Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
How was 44.1/16 format decided on for CD?
Another good reason for rec'ing at a higher sample/bit rate (as if there weren't enough already) is that you can then apply fx and mastering tools to the higher rate data, while this may not seem important, it does allow for a much higher precision of calculation of effects such as reverb and distortion, this way you don't get nasty rounding errors creeping into the noticeable left bits of the samples, you also don't get those awesome harmonic distortions at around 22khz
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
How was 44.1/16 format decided on for CD?
siguy wrote:
Another good reason for rec'ing at a higher sample/bit rate (as if there weren't enough already) is that you can then apply fx and mastering tools to the higher rate data, while this may not seem important, it does allow for a much higher precision of calculation of effects such as reverb and distortion, this way you don't get nasty rounding errors creeping into the noticeable left bits of the samples, you also don't get those awesome harmonic distortions at around 22khz You know, the audibility of higher harmonic distionproducts - those are the annoying ones - of a 22 kHz tone are not all that audible, not even to cats or bats. In terms of calculation precision what matters is using 32 or more bits pr. dataword, because that is how to push the rounding errors to insignificance, another strong strategy is to minimize the number of consecutive math operations, something that is very much a workflow optimization issue. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
How was 44.1/16 format decided on for CD?
"siguy" wrote in message ... Another good reason for rec'ing at a higher sample/bit rate (as if there weren't enough already) is that you can then apply fx and mastering tools to the higher rate data, while this may not seem important, it does allow for a much higher precision of calculation of effects such as reverb and distortion, this way you don't get nasty rounding errors creeping into the noticeable left bits of the samples, you also don't get those awesome harmonic distortions at around 22khz I think that several different audible and inaudible effects are conflated above. I think that the most important effect of choosing a too-low sample frequency is that nolinear distortion in the digital domain tends to create spurious responses that reflect down from the Nyquist frequency rather than continue up to higher and higher frequencies, as they typically do in the analog domain. As was correctly pointed out, this is either a good or a bad thing depending on your expectations. The liklihood that rounding errors in 16 bit arithmetic will have audible effects after a typical number of calculations is a different question. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
How was 44.1/16 format decided on for CD?
siguy wrote:
Another good reason for rec'ing at a higher sample/bit rate (as if there weren't enough already) is that you can then apply fx and mastering tools to the higher rate data, That's all 32 bit float. Some are even 64 bit float ( not that it matters ). while this may not seem important, it does allow for a much higher precision of calculation of effects such as reverb and distortion, Talking about precision and distortion or reverb in the same sentence is ... bizarre this way you don't get nasty rounding errors creeping into the noticeable left bits of the samples, If you simply DFT, then IDFT a 32 bit float audio signal, you'll get errors that would be significant for the least significant bit for a 16 bit stream. you alsodon't get those awesome harmonic distortions at around 22khz Odd, I simply don't see those... and nobody can hear them. "All recordings are bad. Only live music is any good" - Scott Dorsey. -- Les Cargill |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
How was 44.1/16 format decided on for CD?
"siguy" wrote in message ... Another good reason for rec'ing at a higher sample/bit rate (as if there weren't enough already) is that you can then apply fx and mastering tools to the higher rate data, while this may not seem important, it does allow for a much higher precision of calculation of effects such as reverb and distortion, this way you don't get nasty rounding errors creeping into the noticeable left bits of the samples, This is not a reason to RECORD at higher sample/bit rates. It is a reason to EDIT at higher sample/bit/data sizes. There is a significant difference, although maybe not as critical in practice now as it once was. Trevor. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How was 44.1/16 format decided on for CD? | Pro Audio | |||
Installing Internal HDD Question (decided to go internal over external) | Pro Audio | |||
Decided to pop in... | Audio Opinions | |||
mp3 format | Pro Audio | |||
".mp3" format --> some format suitable for an audio burn software | Tech |