Question About Sample rates

The point is that you can’t hear much further than 22KHz, and the Nyquist-Shannon theorem states that you can accurately reproduce any frequency content that lies below half of your sample/bit rate.

Any frequency data above 48KHz (96KHz sample rate) is useless anyways, so why support 192KHz?

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency

You can hear effects caused by frequencies at 96KHz… just like most people can hear the effects of a sub-20hz bass … but you can’t hear the frequencies themselves… just the frequencies generated by the natural resonance created when they bounce off of objects… or otherwise interact with the physical environment.

Mmm. Makes sense, but most of the time you’re not trying to record the room, but the music inside the room.

On that note, I think we should invent a new genre of music that is produced using complex arrangements of objects in confined spaces and directed pulses of high frequency tones/noise. :D

All this isn’t answering the original question (where’s his 192khz gone?) edit: Snap Johann :)

For all we know he could be making audio for DVDs and so would like the stupidly high sample rate…

He said HE can hear a difference. You replied with what other people hear. Just like many others did. As far as I am concerned these kind of replies are all spam.

Besides, it’s moot. If you want to further process stuff, “extreme” samples rates and bit rates are not extreme at all.

This seems vaguely similar to the latency thread. I think that maybe the devs just don’t like big numbers. :D

back on topic, it would be interesting to know which soundcard josecm is using, to understand if the difference he is hearing are due to DAC conversion

that’s not the topic though, that’s the hijack.

This seems to have gotten completely ignored, since all posts from then on revolve around hearable differences. The difference is visual also, as there is an option missing in the listbox. :lol:

i have a Sound Blaster Audigy 2.

it can record at 24 bits/96khz. And can play at 24/96 in 5.1 sound, and 24/192 in 2 channel (DVD-Audio).

well, I’m moving this to the bug reports section…

See I didn’t read the “where did it go?” … I didn’t realize it was there in the first place :P

I haven’t followed to whole topic, but:

Some internal FX like the mpReverb do not work correctly above 96kHz - they never did. And using 192khz makes no sense, really. Recording samples in 96kHz because you want to pitch them like hell afterwards, OK, but 192kHz just for playback?

So I’ve removed it from the list…
I also doubt that the audigy and other mainstream cards really support such rates internally. Quite likley that they simply downsample the signal to 44.1 kh before spitting it out.

i don´t know why, but if i set the frequency to 96khz i hear the sound MORE CLEAR than 44.1khz, you can appreciate better the sound of each instrument, and you have a more clean sound (and reverb effect). and if i set to 192khz i hear more clear than 96khz…

after hear a bit a song in 192khz and change it to 44.1khz it sounds like the speaker are into “a box of shoes”…(lose a lot of definition).

Audigy 2 are the first home audio card THX certified. i don´t know if it assure that uses really 192 khz…but it say it in the manual.

I don’t think that’s true. If you play a 10khz sine wave (tone) on a setting of 96khz, it will sound the same as if on the 48khz. That’s because every part of the crest and trough is recorded and will be represented when played back. In order for a sine wave to be affected by sample rate, you’d have to take that 10khz sample and use a setting of less than four times the rate (ex: 10 / 40). So if you used a rate of 20khz, when played back the sine wave would be represented as a square wave. Reason for this is because the wave would be sampled when it’s on it’s crest and when on its trough, no samples of it collected while in between the two positions.

Now with that gathered, in order to “hear a difference between 192khz -> 96 khz” you’d have to be playing with samples in the frequencies of 24khz+. Since the average human ear can only hear up to 16khz, I don’t think you have much to worry about. 96khz is enough for you.

As far as home entertainment systems go and their ridiculously high rates, today’s electronic sales clerks try to sell you the “biggest and best thing” they have. By throwing numbers at you and omitting others (like human’s 16khz ears) they hope that you’ll be like “wow, I need this.” Watch the movie “boogie nights.” Check out the scene when Don Cheadle is trying to sell the high end stereo to the guy… enough said.

quoting from Tom’s Hardware Audigy 2 review:

this is what I said earlier: using Audigy 2 at 44Khz can produce lower quality results because of resampling.

so it’s not a Renoise’s fault, and josecm is not mad or alien.

that said, for what I read on the review, using 96Khz 192Khz should sound the same (unless you are mad or alien).

Have you tried listening to any Placebo on both 96 khz and 192khz? xD

magic people, voodoo people!

whatever.

If it’s supercomplicated bordering on impossible to fix, okay, bad luck. But if the reason is that these incompatible fx have fixed buffers that only suffice up to 96khz…why not fix that just because it’s more elegant?