If high sample rates
make no discernible difference when recording (which is effectively what
Dan Lavry’s much-quoted white paper seems to be saying), then what
advantage is there in upsampling within plug-ins?
For example, Cytomic’s
The Glue sounds better in the 4x upsampling mode, but why is this? And
if working already at high sample rates in your DAW project, should
upsampling make no difference at all?
Via SOS web site
SOS
Technical Editor Hugh Robjohns replies: Lavry’s basic premise is that
there is no reliable evidence that the human population can perceive
sounds higher than about 20kHz, and therefore that a sample rate in
excess of about 44kHz should be entirely adequate for audio recording
and reproduction, given a properly engineered system. Moreover, he
highlights the fact that the temporal accuracy inherently diminishes
with higher sample rates. For these reasons he argues that there is
absolutely no benefit in recording with sample rates higher than about
96kHz, and that the optimal sample rate — not that we have the option to
use it, sadly — is probably 60kHz to avoid some of the remaining
practical engineering difficulties associated with 44.1kHz. However, we
are talking here about recording and reproducing high-quality audio,
which is a relatively straightforward thing.
Complex non-linear signal
processing — like dynamics and some forms of equalisation — is a whole
different kettle of fish, and there are some significant mathematical
advantages in converting to a higher sample rate for some forms of
signal processing. This approach doesn’t change the audio content in any
way, it just makes the number crunching easier and considerably more
accurate, with fewer unwanted artifacts. If you are already working at
high sample rates, then further upsampling is unlikely to deliver any
noticeable benefits, but only because it is very unlikely that there
would be anything audibly significant in the upper parts of the captured
spectrum anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment