Why and When 192khz?

[Quasar]

Hello Tweak and all! I am in the hunt for a very good sound card and want to get the most bang for my buck. In searching ive come across cards that have 192khz sample rates. I am trying to understand in what type of setup and why would you need 192khz, when your final recording will probably be 44.1 or 48khz? Wouldnt you lose it in the process of changing formats? If they are being made there must be a market who must need it. Can you shed some light?

[doktorziplok]

the theory is the higher the sample rate and bit depth, the more it can "afford" to lose when converted to 16bit/44.1kHz. but like everything else, your signal chain is only as good as the weakest link.

[rtucou]

Just an example where you need this level of sampling :
DVD-AUDIO standard is 24-bit with 192kHz

[Quasar]

Thanks a lot doktorziplok & rtucou thats what i wanted to find out. So according to theory outside of the DVD realm, if i understand correctly. When audio is converted to the 44 Khz range from 192Khz it will be sonically more than the actual rate of 44 khz? Is there a difference that can be heard between for example a recording sampled at 96Khz versus 192Khz in the final cd?

[owel]

Is there a difference that can be heard between for example a recording sampled at 96Khz versus 192Khz in the final cd?

Not unless your hearing goes up to 48Khz and 96Khz....

But most humans only can hear up to 20K, some up to 22K... which means theoretically, 44Khz sampling rate is enough. Anything over 44Khz sampling rate, that's just making the higher freqs more accurate (so to speak from a digital perspective). From an aural perspective, few people can tell the difference.

And of course, once you transfer that CD creation to MP3, I read that everything above 10K or 12Khz is shelved by the compression. So all that 96Khz recording you did went to nothing.

And no matter how you slice it, the CD will always be at 44.1Khz sampling freq.

[Tweak]

The bats in my closet like the 192khz rate.

Another way to look at is is as samples per second. A 96k rate will sample the audio 96,000 times a second while the 44.1 rate only 44,100 times. So there is increased resolution as well. Imagine an analogy of a computer monitor in interlaced vs. non interlaced moded. 96k should sound clearer. However, tests reveal that no one can tell in blindfold tests with any degree of accuracy. There is also the stability of the DAC to consider. A good DAC will sound better at 44.1 than a crappy DAC at 96k. Some studios will spend 2 grand just on a 2ch DAC and still run 44.1. Others claim that to get the benefit of high sample rates you need a great, not just a good, digital audio converter. Since these are out of reach for many of us doing home studios, the question is, IMO, is this just marketing hype to sell soundcards or is there any real difference? Once one company goes to 192k in the budget range they will all have to follow or lose sales, whether or not it makes an audio difference.

Just opinion.

[Quasar]

Thanks a lot guys, you have definitely shed some light on the issue of 192khz sampling. The more i read your input the more im thinking that 192khz is just the newest bell and whistle to hook buyers like getting the newest fastest Pentium. Excluding the DVD reasons for having this, i cant see the need for it in recording thats IMO respectfully speaking. So what are some of the audio cards that you guys use or suggest? I want to run Reason, Cubase SX and Sound Forge. I also want to digitally shoot audio back n forth from a VS 1880 to the PC for editing and processing then back to the VS for mixdown. Once agin thank you all for your time and input.

[Tweak]

I use a delta 1010.

http://www.zzounds.com/a--3745/item--MDOD1010E

[carbonizeD]

i agree with tweaks statement of 192khz being mainly a marketing ploy.

you dont NEED it.
you will NOT hear a differnce between 96khz & 192 khz

you WILL hear a difference between 44.1 & 96.

the reason being is HARMONICS.
sure, the human audio swectrum is 20hz - 20khz, BUT dont forget the dynamics of harmonics....it is almost something you feel more than hear.
and youre thinking that the same would apply for harmonics & 192khz, and in fact it does, but you will NOT hear differences in harmonics between 96 & 192....(96 is MORE than enough to cover the audioable harmonics)

ofcourse, like someone mentioned it is also in the quality of the converters and the circutry around them.

192 khz will only waste your: HDspace, RAM, CPUpwer.
and not gain anything unless youre a bat with ultrasound capabilities!
.j

[Quasar]

Thanks carbonizeD for the words of wisdom, what audio interface are you currently using?

