Chizmata wrote: ↑
27 Sep 2019
selig wrote: ↑
27 Sep 2019
I got that from your first post - what I'm unclear on is what you are saying is happening to cause this? Can you give an example, or post a link, that describes the effect you are mentioning here?
For example, what traces are left in the audible region by a sound that is inaudible? I've not found any evidence that sounds above our range of hearing have any effect on sounds we can hear. That was the whole argument for why we needed to have much higher sample rates. If true, then ALL audio gear is messing with what we hear, since ALL audio gear has some limit to how high a frequency they can reproduce.
I'm asking with an open mind, even though in the past I've not found evidence of what you suggest. I just want to be sure I'm not missing something, which happens!
[this is also why I'm asking about the reasoning behind cutting the high frequencies…]
quite hard to actually EXPLAIN the physics just from the top of my head, but what ive read is that using 48khz (and higher) sampling rates has something to do with the "nyquist frequency" and preventing aliasing (maybe i was wrong about the phasing in my first post?). From what i understand cutoff above 20khz is done for the same reason, but a higher sampling rate is better, because the cutoff introduces other artifacts.
hope that helps.
OK, that's different - that's not high frequencies affecting lower frequencies. And as a rule, higher sample rates do not ALWAYS sound better than lower rates…
What you're explaining is how a low quality filter can adversely affect the frequencies around nyquist. And what you're talking about has more to do with the A/D which has to use analog filters, rather than the D/A which can use digital filters. So it affects the recording of analog signal into a digital system, rather than the results of working in an all digital workflow as many folks do when using Reason.
What I've heard and experienced over the years of the transition from analog recording to digital, is that with cheep interfaces you'll notice a difference in sample rates. But with higher quality interfaces, the difference goes away. And that data was from the early days of convertor design. These days even the cheapest converters do an amazing job at all sample rates. So what you've heard in the past may or may not apply to the present (always something to consider).
So why do some still claim higher sample rates sound better? Because is SOME cases, the CAN. These are very case specific, and have to do with how a digital processor such as a compressor, or even a synth, handle audio and issue such as aliasing. Simply put, a poor design functions better at a higher rate because there's less work for a filter that has 1-4 octaves to work with than when it has less than an octave to work with, which require steeper slopes. Some of the better designs sound identical (or nearly so) at all sample rates - as always, your melange may vary…
But there's a catch. There's always a catch. The perceived advantage may be so small compared to the "cost" in CPU hit and file size. You certainly don't get twice as much "quality" in most cases when you double sample rate (which doubles CPU hit and file size). And if you're going to deliver at a lower rate in the end, any potential advantages can be wiped out in the end.