the superiority of 96 kHz sampling
in [Audio Recording]
|
Prev: AKG CK61 & CK62 question
Next: Buzzard poop
From: audioaesthetic on 23 Jun 2008 07:07 On Jun 22, 9:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > <audioaesthe...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:77f4499f-f0bb-4cba-a5d6-c86dee5290a2(a)e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > > > On Jun 18, 12:02 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> > > wrote: > > >> There are any number of authorities who basically say > >> that, from George Massenberg to Bob Katz to the Audio > >> Engineering Society. > > > another mistruth from the mouth of Arny > > > < > >http://www.digido.com/index.php?option=com_kb&page=articles&articleid... > > Sorry that your reading comprehension is that poor. > > > "Basically, the superiority of 96 kHz sampling is in all probability not due > to its extended bandwidth, but rather to all the other improvements which > can be measured in the 20-20 kHz band, such as improved linearity of > frequency response with no ripple in the passband, less phase shift at the > frequency extremes, and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior > 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates. excuse me but the first line reads "the superiority of 96 kHz sampling" and then says why! it does not say that they (44.1/96) are the same, it says "the superiority of 96 kHz sampling"
From: Arny Krueger on 23 Jun 2008 08:57 <audioaesthetic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5499ee7a-ac3a-455d-ba94-4866f21cc68c(a)y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > On Jun 22, 9:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> > wrote: >> <audioaesthe...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:77f4499f-f0bb-4cba-a5d6-c86dee5290a2(a)e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >> >>> On Jun 18, 12:02 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> >>> wrote: >> >>>> There are any number of authorities who basically say >>>> that, from George Massenberg to Bob Katz to the Audio >>>> Engineering Society. >> >>> another mistruth from the mouth of Arny >> >>> < >>> http://www.digido.com/index.php?option=com_kb&page=articles&articleid... >> >> Sorry that your reading comprehension is that poor. >> "Basically, the superiority of 96 kHz sampling is in all >> probability not due to its extended bandwidth, but >> rather to all the other improvements which can be >> measured in the 20-20 kHz band, such as improved >> linearity of frequency response with no ripple in the >> passband, less phase shift at the frequency extremes, >> and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior >> 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates. > excuse me but the first line reads "the superiority of 96 > kHz sampling" Sophmoric out-of-context quote noted. The first line *actually* reads (in its entirely) "Basically, the superiority of 96 kHz sampling is in all probability not due to its extended bandwidth, but rather to all the other improvements which can be measured in the 20-20 kHz band, such as improved linearity of frequency response with no ripple in the passband, less phase shift at the frequency extremes, and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates." First off, there is the hedge word "probably". IOW the writer is unsure of his assertion, and is kind enough to admit it right up front. The next thing the writer says is that the superiority of equipment that runs at 96 Khz is not due to the sample rate all by itself, but their superiority is due to: "all the other improvements which can be measured in the 20-20 kHz band, such as improved linearity of frequency response with no ripple in the passband, less phase shift at the frequency extremes, and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates." and then says why! > it does not say that they (44.1/96) are the same, it says > "the superiority of 96 kHz sampling" If you read and understand the entire paragraph, then you understand that the context is equipment that can possibly run at 96 KHz, not necessarily the sample rate. Katz and Massenberg don't talk in vacuums, they speak in the context of all that they have said in the past. You're not contending with the other quote that I provided: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/0d2ca804fb14333e George Massenburg wrote: "An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24 file (presumably rich in >20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes with differentiating between the samples." Finally "Audioseinesthetic", even if your interpretation of the statement that you continue to be fearful of addressing in its entirely was correct, I am not writing untruth when quote a true statement by the same people. They said what they said, and that basic truth must be dealt with. It turns out that if you understand everything in context, it all comes together in a larger truth.
From: vdubreeze on 23 Jun 2008 16:16 On Jun 23, 8:57 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Katz and Massenberg don't talk in vacuums, they speak in the context of all > that they have said in the past. You're not contending with the other quote > that I provided: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/0d2ca804fb14333e > > George Massenburg wrote: > > "An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave > test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24 > file (presumably rich in >20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or > so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under > exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one > factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference > between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here > and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes > with differentiating between the samples." That says something, but it leaves a gap for some peoples' question. Namely, if you took a 96/24 file that was specifically recorded to take advantage of the (theoretical) advantage, through high end equipment that would not mask the (presumed) advantage, and then gave it to Bob to filter and listen to, what would the result be? I don't have a stake one way or the other, but I don't like a test where it's any old file as far as we know, though obviously Katz would use a decent one. Plus, I see the word "presumably" and I pretty much file the whole thing away under "presumed results" : ) I do enjoy both GM and BK's writings on such things very much. They both have very human approaches and express themselves well.