[carbonizeD]

i used to have a MOTU 2408mkII, it was killer.
like someone mentioned, the converters (48khz) sound better than most cheap 96khz converters.

currently i have no card, since complications with the person who i was sharing a studio with, forced me to sell him the motu, and buy my own computer.

so now im saving up for a sound card, and if money was not an issue, i would either get a RME multiface OR the new MOTU 828mkII.
however, i will probably end up getting something cheap like a Audiophile 2496 FOR NOW, untill i can afford to get what i want.
the main thing is, is that the Audiophile2496 has a digital i/o so i know i can use it along with another computer in the future with VST system link for lets say a dedicated machine to run VSTi's , and samplers.

[Aaron]

A good rule of thumb is to keep your mixes at a high encoding rate until the final mixdown... True though that the human ear can't hear the difference once you hit a certain sample rate... Same with the bit rate... 24 bit means that there are 24 "steps" from the top to the bottom of the waveform in a digital format...

[mcatalao]

"24 bit means that there are 24 "steps" from the top to the bottom of the waveform in a digital format..."

Say again????

I think you'd rather like to say, 2^24 steps...

Some maths again...


See you:

Miguel Catalão

[nmodi]

i agree with tweaks statement of 192khz being mainly a marketing ploy.

you dont NEED it.
you will NOT hear a differnce between 96khz & 192

Didn't Bill Gates, in 1982, say that no one would ever need more than 640K RAM?

Just for the record, though, I think 192 kHz is a little bit overkill.

[gibong]

Call me paranoid, but I'm thinking that the recording and movie industry are going to find a way to use this extra resolution to store copy-protection information. I too don't see a reason to 192.

[Bassart1]

ProTools TDM HD is 192k and you CAN hear the difference. In a pro studio with no weak links including a proper control room and adequate front end this system rivals analog tape.

However this is anything but a budget soundcard and for my money
in my home studio 24bit/44.1k from my Digi001/Gina 24 is good enough in my imperfect room.

If money were no object I would of course jump on a 192k TDM HD system and all the extra's required to make that system worthwhile
including a new building.

Just my .02

[harvester]

Im starting to do everythiing at 96k just in case. it's afforadable and a lot of things are 96k now [even my Vamp] so Im mostly doing it for a resolution thing. cant hear too much of a diff but it's not too much extra space and if I happen to do a lot of editing and effects, Im sure it helps. I think the bigger more important things would be when they come out with 32bit instead of 24bit recording [if that's the next step, I thought it would have been 8bit, 16bit, and then 32bit, when 24bit came around I was a bit confused =P (no pun intended)]


-jamie

[BucKWilD]

I have to agree with Bassart1, if you really have no weak links and your host supports 192, I would tend to beleive that recording at that sample rate will shine alot more. It's common sense. If going from 44 to 96 is noticable like we all agree and have heard, why wouldn't 192 be that much more noticable. Remember the key to hearing the difference is your audio link. Just my 2 cents. Like Tweak also had mentioned as long as the converters are good. Soanr 3 is going to be supporting 192 at the end of this month, I was thinking of picking up the Wamirack 192x or L support 24/192, So for 1 the update for Sonar 3 users is free and The ESI Wamiracks are reasonably priced, so why not!.

[wilderbeest69]

The key to hearing the difference is indeed your audio link....your ears..........there is no way you can percieve any difference between 96 and 192KHz.............the upper harmonics we percieve, but don't actually hear are taken care of in accordance with Niquist's theorem which effectively doubles the upper limit frequencies of human hearing and gives us the 44.1 rate................to go to 192 is total overkill IMHO insofar as hearing is concerned, though it may give advantages visually...I don't know to much about the eyes

[owel]

I have to agree with Bassart1, if you really have no weak links and your host supports 192, I would tend to beleive that recording at that sample rate will shine alot more. It's common sense. If going from 44 to 96 is noticable like we all agree and have heard, why wouldn't 192 be that much more noticable. Remember the key to hearing the difference is your audio link. Just my 2 cents. Like Tweak also had mentioned as long as the converters are good. Soanr 3 is going to be supporting 192 at the end of this month, I was thinking of picking up the Wamirack 192x or L support 24/192, So for 1 the update for Sonar 3 users is free and The ESI Wamiracks are reasonably priced, so why not!.

