Never read such balanced, relaxed post and attitude from an Axe-Fx user :)

    Supra-sonic sound and sub-sonic sounds definitely have a place in music! It's just difficult to quantify, but it's not as though these sounds do not exist because we cannot hear them. On the other hand, we may indeed feel them, which is not such a bad thing.


    That said, as far as higher sampling and bit rates, I feel quite happy recording at 24-bit, 44.1 khz, Don't see any perceptible difference at higher rates other than more hard disk consumption.

    Quote

    Hey revilo,


    thanks for resuming this thread I had forgotten LOL


    I'll try and get the sources for the researches I was referring to, ASA I remember where I wrote it down


    Ciao Gianfranco,


    yes I forgot about the thread too, until I read that tube amp book ...


    Here´s a little PDF that covers a scientific study about the effect of high frequency components on the human brain and which is also used as a source in that tube amp book:


    http://jn.physiology.org/content/jn/83/6/3548.full.pdf


    Scroll down to the last chapter if you don´t want to wade through the whole study.


    This interesting subject may explain why sample frequencies of 48 or 96 kHz often are perceived with a distinct noticable difference in sound.


    edit: The last sentence should correctly also include 192 kHz sampling frequency (or 176,4 kHz for HDCD or 352,8 kHz for SACD)

    Edited once, last by REVILO ().

    Interesting study.
    Maybe I have missed the point, but is there any hint that I can *percieve* higher frequencies in a way that I can *tell* it apart from a conservative recording?
    The study is more about that these guys can see on the screen that my brain shows some different colors.


    Anyway, I will be happy to switch up to 96 kHz and cut my computer power to half on that day when those amicable scientists will measure my brain. But on the next day I want to make music!

    i OWED SOMETHING TO SOME PEOPLE HERE...



    Quote from ampjunkie

    1b. I would like to see any scientific study that shows people can perceive (double-blind testing) frequencies significantly above 20 kHz at the power levels that normal musical instruments demonstrate. People can definitely feel low frequencies, but I doubt they can really perceive > 20 kHz.


    Quote from ckemper

    - There is no single human being known that can hear above 20 kHz, even though it is damn easy to show and prove that he/she could. Is there anybody out there?


    Quote from ckemper

    I could not find a reference or link on the internet to find a proof, study, test or human being, that can do what you say.
    Can you?


    Quote from ckemper

    If there is a webside in italian about his thesis, that I could translate in english, that would be fine.


    Quote from ckemper

    Maybe I have missed the point, but is there any hint that I can *percieve* higher frequencies in a way that I can *tell* it apart from a conservative recording?

    Edited 2 times, last by viabcroce ().

    Sorry, for some reasons I can't either properly write or edit the post for some reason... ?


    The research details:


    R. Pallocchia, Oltre il muro dei 20 kHz, AudioReview Yr. XXXIII n. 347 p. 110.
    The work reports a complete bibliography.
    The issue (in Italian) may be requested @ http://www.audioreview.it


    As for Eng. Nuti, I've since then translated into English a letter he wrote to me. It's here.

    Subharmonics exist, thats simply waves and maths. Aliasing artifacts also exist, and not all DAW plugins up sample to reduce these. Finally some projects demand an output at higher frequencies due to destination format (film, TV etc), what the client wants the client gets. These are all the rational reasons why people might or would need to use higher frequency projects than 44.1.


    It's also worth pointing out once again that Nyquist does not state that you will get accurate reproduction of frequencies up to half the sampling rate, it simply states that with an infinitely long domain you could accurately calculate the frequency and phase for any single frequency wave who's frequency is lower than half of the sample rate i.e. pretty much common sense. In practical terms because of phase you will lose accuracy of frequency reproduction and volume well below half the sample rate even with modern supersampled reconstruction algorithms. 44.1k rate is not sufficient to accurately reproduce a complex time limited signal containing frequencies up to up to 22.05k, we need to put a stake through the heart of this audio world myth and misrepresentation. 44.1 will give you an approximation for much of the upper frequencies and their volumes only. Its enough because most people's hearing isn't very good or accurate itself at peripheral frequencies outside of the mids ranges that voices and the sounds that our predators and prey make, but let's stop perpetrating the myth and kidding ourselves that it's in any way accurate or using it as a fallback. Use your ears YMMV.

    Jumping in to what this thread has become...


    What about harmonics (overtones) and their effect on other frequencies? Do frequencies we cannot hear, whether by loss or range affect what we can hear?

    Edited once, last by fisbus ().