192Khz

[Steve King]

Oleg Kaizerman posted this url in the RAMPS newsgroup. I found it
interesting.

http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&topic_id=325&mesg_id=325&page

Steve King

[Kurt Albershardt]

Steve King wrote:
> Oleg Kaizerman posted this url in the RAMPS newsgroup. I found it
> interesting.
>
> http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&topic_id=325&mesg_id=325&page

Oleg posted a URL to a forum post by someone to whom I forwarded Dan
Lavry's r.a.p. post of this morning.

[Carey Carlan]

Kurt Albershardt > wrote in
:

> Oleg posted a URL to a forum post by someone to whom I forwarded Dan
> Lavry's r.a.p. post of this morning.

In computer jargon that would be referred to as triple indirection.

[Jay - atldigi]

In article >, Kurt Albershardt
> wrote:

> Oleg posted a URL to a forum post by someone to whom I forwarded Dan
> Lavry's r.a.p. post of this morning.

It's very good to have Dan Lavry around. Let's all try not to scare him
off!

--
Jay Frigoletto
Mastersuite
Los Angeles
promastering.com

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:49:14 GMT, "Steve King"
(Take our WORMBLOCK to reply)> wrote:

>Oleg Kaizerman posted this url in the RAMPS newsgroup. I found it
>interesting.
>
>http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&topic_id=325&mesg_id=325&page
>
>Steve King
>

One thing I've always wondered about in all of these discussions is...

Regardless of whether there's any benefit to sampling or play-back at higher
than 44.1KHz, what about doing the effects processing at higher rates.
Wouldn't the algorithms to do effects processing at higher frequencies be
simpler if they did not have to work well approaching 1/2 the sampling rate?
Might it actually take less processing power to apply a good sounding effect
to, say, an 88.2 KHz signal than to a 44.1 KHz signal? If so, might it make
sense to, if not record at higher rates, then at least upsample them for
processing in some cases? Whether up/down sampling is best done in real time,
or in batches is another question, of course, since one adds processing
overhead, and one uses more disk and bus bandwidth.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve Jorgensen" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:49:14 GMT, "Steve King"
> (Take our WORMBLOCK to reply)> wrote:
>
>> Oleg Kaizerman posted this url in the RAMPS newsgroup. I found it
>> interesting.
>>
>>
http://www.oade.com/Tapers_Section/Forum/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=100&
topic_id=325&mesg_id=325&page
>>
>> Steve King
>>
>
> One thing I've always wondered about in all of these discussions is...
>
> Regardless of whether there's any benefit to sampling or play-back at
> higher than 44.1KHz, what about doing the effects processing at
> higher rates. Wouldn't the algorithms to do effects processing at
> higher frequencies be simpler if they did not have to work well
> approaching 1/2 the sampling rate?

Doesn't seem to be the case, in general. Yes, it takes some extra work to
make a good sharp cut-off filter with a corner frequency that is close to
the Nyquist frequency, but that is a solved problem, and a problem that is
dealt with further on down the chain.

The proof of the pudding is in the using. I've made extensive use of the
digital filtering in Adobe Audition, and they work well whether they are
close to the Nyquist frequency or not.

>Might it actually take less
> processing power to apply a good sounding effect to, say, an 88.2 KHz
> signal than to a 44.1 KHz signal?

The opposite seems to be true. There is an argument for implementing digital
filters with larger samples than the working data stream, but not for
upsampling.

> If so, might it make sense to, if
> not record at higher rates, then at least upsample them for
> processing in some cases?

Seems like a great opportunity to do more arithmetic to get the same result.

>Whether up/down sampling is best done in
> real time, or in batches is another question, of course, since one
> adds processing overhead, and one uses more disk and bus bandwidth.

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:40:30 -0500, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:

....
>>Might it actually take less
>> processing power to apply a good sounding effect to, say, an 88.2 KHz
>> signal than to a 44.1 KHz signal?
>
>The opposite seems to be true. There is an argument for implementing digital
>filters with larger samples than the working data stream, but not for
>upsampling.
>
>> If so, might it make sense to, if
>> not record at higher rates, then at least upsample them for
>> processing in some cases?
>
>Seems like a great opportunity to do more arithmetic to get the same result.

I'm thinking you know this stuff well enough to be right, but my reasoning was
that if it takes more instructions per cycle to do it well with fewer samples
per second, then it might actually take fewer instructions per second to apply
an effects chain at a higher time resolution.