you're so concerned about all of this, head over to the hydrogenaudio forums at hydrogenaudio.org. They know a boatload more than I do, and should be able to help you out better than I can.
User avatar
bobbias
 
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada

Postby Qyot27 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:16 pm

bobbias wrote:Honestly, if you're going to be recording things in 96k, it's not worth it to use MP3.

I actually don't even think 96kHz is in the MP3 specifications - I believe MP3's abilities cut off at 48kHz, 16-bit. AAC supports the higher frequency ranges and higher bit depths, but then again, AAC is also newer than MP3 is. Vorbis can do it as well, and it's listed in WMA encoding lists but I'd just as soon stay away from WMA period.

I can see support for higher frequencies and bit depths coming in handy for converting between the MLP streams on DVD-Audio discs and the high-def disc formats without the need to downsample the frequency and drop the bit depth, as streams of 96kHz@24-bit calibre are available there. Regular CDs, however, don't support that, and neither do DVD-Video discs (as far as MLP goes anyway, as it eats up too much space to be feasible outside of dedicated DVD-Audio discs and/or DualDisc implementations).
User avatar
Qyot27
Surreptitious fluffy bunny
 
Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Location: St. Pete, FL
Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs

Postby bobbias » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:13 am

Well, I don't know all the technical specs for MP3. I was just saying that in general, if your source is at 44.1khz, there's no point in upsampling it because all that will do is increase the file size without doing anything with the extra frequency response. Not to mention that MP3 would damage a good portion of the extra frequency response range anyway because of the psychoacoustics it employs. AAC and Vorbis are both considered better compression schemes than MP3 because they are considered transparent at lower bitrates, the sound overall better at low bitrates compared to MP3, and they tend to sound better at any given rate than MP3.

I don't know all the technical specs, but I have hung around hydrogenaudio long enough to find out that MP3 rarely EVER sounds as good as almost every single alternative there is. (I also know from personal experience.)
User avatar
bobbias
 
Joined: 01 Aug 2003
Location: Midland, Ontario, Canada

Postby Qyot27 » Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:32 pm

bobbias wrote:Well, I don't know all the technical specs for MP3. I was just saying that in general, if your source is at 44.1khz, there's no point in upsampling it because all that will do is increase the file size without doing anything with the extra frequency response. Not to mention that MP3 would damage a good portion of the extra frequency response range anyway because of the psychoacoustics it employs. AAC and Vorbis are both considered better compression schemes than MP3 because they are considered transparent at lower bitrates, the sound overall better at low bitrates compared to MP3, and they tend to sound better at any given rate than MP3.

I don't know all the technical specs, but I have hung around hydrogenaudio long enough to find out that MP3 rarely EVER sounds as good as almost every single alternative there is. (I also know from personal experience.)

True. The only examples nowadays where I upconvert from any frequency to 48 is in the case of encoding video for DVD (or in expectation for DVD), as 44.1kHz isn't supported. Whether one's standalone supports it is a different issue, but I still go for the standard itself because then I have a guarantee that it'll play regardless.
User avatar
Qyot27
Surreptitious fluffy bunny
 
Joined: 30 Aug 2002
Location: St. Pete, FL
Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs

Postby post-it » Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:23 am

.. MLP -vs- MP3 .. ( MPL maybe ) someone was saying that there was a format for audio which accepted 96k sampling rates; or was that Verbos ??

.. I'm not looking for DTS nor AC3 encoding, just a non-WAV format that works at 96k Sampling Rate & 192k or better Baud Rate ( joint-stereo perfered ^^ )

.. I zipped through Doom9's Message Board and "did find two references to 96k Sampling Rates" but they never clairified what they encoded it with T_T" and as far as I can tell, they are going about this DTS/MTS A/52 AC_3 thing a$$-backwards; Joint-Stereo at 22k sampling rate will hold all the structured-channels in place perfectly ( tested by myself and others ) locations from left to right, when locked by Joint-Stereo, make it impossible not to decode it correctly in MP3's and via the Radium Encoded AVI's & MKv's .. but 48k sound better ^__^ 96k would sound even better :P

.. .. a quick history lesson for those who didn't hear QS CD-4 SQ and Discrete-4 encoding back in the 1974 era
.. Sansui's QS-4 failed because it required four-separate-channels to be encoded in a studio; it was transmitted over FM-Stereo-Radio's which detected a second carrier ( 19k stereo, 38k Quad, 76k 2nd audio ) which was just too much garbage for non-digital Analog to "lock-on-a-signal." Records ( LP's .. Albums ) had no problem with those carriers if "IF" your record Needle ( Stylist ) could respond to those freqencies.
.. JVC's CD-4 Demodulator .. same problem as QS-4.
.. Discrete-4 is now called AC_6 .. .. Reel to Reels & 8-Tracks only! ( tape drives )

.. Columbia House Records used SQ ( location mapping ) encoders/decoders which simply put a "Region Of SPACE" [[ left (front) 60% to 80% . left (rear) 10% to 40% . right (rear) 10% to 40% . right (front) 60% to 80% ]] and it worked flawlessly even over standard stereo radio signals. If you had a stand FM Stereo Tuner, it didn't matter because the decoder was either purchased separately or from a KIT via Radio Electronics for about $20.00 .. ? region left speaker to region right speaker ? is that possible ? and they were not out-of-phase to each other ? .. yup!
[[[ . . lf lf lf . lr lr lr . center . rr rr rr . rf rf rf . . ]]] the un-used area's ( regions ) were usually drums and bass guitars and mostly back-up-singers. -- kinda simple eah ?? BTW those regions can still be decoded from CD's made today if they are following the standards set by an alliance between Columbia/RCA/JVC/SONY in 1975 and adopted by EMI. http://www.stereosociety.com/FourSides.html

.. conclusion .. if DTS/PRO Logic II/AC3/AAC/MP3se are all such new products, then why can they decode things recorded in 1975 flawlessly T_T .. A/52 lovers your encoders were RC Timing Networks and Transistors in the 1970's, how hard can it be to re-create something once everybody has forgotten where it came from ????
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/ ... d.php?t=82
http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/ ... ay.php?f=2
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Postby Kevmaster » Sun Dec 02, 2007 8:01 am

O.o I never thought something simple like this could get into such a big discusion..
Kevmaster
Eisenbahnmörser
 
Joined: 28 May 2006

Postby post-it » Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:19 pm

Kevmasterflashdeluxe wrote:O.o I never thought something simple like this could get into such a big discusion..
.. hehe, five years ago if you said anything about 48k sample rates, the board lit-up like a xmas tree and then the subject vanished ( usually within two hours from when it started, the subject was erased. )
User avatar
post-it
 
Joined: 17 Jul 2002
Status: Audio: bass remains; if else, 3D

Previous

Return to Video & Audio Help

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests