• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Updated Digital Audio Sampling vs. Perceived Quality OCT 15, 2022

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
The views of Hans Beekhuyzen are an acquired taste. But for those here wishing to hear yet another short discussion on this topic, you could do worse than this new post.
I know that a little bit of arithmetic can be antithetical to just listening. But Hans provides some explanations of why (or why not) higher resolution digital audio may sound better. Of course, as with all things Beekhuyzen, you might have to pay some attention and think a little. And Hans paints with a broad brush. But understanding digital audio can be worth the effort. You may be paying a lot of money for numbers you don't understand.
 

antcollinet

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 4, 2021
Messages
7,409
Likes
12,294
Location
UK/Cheshire
A lovely evidence free statement - "Less steep filters sound better"

Not to mention "only high end dacs can upsample properly"
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,806
Location
Netherlands
“The immoral factor, selling something else than promised”
:facepalm:

Really? Now that is a problem? It never is with all the other nonsense he spouts.

He thinks bit depth is only about dynamic range. He also thinks CD masters are recorded at 44.1 kHz?

Once again a load of nonsense, no proof, no controlled test, not even an explanation of the core “issue”.
 
OP
Jim Shaw

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
:facepalm:

Really? Now that is a problem? It never is with all the other nonsense he spouts.

He thinks bit depth is only about dynamic range. He also thinks CD masters are recorded at 44.1 kHz?
Master tapes can be any of many sample rates for sure. But if a CD master is recorded at anything other than 44.1kHz, it won't play on a Red Book (common, standardized) player, will it?!

Will it?
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,806
Location
Netherlands
Master tapes can be any of many sample rates for sure. But if a CD master is recorded at anything other than 44.1kHz, it won't play on a Red Book (common, standardized) player, will it?!

Will it?
Recording != mastering. A CD master is not recorded, is it? it's just a 16/44.1 audio file created by a DAW mixed from recordings that are most likely done at least 96 kHz.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
Recording != mastering. A CD master is not recorded, is it? it's just a 16/44.1 audio file created by a DAW mixed from recordings that are most likely done at least 96 kHz.
Most commercial music, most being like 90% probably more are still done at 44.1 khz or 48 khz depending upon whether it is for music only or video use. Nearly any DAW will upsample to apply various processing and then downsample the result back to the base sample rate. So most likely a CD is from a 44.1 khz recording. With usually many, many effects applied between recording and releasing a CD.
 

xnor

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2022
Messages
193
Likes
207
When talking about filter steepness he's making a fatal mistake:
He's comparing the steepness of crossover filters that operate well within the audible range with brickwall filters that operates above 20 kHz. It's easy to design brickwall filters that have virtually zero effect in the audible frequency range, given a sampling rate of 44.1 kHz or higher.
In other words: pass a bandlimited (e.g. < 20 kHz) signal through such a filter and it will be output unaltered except for a small delay.

He would have a valid point if he was talking about a sampling rate of e.g. 16 kHz.

Also, why is he calling low-pass filters low-shelf filters?
 
Last edited:

xnor

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2022
Messages
193
Likes
207
Of course he also censors his comment section or at the very least has blocked me. I guess that's how you protect your flock from those pesky facts that contradict your false claims and opinions.

Going through the comment section, you can see so many people that have been mislead by his misinformation. For example, I've read multiple times that people referred to one of his "facts" from an earlier video where he asserted that sampling rate dictates "temporal resolution" - an audiophile myth born out of ignorance about digital audio fundamentals that has been debunked countless times over past decades. Apparently, that was one of his main points against 44.1 kHz, because "1/44.1 kHz = 22.7us, but human hearing has higher temporal resolution than that". :facepalm:

Sigh. It's so disappointing to witness.
 
Last edited:

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,806
Location
Netherlands
his "facts" from an earlier video where he asserted that sampling rate dictates "temporal resolution"
Funny how he brings none of this up this time. It’s as if he reads ASR and knows he’s wrong now… If so, it shows this forum is effective.
 

xnor

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2022
Messages
193
Likes
207
Funny how he brings none of this up this time. It’s as if he reads ASR and knows he’s wrong now… If so, it shows this forum is effective.
I don't think this has anything to do with ASR. As far as I can remember I have commented on some of his videos years ago and explained why he's factually wrong.
I guess, over the years, other people have told him the same so he finally dropped at least that one false claim. Silently, of course, because admitting to being ignorant and misleading people would be the honest thing to do.

I think you're blocked. I see a comments section.
Me too. But my comments are visible only to myself.
 

fieldcar

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
821
Likes
1,258
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Me too. But my comments are visible only to myself.
Oh, so you never get a thumbs up or replies? I had that happen on Oluv's gadgets. He didn't like me cutting into his revenue stream by suggesting free and open source alternatives to his patreon top-tier paywalled EQ presets for his earfun buds.
 
OP
Jim Shaw

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
Apparently, that was one of his main points against 44.1 kHz, because 1/44.1 kHz = 22.7us, but human hearing has higher temporal resolution than that.
I could do with some peer reviewed references to verify this...
 

xnor

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2022
Messages
193
Likes
207
I could do with some peer reviewed references to verify this...
The argument is wrong anyway since sampling rate does not determine temporal resolution but bandwidth.
As I said, this comes from a complete ignorance of digital audio and signal processing fundamentals. These people think that digital audio is about connecting dots in straight lines, that samples have a temporal extent, that there are gaps between samples where information is lost, that there is an error if the sampling process doesn't match the signal peaks, and so on..
 
OP
Jim Shaw

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,806
Location
Netherlands
The part of your post that I copied in my reply question. Go back and look.
I didn’t post it ;) but in any case, it contains two claims:
1. Temporal resolution of 44.1 kHz sampled audio is 22.7 uSec
2. The human hearing has higher than 22.7 uSec temporal resolution.

Therefor I ask: for which one would you like a peer reviewed reference.
 
OP
Jim Shaw

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
I didn’t post it ;) but in any case, it contains two claims:
1. Temporal resolution of 44.1 kHz sampled audio is 22.7 uSec
2. The human hearing has higher than 22.7 uSec temporal resolution.

Therefor I ask: for which one would you like a peer reviewed reference.
The second one.
 
Top Bottom