Search results

  1. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    I have a lot of recordings I have done at high samples rates (well 88.2 and 96) including solo cello, jazz, vocal, etc. and would find it a blast to see if anyone can hear the difference.
  2. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Come now. That is an absurd comparison.
  3. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Funny, I feel the same about your view! I am going by the science. Yes, based on the study you linked to (I finally got to read it), there is some evidence that some people may be able to hear the difference between 96k and 44.1. But the main point in this thread is about sample rates higher...
  4. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    So? Like I said, still high res in my book. They transfer quite well. And when SACD first came out there was no native editing or processing. It was converted to PCM and then converted back to DSD. It wasn't until later in Pyramix that you could edit natively.
  5. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Wow, seriously? DVD audio came out in 2000 and SACD came out in 1999. Recording studios had high res recording capabilities years before the general population had access to these formats! The first 96/24 recordings were made in 1996. Anyway, I think it was totally valid to include releases of...
  6. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Of course, upsampled Redbook would not qualify as high res. But you name one. How many were there? Patricia Barber's Nightclub would have been recorded in High Res PCM and converted to DSD and so counts as a high res in my book. And I think it was very smart to include SACD releases of earlier...
  7. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Seriously, what is the likelihood that the SACDs and DVDs they used were defective; especially the Chesky and Telarc ones? Very unlikely. But, since I am a reasonable person, I would say that what you suggest would have been a good idea - to double check to be sure the discs are in good...
  8. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Yes, Yes, it was SACD and DVD audio. I have read it many times, have a printed out copy in my folder, etc, etc. It doesn't change a thing. The study has not been proven to be unscientific at all. The entire test was set up in such a way, I believe to actually give every opportunity for the...
  9. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Yes, that study is referenced above. There were other very high end systems used that yielded the same results.
  10. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Here you go http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195 And http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/explanation.htm
  11. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Define high res vs low res. And how was the test performed? What type of system was used?
  12. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    All good points, but let’s keep in mind the point here; I’m not interested as intersected in what people think they can hear but what happens when that claim is subject to double blind tests, as the Boston Audio Society did in an extensive test, which found that professional recording engineers...
  13. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    So the answer is no then. You have no way to know if you can hear it or not with enough double blind tests. I’ve been doing informal tests with my professional musician friends for years and the results are 50/50, same as guessing. And I’d say they have pretty good ears.
  14. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Have you done a double blind listening test? If you expect something to sound better, your brain will often confirm its own bias.
  15. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    What authority do you have to say that designing high end converters can be done without any measurements? Do you know the ins and outs of designing an ADC and DAC?
  16. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Sure, but coming at it from my perspective, as a professional classical musician who also does recording, I want to see the specs and I want to listen.
  17. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Oh yes, I’m very aware of that but I’m not sure of your point.
  18. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    According to Dan Lavery, a sample rate of 60k is plenty high enough to deign the filter. He should know.
  19. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    The white paper is still on the Lavry website and so are the Benchmark comments. The burden of proof is on you to show they recanted their earlier positions. Show me where Lavry has changed his mind. His stance on this topic is widely known in the industry so if he changed his mind I would like...
  20. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    You can only do so much by ear. You need hard measurements.
  21. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    The distortion is measurable (see benchmark quote above) so why use sample rates above 96k?
  22. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Well, OK, we may have some agreement here. First, I think it does have scientific backing, if I understand Lavery correctly, in that the electronics are not up to snuff which cause accuracy problems and distortion. So I guess you are correct in that there is nothing wrong with high sample rates...
  23. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    I think you should just be honest and admit that this whole subject is over your head, as it is mine. Look, I'm sure you've read a few articles but that doesn't justify claiming to know more than Dan Lavery and the engineers at Benchmark! Yes, of course, they sell converters that use high...
  24. B

    An interesting argument against sampling frequencies above 96kHz

    Fair enough...he only makes the claim apart from any data. However, wouldn’t it be odd to go public with that assertion without anything to back it up if challenged? And don’t you think that if there was an argument to be made that higher sample rates improve quality that a well known company...
Back
Top Bottom