[LAU] Pro Audio? OT rant.

Thomas Vecchione seablaede at gmail.com
Sun Dec 23 17:39:17 UTC 2012

On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>wrote:

> Now you spread misinformation ;). Is there any scientific source for
> that claim?

My impression is (might be scientifically right or wrong, it's my
> experience) that
> - < 48 KHz sound can be ok for some sources, but it
>   also can become very bad
> - > 48 KHz you don't hear an improvement, IOW 48 KHz is
>   all that's needed
> - There is some gear that does sound better at > 48 KHz,
>   but if you compare that gear with other gear at 48 KHz
>   it doesn't sound better
So wait a minute, you flat out accuse me of spreading misinformation
because I don't link to any scientific source when I explain exactly what I
say, and then you turn around and do the same thing as a rebuttal?  This is
strange to me.

And for the record, the basic reasoning for what I said is simple, and has
existed for quite some time, that 44.1kHz is capable of containing more
than the entire human hearing range of an undamaged ear (Reproducing all
frequencies up to just above 22k).

And yes some gear does sound better at certain sample rates, but that
doesn't mean all gear does, or that all gear sounds best at 48k either
really, though it is more common as Fons mentioned.  Heck there is a marked
improvement on some digital consoles like the M7CL from Yamaha, which is a
fairly standard console in theater and touring concerts(Though thankfully
being phased out) just by not using it's own clock, period.  Clocking it to
a decent external clock provides a marked improvement at all sample rates
according to many engineers that have used it.

Personally I find the clock and it's stability probably makes the largest
difference in audio quality, I wonder how many devices that sound better at
a certain sample rate, really just come down to they use a crappy quality
clocking source, and using an external clock provides an improvement.

> I don't have experiences with conversion from 48 KHz to 44.1 KHz, when I
> did it (doing something a few times doesn't lead to experience), the
> sound becomes less good, that's the nature of 44.1 KHz. I don't know any
> scientific reason that a conversion should cause issues, but producing
> at 44.1 KHz does cause issues, since the sound is less good, mixing is
> harder to do.
> I was asked how the sound quality is, when I use 192 KHz with the RME
> card, but I can't answer this question, because I don't record at 192
> Khz.
> I guess the bit depth is important, especially for production, perhaps
> less important for listening to the finished recoding.
I would say that from my standpoint, a higher bit depth is far more
important than a higher sample rate for recorded sources.  Generated
sources or processing(Reverb, etc.) might be a different story however.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20121223/3dc0bd04/attachment.html>

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list