From: Arny Krueger on 23 Jun 2008 17:01 <vdubreeze(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3a084f57-52e0-453c-8711-2bb1230e7734(a)k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com > On Jun 23, 8:57 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> > wrote: > >> Katz and Massenberg don't talk in vacuums, they speak in >> the context of all that they have said in the past. >> You're not contending with the other quote that I >> provided: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/0d2ca804fb14333e >> >> George Massenburg wrote: >> >> "An example of a useful, forthright listening test is >> the high-octave >> test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he >> takes a 96/24 >> file (presumably rich in >20kHz content), and filters it >> at 20kHz or >> so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, >> and under >> exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to >> name one >> factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the >> difference between the two (filtered and unfiltered) >> files. Can I be brave here >> and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had >> significant successes >> with differentiating between the samples." > That says something, but it leaves a gap for some > peoples' question. Namely, if you took a 96/24 file that > was specifically recorded to take advantage of the > (theoretical) advantage, through high end equipment that > would not mask the (presumed) advantage, and then gave it > to Bob to filter and listen to, what would the result be? Isn't that what happened? > I don't have a stake one way or the other, but I don't > like a test where it's any old file as far as we know, > though obviously Katz would use a decent one. Yes, it seems clear that Katz and Massenburg would not bother with anything substandard when doing a test like this.
From: audioaesthetic on 23 Jun 2008 17:10
On Jun 23, 8:57 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...(a)hotpop.com> wrote: > Sophmoric out-of-context quote noted. > > The first line *actually* reads (in its entirely) > > "Basically, the superiority of 96 kHz sampling is in all > probability not due to its extended bandwidth, but > rather to all the other improvements which can be > measured in the 20-20 kHz band, such as improved > linearity of frequency response with no ripple in the > passband, less phase shift at the frequency extremes, > and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior > 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates." > > First off, there is the hedge word "probably". IOW the writer is unsure of > his assertion, and is kind enough to admit it right up front. > > The next thing the writer says is that the superiority of equipment that > runs at 96 Khz is not due to the sample rate all by itself, but their > superiority is due to: > > "all the other improvements which can be > measured in the 20-20 kHz band, such as improved > linearity of frequency response with no ripple in the > passband, less phase shift at the frequency extremes, > and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior > 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates." > > and then says why! > > > it does not say that they (44.1/96) are the same, it says > > "the superiority of 96 kHz sampling" > > If you read and understand the entire paragraph, then you understand that > the context is equipment that can possibly run at 96 KHz, not necessarily > the sample rate. > > Katz and Massenberg don't talk in vacuums, they speak in the context of all > that they have said in the past. You're not contending with the other quote > that I provided: > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.pro/msg/0d2ca804fb14333e > > George Massenburg wrote: > > "An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave > test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24 > file (presumably rich in >20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or > so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under > exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one > factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference > between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here > and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes > with differentiating between the samples." > > Finally "Audioseinesthetic", even if your interpretation of the statement > that you continue to be fearful of addressing in its entirely was correct, I > am not writing untruth when quote a true statement by the same people. They > said what they said, and that basic truth must be dealt with. It turns out > that if you understand everything in context, it all comes together in a > larger truth. ahh context now, > Are you suggesting that there is no noticable difference > between 44100 and 96? There are any number of authorities who basically say that, from George Massenberg to Bob Katz to the Audio Engineering Society. but the link I posted says that Bob Katz says " "Basically, the superiority of 96 kHz sampling ... improved > linearity of frequency response with no ripple in the > passband, less phase shift at the frequency extremes, > and other irregularities which can be caused by inferior > 20 kHz filters required for use at lower sampling rates." which bluntly means that there are differences and that they are real why else would he write such a statement if he did not find it thus. why does HD Tracks, Linn Records and Soundkeeper records offer its music in a 96/24 format? could it be that they feel that there are performance differences that benefit music reproduction? oh yeah I know that YOU can not hear them!! and since Arny can't, no one can!!! context is you are deaf from your years in the auto industry. |