One of the most hotly–and perhaps unnecessarily–debated topics in the world of audio is the one that surrounds digital sample rates.

It seems an unlikely topic for polarization, but for more than 10 years, the same tired arguments have been batted about by each side with almost unrelenting intensity.

At the fringes, advocates of either side have often dug deeper trenches of faith for themselves. But as much as that’s the case, there’s also a growing consensus among designers and users who have a firm understanding of digital audio.

Namely, that there are perfectly good reasons for sticking with the current professional and consumer standards of 44.1 and 48 kHz for recording and playback — and some valid arguments for moving up to slightly higher sample rates, such as 60, 88.2 or even as high as 96 kHz. What seems to have less informed support is the push to ultra-high sample rates like 192kHz.

We’ll explore the arguments on both sides of the major questions around sample rates and try to find out where each faction has got it right — and where they may be missing some crucial information.

This article is a deep dive into sample rates, one element of digital music (the other being bit depth). It notably points out that higher isn’t always better, and that the search for ever higher sample rates may just be a waste of time and money. (But those who sell high-resolution music don’t want you to know that.) For example:

It turns out that in many cases, we can hear the sound of higher sample rates not because they are more transparent, but because they are less so. They can actually introduce unintended distortion in the audible spectrum, and this is something that can be heard in listening tests.

And:

To him, the issue is not about whether 44.1kHz is the last stop. It’s clear that it rests on the cusp of the point of diminishing returns, and that by the time you’ve reached 60 kHz you’ve exhausted all the theoretical benefits you could ever add. The real benefits to be had are the ones that come from improving implementation, not from ever-increasing sample rates.

The problem is that higher sample rates mean bigger numbers that companies can use in their marketing, and bigger sounds better.

Source: The Science of Sample Rates (When Higher Is Better — And When It Isn’t) – SonicScoop

2 thoughts on “

  1. Just to make it clear… I prefer neutrality to coloration. I believe well-designed digital equipment comes closer to absolute neutrality than analog equipment. Past that… I don’t believe Mr Colletti knows what he’s talking about. There’s a lot of hand waving and a failure to define terms. And little real science.

    Mr Colletti seems to have read a lot about digital processing from various “experts”, then regurgitated it without actually explaining anything. His presentation lacks the clear beginning, middle, and end that a coherent presentation would have.

    He also overlooks the obvious. 192kHz sampling is almost certainly overkill, but given the general lack of sound frequencies above 50kHz (or thereabouts), which microphones don’t much respond to, where do the frequencies that produce in-band IM come from? And what is the non-linearity generates the IM? (Colletti talks as if there’s something exotic about intermodulation distortion, suggesting he has no proper education in electronics.) This paper is going to cause a lot of pointless, ill-informed arguing in Kirkville, and I do not want to get involved.

    Yes, implementation is more important than specifications. But I knew that before I started reading.

    PS: Though supersonic and ultrasonic can be taken to mean the same thing, the common usage is ultrasonic for sound, supersonic for velocity.

  2. Just to make it clear… I prefer neutrality to coloration. I believe well-designed digital equipment comes closer to absolute neutrality than analog equipment. Past that… I don’t believe Mr Colletti knows what he’s talking about. There’s a lot of hand waving and a failure to define terms. And little real science.

    Mr Colletti seems to have read a lot about digital processing from various “experts”, then regurgitated it without actually explaining anything. His presentation lacks the clear beginning, middle, and end that a coherent presentation would have.

    He also overlooks the obvious. 192kHz sampling is almost certainly overkill, but given the general lack of sound frequencies above 50kHz (or thereabouts), which microphones don’t much respond to, where do the frequencies that produce in-band IM come from? And what is the non-linearity generates the IM? (Colletti talks as if there’s something exotic about intermodulation distortion, suggesting he has no proper education in electronics.) This paper is going to cause a lot of pointless, ill-informed arguing in Kirkville, and I do not want to get involved.

    Yes, implementation is more important than specifications. But I knew that before I started reading.

    PS: Though supersonic and ultrasonic can be taken to mean the same thing, the common usage is ultrasonic for sound, supersonic for velocity.

Leave a Reply to William Sommerwerck Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.