krabapple wrote:I can't find this particular post -- is it edited together from several others?
This was taken from the Mastering Web Board
. There is a section there called 'The Big Controversy' and in there is an article called '192k vs 96k Discussion/Analysis'. I felt it summed up his overall thoughts pretty good.
Also check out the long '44.1k vs 48k' thread where Dan Lavry debates his paper. Note the sometimes heated exchanges between Dan and Michel Jurewicz of Mytek. Again we are see a bunch of subjective conjecture from the opposite camp and nothing of real substance.
Here is a sample from that thread where Dan pretty much sums up my thoughts as well:
I am just as opened to hearing comments from the mastering and recording community as I would like them to be opened to mine. I am quickly getting to realize that a large number of non technical (and less technical) people will never realize some fundamental arguments such as:
All you hear is under 40KHz so you do not need to even bother going faster. All you ever needed, need or will need can be contained within 88-96KHz sample rate. It is like trying to describe color to a color blind person.
I am all for listening tests. But I do not think anyone should show up to a listening test comparing 1MHz to 2MHz tone. I do not think that we should do a listening test comparing 40KHz of audio bandwidth to 80KHz. Any difference we hear will be within 20KHz or so. ALL THE DIFFERENCES will not be carried by energy above 40KHz, unless it finds its way to the lower range, where we hear things. So if one likes that 80KHz thing, find out what it is about it you like. You will find it at under 40KHz. If it was a certain non linearity, build it into the 40KH system. First step must be to be open minded and understand it. We may not know what it is, but we DO KNOW some things AHEAD of time. We know that if we heard it is in the hearing range (lower band). We also know that in theory, anything within a band of interest can be FULLY CONTAINED, WITHOUT ANY ALTERATIONS by sampling at slightly over twice the highest frequency of interest. And we also know we can get closer to the theory (less distortions) by setting the rate just fast enough to do the job, and going faster makes for less accuracy.
“Ear types” gravitate towards “we need to do more listening tests to 192KHz gear”. I am asking folks to realize that what you record and/or hear with 192KHz sampling or 100MHz sampling is still just the lower band – what you can hear. Only a fool will go to a listening test comparing 1MHz audio and 2MHz audio, concluding that they can hear above 1MHz. lets agree that we do not hear above 40KHz, and we do not get faster signals to listen to with 192KHz. If the mic is 20KHz, or the ear, or the musical instrument, or anything in the chain, this is all you are going to hear.
Again, in theory, 88-96KHz is way fast enough to duplicate it with no distortions. In practice, 88-96KHz is a better equipped to do so with less distortions.
To which someone will reply: “but we hear it”, without thinking or dealing with what “it” is.
BTW, this is an excellent board where a lot of big name mastering engineers meet.
Here is another thread on the R.A.P. newsgroup:
This should keep you busy for a while.