Correlation between sample rate and audible frequency?

[ReaderZ]

Not quite sure what that means. If you use a 192 kHz sampe rate, 75% of the bits are wasted. 24 bits is also overkill - have you come across a commercial recording (or domestic listening room) with a noise floor low enough to allow eve a 96 dB dynamic range?

It's not too hard to find a domestic listening room at night where your breathing is by far the loudest sound, I am in such a room right now. As for recording...

 

[Julf]

It's not too hard to find a domestic listening room at night where your breathing is by far the loudest sound, I am in such a room right now. As for recording...

And how loud is that breathing? What is your maximum sound level?

 

[Frank Dernie]

It's not too hard to find a domestic listening room at night where your breathing is by far the loudest sound, I am in such a room right now. As for recording...

Well there are also recording studios with extremely low background noise too but whilst these may be OK for film sound effects with music just the presence of the musicians raises the background noise level so even with classical music recordings the background noise level very rarely, if ever, stretches the 16-bit dynamic range.
I just put on a modern super quiet wide dynamic range Arvo Part recording and just before the singers start the signal level is around -65 to -70 dB.
!6-bit is plenty for music IME.
By typical music recordings this track has extremely large dynamic range and 16-bit does it with plenty of margin.
I can hear to 14kHz, so sampling at 44.1 is plenty for me, and probably everybody else.
IME a 44/16 file contains all the actual audible musical information that one could choose to put in a 96/24 file which is over 3x bigger. A 192/24 is even more pointlessly large.

 

[Julf]

IME a 44/16 file contains all the actual audible musical information that one could choose to put in a 96/24 file which is over 3x bigger. A 192/24 is even more pointlessly large.

This.

 

[daftcombo]

extremely low background noise too but whilst these may be OK for film sound effects with music just the presence of the musicians raises the background noise level so even with classical music recordings the background noise level very rarely, if ever, stretches the 16-bit dynamic range.

What about electronic music?
Very low (in volume) sounds can be created on purpose and as there is no recording, there is virtually no noise floor.

As for the presence of musicians, aren't the sounds they produce interesting per se for ambience?

 

[Frank Dernie]

What about electronic music?
Very low (in volume) sounds can be created on purpose and as there is no recording, there is virtually no noise floor.

As for the presence of musicians, aren't the sounds they produce interesting per se for ambience?

I haven't ever heard wide dynamic range electronic music. Has anybody ever recorded any? That which I have got (mainly Kraftwerk) has nowhere near 16 bit dynamic range, though it is pretty dynamic by modern standards.

As far as ambience due to the presence of musicians is concerned, yes, I like this but in the recording I wrote about the -65dB to -70dB background was inaudible at my listening chair.
Typical live recordings where the orchestra sitting down and the odd chair creak and audience rustle is louder than -60dB. It is possible to hear the background in a live recording on old tape recordings I have done and they have way less than 16-bit dynamic range.

 

[Pluto]

It's not too hard to find a domestic listening room at night where your breathing is by far the loudest sound

That, in part, is because your breathing is fairly close to your ears…

It's when someone else's breathing becomes the loudest sound that you should be concerned…

 

[Julf]

What about electronic music?
Very low (in volume) sounds can be created on purpose and as there is no recording, there is virtually no noise floor.

Sure, if you do everything in the digital domain, and you use enough extra precision (bits) during processing.

As for the presence of musicians, aren't the sounds they produce interesting per se for ambience?

In theory, yes, if you can hear it. Here i a test: take a 24-bit track, attenuate it by 96 dB, and listen to it at your normal volume/gain setting.

 

[ReaderZ]

That, in part, is because your breathing is fairly close to your ears…

It's when someone else's breathing becomes the loudest sound that you should be concerned…

Nope, you must be living in a noise place...

And how loud is that breathing? What is your maximum sound level?

No idea, but nothing else is audio-able.

 

[ReaderZ]

This.

So 16/44.1 contains all possible digital information in audio-able range already?

 

[daftcombo]

So 16/44.1 contains all possible digital information in audio-able range already?

For dogs and whales, definitely no.

 

[Julf]

So 16/44.1 contains all possible digital information in audio-able range already?

For human hearing, yes.

 

[Julf]

No idea, but nothing else is audio-able.

Not sure what that means. Are you using computer translation?

 

[Pluto]

It's when someone else's breathing becomes the loudest sound that you should be concerned…

you must be living in a noise place...

Do you mean a nose place?

 

[mansr]

Do you mean a nose place?

Or noice.

 

[Pluto]

Especially if said with an Irish accent – “that's a noice place!”

 

[ReaderZ]

Not sure what that means. Are you using computer translation?

Simple，means I can't hear anything else, as the room is extremely quite.

 

[ReaderZ]

Do you mean a nose place?

LOL, the point stands though, you seems used to a lot noise even during the night to think other people's breath being loudest is concerning.

 

[luft262]

High sample rate allows higher bandwidth but one is not forced to use it. So yes, if all you want to capture is 1 Hz bandwidth, you can run any sample rate you like and results will be the same. It is just that up to a point, by convention as sample rates are doubled, so is the bandwidth that is allowed. A 96 kHz sampling allows 48 kHz of bandwidth. A 44.1 kHz sampling allows 22.05 kHz and so on.

At a sample rate of 192 kHz though, some DACs may roll off some of that extra bandwidth and not give you 96 kHz for example which is fine since we can't hear that high anyway.

Sorry if this is a shallow question or if it has been answered elsewhere, but if humans can only hear to 20 kHz and 44.1 kHz sampling allows for a bandwidth of 22.05 kHz (2.05 kHZ above our 20 kHz max) why would we need a higher sample rate?

Thank you.

 

[Wes]

So 16/44.1 contains all possible digital information in audio-able range already?

probably

however, this claim is based on some assumptions about audibility and AFAIK that have never been carefully tested

the best analysis of claims that higher bit rates/depth can be audible is that by Reiss

I would however bet a LOT of money that bit rate/depth even if audible on the finest system, by the best-trained and youngest human listeners will not be the most or even 2nd or 3rd most important changes one should make in one's own system.