 |
|  44,1khz vs. 48khz - Can you hear a difference? [MUSIC] | |
|
 |
Nyocore
  Member
Topics: 44
Replies: 431
Registered: 20.Jan.04 |
dithering from higher freq. is always better.....believe me
Jezus mina waar is de cocaina |
|
DDspeed
 Artist
Topics: 24
Replies: 4892
Registered: 07.Jun.03 |
Whirloop wrote on 21 Apr. (17:49) :
hmm, the khz is the resolution of the sound and have no direct (don't get me wrong here, it doesn't work as a filter ) relationship with how high frequencies you hear in your speakers... but it can reduce treble if the resulolution is so poor that the waveform can't make enough small turns to create higher freqs... |
reduce? I'd rather say it can cut the treble.
The rule is simple. If we have X sampling frequency, we can save a tone of max frequency X/2 and nothing more.
 |
|
a98
Artist
Topics: 32
Replies: 2725
Registered: 26.Oct.03 |
no i can't, and i honestly thing everyone who claims they do are liying, and randor don't even start 
if i would make a blind test for you guys i doubt not many would even regonize 192kbps mp3 from 320kbps
and the difference between 44khz and 48khz is way way way smaller..
a blind test with over 20 clips where half are another one and half another, would probably proof you all wrong, but since that's impossible to make we can just be guessing 
obscene, a sexy stud from the states |
|
HomesickAlien
Member
Topics: 16
Replies: 391
Registered: 17.Apr.03 |
a98 wrote on 21 Apr. (21:10) :
no i can't, and i honestly thing everyone who claims they do are liying, and randor don't even start |
The human ear cannot register sounds above 20k, so 48k doesn't produce an audible difference to the human ear.
However, the human ear also cannot hear sounds below around 20hz, but you can sure as heck feel them if they are loud at all.
I think the same holds true here - you may not be able to hear a note played at 48k, but you might feel a bit of a sparkle on higher things, like cymbals, hats, and the like.
So I think that the question as asked has to be answered with "no." But I think that there is a difference. I hope that makes sense. |
|
Randor
 Administrator
Topics: 564
Replies: 2952
Registered: 27.Dec.02 |
a98 wrote on 21 Apr. (21:10) :
no i can't, and i honestly thing everyone who claims they do are liying, and randor don't even start |
 You can count on that
if i would make a blind test for you guys i doubt not many would even regonize 192kbps mp3 from 320kbps
and the difference between 44khz and 48khz is way way way smaller.. |
This depends more on playback enviroment than ears. 
a blind test with over 20 clips where half are another one and half another, would probably proof you all wrong, but since that's impossible to make we can just be guessing
|
Heh, that might be true. But reason why higher sample rates are used is simple: frequencies above our audible level affects to audible sounds, by resonance So difference is audible
|
|
Cooth
Member
Topics: 59
Replies: 3588
Registered: 02.Jan.03 |
obScene wrote on 21 Apr. (17:13) :
Cooth wrote on 21 Apr. (17:10) :
I can't. Nor did I ever try to, especially since I don't have any 48khz recordings I guess.
|
You should try it just ONCE. It will change you.
|
Not with my speakers. Besides, if I can't even get good sound with 44khz, so will 48 really help?
Youknowwhatahmean, nudge nudge, wink wink. |
|
FleshDance
Member
Topics: 15
Replies: 182
Registered: 04.Jan.03 |
 |
I read a long time ago somewhere (i don't think i can dig it up again) that while the human ear under normal conditions cannot hear freqs above about 20khz, we are in fact still aware of them. I'm not sure what effect this has, but as stated earlier in this post the higher freqs do actually resonate on the bass freqs, so it will make a difference, even tho you might not be able to hear it.
I also read about infrasonics in the newspaper late last year. These sounds below 20hz are not audible, but they seem to have (in the experiment performed) a emotion-amplifying effect. A good example cited in the article was that of a haunted house. While a quiet house in the middle of the night may be scary, such things as wind blowing about the house can create infrasonic freqs, which is a possible explanation of why people feeling 'presences' in a haunted house.
As the nightbird mocks and sings,
As I revel
In the comfort darkness brings,
As my angel spreads her wings. |
|
FleshDance
Member
Topics: 15
Replies: 182
Registered: 04.Jan.03 |
Just after posting the above post, I started a search on hearing above 20khz and found this.
I haven't had time to read right through it yet, but I will soon.
As the nightbird mocks and sings,
As I revel
In the comfort darkness brings,
As my angel spreads her wings. |
|
a98
Artist
Topics: 32
Replies: 2725
Registered: 26.Oct.03 |
yeah but guys that's beyond 20khz...
if you can only feel or be aware of those frequences, how the hell do you think you can notice the difference between 44 and 48?
and what comes to all those "man i could never do song in 44khz, i always use 48" that's just freaking stupid. the sound difference between these two is small, and considering the fact that using 44khz frees up a lot cpu power, i think it's plain stupid to use 48khz.
also all that dithering bullshit, when we are talking about differences this small, converted to 192kbps mp3 there is no way you can notice the difference anymore, or feel it talking about 128kbps which most seem to use..
also by my experience most of the "hifists", who are talking about mastering mixing sound qualities etc, seem to be the worse composers, so instead of trying to be more than you are i suggest you guys focuse on the music.
  |
|
FleshDance
Member
Topics: 15
Replies: 182
Registered: 04.Jan.03 |
|
a98 wrote on 23 Apr. (9:37) :
yeah but guys that's beyond 20khz...
if you can only feel or be aware of those frequences, how the hell do you think you can notice the difference between 44 and 48?
and what comes to all those "man i could never do song in 44khz, i always use 48" that's just freaking stupid. the sound difference between these two is small, and considering the fact that using 44khz frees up a lot cpu power, i think it's plain stupid to use 48khz.
also all that dithering bullshit, when we are talking about differences this small, converted to 192kbps mp3 there is no way you can notice the difference anymore, or feel it talking about 128kbps which most seem to use..
also by my experience most of the "hifists", who are talking about mastering mixing sound qualities etc, seem to be the worse composers, so instead of trying to be more than you are i suggest you guys focuse on the music.
|
I can't remember which side of the reviewing debate you were on (ie the one about focusing on music or mastering quality), but it would be interesting to find out.
a98 wrote on 23 Apr. (9:37) :
yeah but guys that's beyond 20khz... |
hrm. Do you think we should trial this some time by using a suitable song?
As the nightbird mocks and sings,
As I revel
In the comfort darkness brings,
As my angel spreads her wings. |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Topics
![[82.74.190.32]](pics/ip.gif){kind=small}
