Comment by nl
6 years ago
I think this was a sarcastic comment. Obviously "reproducing the ultrasonics" don't actually matter for music reproduction....
6 years ago
I think this was a sarcastic comment. Obviously "reproducing the ultrasonics" don't actually matter for music reproduction....
Of course it's a sarcastic comment, and I know it when I was comment. It seems that it was you, who are unfamiliar with its background and implication.
"Reproducing the ultrasonics" here is a sarcastic reference to any sampling rate higher than 24 kHz (it actually backs back well before digital music). Audiophiles often prefer it because it's claimed that it has a wider frequency response, a lower quantization noise by oversampling, increased transparency after recording and remixing, while critics believe it's a point of diminishing return, and increases the odds of unwanted distortion that actually decreases the fidelity.
When recording audio, it is necessary to filter our frequencies above Nyquist frequency to prevent aliasing. It is easier to make a good filter when you have Nyquist freq. at 48 kHz rather than try to implement a filter that can silence everything above 24 kHz and doesn't touch anything below 20 kHz. Or am I wrong here?
Read the full article of Monty's criticisms of 192 kHz, it answers this question. https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
His point is that once oversampling and filtering is done in hardware, the final output only needs to be encoded in a low sampling rate for its benefits, and all high-quality DAC and ADC already oversample the signal under the hood. Using 192 kHz for its output or music distribution is unnecessary, and only introduces drawbacks like additional IMD and wasted space.
It seems that it was you, who are unfamiliar with its background and implication.
What makes you think I am unfamiliar with the background?
Was it the polite way I pointed out that you had clearly missed the sarcasm?
Either way, the hostility is unnecessary.
Calling out the sarcasm for being misaimed is not the same as missing the sarcasm.
> the polite way I pointed out that you had clearly missed the sarcasm?
That wording makes your comment just as hostile as theirs. If that's the intent you had in your first comment, well, you went first. Not much room to complain about low-level tit-for-tat hostility at that point.
1 reply →
In all honesty, I'd like a system that could play and record ultrasound.
> Inaudible ultrasonics contribute to intermodulation distortion in the audible range. Systems not designed to reproduce ultrasonics typically have much higher levels of distortion above 20 kHz, further contributing to intermodulation. Widening a design's frequency range to account for ultrasonics requires compromises that decrease noise and distortion performance within the audible spectrum. Either way, unneccessary reproduction of ultrasonic content diminishes performance.
- Christopher "Monty" Montgomery, the original author of the Ogg codec, founder of the Xiph.org Foundation, a real audio engineer.
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
I don't need it for music. I want to record ultrasound from the environment, and possibly play signals of my own.
5 replies →