I have the Wami 192L. It can playback 24/192, but not record... it *only* goes up to 24/96.

If you want to record at 24/196, you'd have to get the 192X.

[owel]

If you're recording at 24/192 and your source is a synth or sample, then I guess it's pointless not unless your synth or sample was recorded at 24/192 too. You can't produce extra bits that isn't there in the first place.

But if you're recording 24/192 using a high-end preamp, with a high-end microphone, recording an acoustic source, then 24/192 makes *some* difference. Is it worth the extra cost? Only your ears can decide.

..... that's what I read anyway...

[cleanbluesky]

I love the 44.1k versus 96k argument. The only reason I would record in anything lower than 96k (my soundcards only go up to 96k) is that my processor cannot handle 24 tracks of convolution native reverb. I only use convolution as it is A) Free! (SIR1008) B) More complex and wonderful. I use 44.1k, 48k for GigaStudio too - but some of those samples sound delicious at 44.1k.
I would love a 192k converter (or better still DSD) but hardly anything supports 192k, so unless you wanted to record something with hardly ANY plugin processing (unless you have Pro Tool HD system with lots of DSP cards) then you are out of luck at 192k.

As far as the harmonics argument is concerned, harmonics extand a few octaves above any natural note played, and if a note was played at say 14,000hz freq then all the harmonics would be 'ultra-sonic' and most of them would be WAY out of human hearing. So even 96k is not enough to capture all harmonics.

As far as nyquist theory goes, most people don't realise that the maximum sample rate not only cuts off frequencies ABOVE the nyquist limit but also distorts ones that are audible JUST BELOW the limit. (I tried my own experiement to see what it would sound like as the sample rate was reduced).
Considering that the difference between our 20khz hearing limit and the 22.05khz limit offered by a CDs Nyquist limit is about 1 or 2 semitones is it possible that there are distorted (barely) audible tones at the top of our hearing range?

[mound]

Lets not forget the issue of data loss with plugins. Everytime you apply a plugin, filter, effect, whatever, to your sound, you will lose something due to rounding (though it will likely not be audible if you recorded at a high sampling rate) On the lowest level this is all math. This is why it's often suggested to record and mix etc. at the highest rate possible, that way, with each pass of an effect or whatnot, the loss due to rounding will be negligable (i.e. it's not in the range you will hear) whereas, if you recorded at 16bit, there is far less room for loss in the extended decimal range before you do start affecting what you can actually hear.

I've seen this explained better on this site though

-Paul

[audisp]

Have you heard a properly decoded 44/16 format? As in, have you heard a properly setup true high-end audio systems?

Belief me after you have, you'd want to throw that 192/24 soundcard you just bought out of the window

My point being that properly done, 44/16 is astonishing.

Having said that, imho there are two good argument for higher sampling rate. The first one is harmonic, and the second one is getting rid of that brickwall filter.

If you have a 14kHz signal, the 2nd harmonic would be at 28kHz, which is beyond what any of us can hear. But, there's another kind of harmonic. If there are two signal, one 19kHz and the other 20kHz, there will be a harmonic at the difference in freq ... namely at 1kHz. Now if there are signals at 30kHz at 35kHz (ultrasonic) ... you will have a harmonic at 5kHz which is well within our hearing threshold.

As for the brickwall filter, well it's a long story Basically it causes pre- and post-ringing to the signal. Would you belief that if you see a digital signal on an oscilloscope, you can also see that the signal rings before the "proper" signal? Getting rid of the brickwall filter cleans the signal response.

In a 44.1kHz system we need to implement brickwall at 22.05kHz to prevent the signal from "bouncing" at 44.1kHz. Now with a 96kHz sampling rate, we can get rid of that brickwall filter and use a much gentler curve for the filter. (Note that there are gentle-curve filter for 44/16 out there like Wadia's DigiMaster)

Another interesting thing is, if in the end you're going to convert back to 44.1kHz, it might make more sense to record at 88.2kHz rather than at 96kHz because the downsampling is much more straightforward.

[K.West]

so if ur not gonna get a better sampling rate using a high end card and a consumer card what difference would it make if u bought a $20 card versus a $2000 one. BTW Tweak this album is nice. Ive learned so much just from reading ur beginners tutuorial and ive been producing for some time.