Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

On 04/07/2023 21:41, Yisheng Jiang wrote: i've heard of Nyquist, but who's Redbook Gang? they slept together ? and i wasn't invited ... i m disappointed ... anybody have some recordings ? On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 9:54 AM Kevin Dixon > wrote: Nyquist and

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Andy Farnell: >I've heard a few bits of apocryphal folklore - and I briefly met some >of the CD team while in Eindhoven NL at Philips, all of whom denied >these popular myths - but here goes; > >44kHz was a compromise to fit a typical album of about 70 mins, >reliably (with ECC etc) onto the

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

This article explains the origin of our most beloved constant besides π, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/44,100_Hz#Recording_on_video_equipment Non video based equipment like Synclavier used 50 kHz, also the first DASH recorder did so:

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

I've heard a few bits of apocryphal folklore - and I briefly met some of the CD team while in Eindhoven NL at Philips, all of whom denied these popular myths - but here goes; 44kHz was a compromise to fit a typical album of about 70 mins, reliably (with ECC etc) onto the available physical

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

On Jul 4, 2023, at 5:02 PM, Neil Goldman wrote: > That reminds me I have heard the argument that 48k is better than 44.1 for > the reason of allowing a smoother falloff for an anti-aliasing filter. I > don't really believe it matters, I've tested both and can't hear a > difference. The

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

That reminds me I have heard the argument that 48k is better than 44.1 for the reason of allowing a smoother falloff for an anti-aliasing filter. I don't really believe it matters, I've tested both and can't hear a difference. The filtering in either case happens above the audible range. But

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

I've written many plug-ins, but only a small number with SRC. My approach was to avoid upsampling if the session is already running at 192 kHz, because I am not aware of any significant advantage of processing at 768 kHz. I have exclusively developed AudioUnits, which are not restricted to

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

I don't know the exact answer but I suspect it's mainly because of what you mentioned, you'd need a critical mass of plugins that support it, otherwise one popular plugin would break the flow. This could probably be implemented as a DAW feature between each fx instance. But up/downsampling is

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Not to stray from the original question too far, but why perform all of that upsampling and downsampling? According to your description, it should be sufficient to low-pass nonlinear effect inputs, and then low-pass their outputs before passing further along the signal chain. It should be just

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Sorry for double-posting but just to be clear my prior message only counts for applying non-linear processes to the signal. Like mixing with compression, saturation, analog modeled plugins. For just playback of audio it doesn't matter except you'll have frequencies in your signal that go above the

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

There's this video by Dan Worrall / Fabfilter about higher sample rates. 44.1k/48k is too small of a difference to really be noticeable, it's more about things like 44.1k vs 88.2k.Samplerates: the higher the better, right?youtu.beBasically a higher sample rate will push most aliasing to happen

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

It's important to consider the system as a whole. If the content being played is 44.1 (basically any music content distributed before 2010) and you are playing it through a 48k system, you're going to be paying for sample rate conversion somewhere, which will likely have audible artifacts

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Hi, * Yisheng Jiang [2023-07-04 22:41]: > No I’m asking if there’s any combination of hand-waving that would convince > an audiophile that a 44.1k renderer is superior to a 48k one No, consider both to be on par... > Sent from my iPhone and removing this promotional message from your email

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Kevin that’s a very good point about alignment with film, in fact I’m now 100% convinced 48k is superior Sent from my iPhoneOn Jul 4, 2023, at 12:50 PM, Kevin Dixon wrote:I don't know what you're referring to in the subject, but 44.1khz is just a left over standard, picked for convenience with

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

No I’m asking if there’s any combination of hand-waving that would convince an audiophile that a 44.1k renderer is superior to a 48k one Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 4, 2023, at 1:09 PM, Ben Bradley wrote: > > If you're asking where the 44.1k sample rate originated, it actually > predates

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

If you're asking where the 44.1k sample rate originated, it actually predates redbook CD, and appears related to the United States NTSC video standard. Some of the first commercially available digital audio recorders converted the digital signal to a video signal and recorded to video tape. Google

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

I don't know what you're referring to in the subject, but 44.1khz is just a left over standard, picked for convenience with existing mediums. 48k is more convenient for film use, since it aligns evenly with 24fps. But that's also an irrelevant medium at this point! The Red Book was the initial

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

i've heard of Nyquist, but who's Redbook Gang? On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 9:54 AM Kevin Dixon wrote: > Nyquist and The Redbook Gang > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 9:48 AM Yisheng Jiang > wrote: > >> Sent from my iPhone >> >

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Did Mac DeMarco find this mailing list or something?: https://musictech.com/news/industry/mac-demarco-audio-quality-cd/ On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 1:48 PM Jacob Penn wrote: > The human hearing range  > On Jul 4, 2023 at 6:54 PM +0200, Kevin Dixon , > wrote: > > Nyquist and The Redbook Gang > > On

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

The human hearing range  On Jul 4, 2023 at 6:54 PM +0200, Kevin Dixon , wrote: > Nyquist and The Redbook Gang > > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 9:48 AM Yisheng Jiang > > wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone

Re: Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Nyquist and The Redbook Gang On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 9:48 AM Yisheng Jiang wrote: > Sent from my iPhone >

Is there a particular type of elitism that assert 44.1kHz is the best kind of sample rate

Sent from my iPhone