Login / Register
 
Does sample rate really matter with high end gear?
New Reply
Subscribe
Real Talk Ent.
Thread Starter
#1
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #1
Gear addict
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: 518 Upstate New york
Posts: 368

Thread Starter
Send a message via AIM to Real Talk Ent. Send a message via Yahoo to Real Talk Ent.
Real Talk Ent. is offline
Does sample rate really matter with high end gear?

Does sample rate really matter with high end gear?

for example will a ULN-8 or Prism Orpheus Really sound better at 96 KHZ as opposed to 44.1? even know they have great and crystal clear conversion?
#2
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 3,078

mattg082 is offline
You will see a benifit with the way some plugin eq compressor, soft synths ect. sound. I've found the eq spectrum sound drastically different when swapping between the two. I say just settle at 88.2 that's what I ended up doing. But if you don't do much ITB processing probably won't matter too much. It's debatable indeed but there are some facts about it.
Real Talk Ent.
Thread Starter
#3
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #3
Gear addict
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: 518 Upstate New york
Posts: 368

Thread Starter
Send a message via AIM to Real Talk Ent. Send a message via Yahoo to Real Talk Ent.
Real Talk Ent. is offline
I was asking for a few different reasons but the main reason is i was thinking about getting a ULN-8 and running it Via ADAT in and out of my 003R so i can get great quality instead of the mediocre ADDA in my 003

However, if using higher sample rates truly makes a noticeable difference maybe i will convert to Cubase 5 and forget Pro-tools
#4
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #4
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 498

Arlo is offline
"Debatable" is putting it mildly
#5
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Red 7's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,200

Send a message via AIM to Red 7 Send a message via Skype™ to Red 7
Red 7 is offline
SSL Alpha link sounds much better at higher SR than 48KHz. For sure.
#6
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #6
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 7,119

robertshaw is offline
I switched to 96 from 48 about 4 years ago. I thought the difference was very noticeable. I have constantly second guessed this from reading all the debating here from claims that it is no different, but the couple time in the last year or so I revisited 48 I went right back to 96. At-least with my gear it is wider and clearer sounding to me. Even if it is my just imagination and an audio myth or illusion, I will continue using 96 even if it is merely my digital good luck charm........ :-) did Nyquist sell rabbits feet by any chance?
Real Talk Ent.
Thread Starter
#7
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #7
Gear addict
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: 518 Upstate New york
Posts: 368

Thread Starter
Send a message via AIM to Real Talk Ent. Send a message via Yahoo to Real Talk Ent.
Real Talk Ent. is offline
lol thank you all
#8
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #8
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 115

Albert L. is offline
96K has double the resolution of 48. A bunch of years ago I read about someone who calculated the number of oxide particles that were charged positive or negative on a 24 track tape track width. It was something like 8 million.

Charging a piece of oxide positive or negative is the same as printing a 1 or 0, as it is one or the other. That would make the sampling rate of a track on a 24 track analog machine somewhere around 8 meg.

I think most of us will all agree that analog has better resolution than digital, which I would attribute to the higher sampling rate. My experience has shown me that 96 is the nicest sounding of all the sampling rates available, but I do believe that they will get 192 to sound better in years to come if there is a market for the improvement
Real Talk Ent.
Thread Starter
#9
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #9
Gear addict
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: 518 Upstate New york
Posts: 368

Thread Starter
Send a message via AIM to Real Talk Ent. Send a message via Yahoo to Real Talk Ent.
Real Talk Ent. is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert L. View Post
96K has double the resolution of 48. A bunch of years ago I read about someone who calculated the number of oxide particles that were charged positive or negative on a 24 track tape track width. It was something like 8 million.

Charging a piece of oxide positive or negative is the same as printing a 1 or 0, as it is one or the other. That would make the sampling rate of a track on a 24 track analog machine somewhere around 8 meg.

I think most of us will all agree that analog has better resolution than digital, which I would attribute to the higher sampling rate. My experience has shown me that 96 is the nicest sounding of all the sampling rates available, but I do believe that they will get 192 to sound better in years to come if there is a market for the improvement
That makes no Sense, if 96 is better than 48 than how is 192 worse?
#10
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #10
Gear addict
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 367

Hane is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert L. View Post
96K has double the resolution of 48. A bunch of years ago I read about someone who calculated the number of oxide particles that were charged positive or negative on a 24 track tape track width. It was something like 8 million.

Charging a piece of oxide positive or negative is the same as printing a 1 or 0, as it is one or the other. That would make the sampling rate of a track on a 24 track analog machine somewhere around 8 meg.

I think most of us will all agree that analog has better resolution than digital, which I would attribute to the higher sampling rate. My experience has shown me that 96 is the nicest sounding of all the sampling rates available, but I do believe that they will get 192 to sound better in years to come if there is a market for the improvement
I don't see how sampling frequencies can be applied to analogue tape machines since, the circuits don't sample signals in the first place.
#11
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Lipps's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Hercules, Ca
Posts: 1,529

Lipps is offline
More sample rate talk?
#12
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #12
Lives for gear
 
sonare's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: southeast
Posts: 1,556

sonare is offline
This is how threads morph into nonsense. The is no correlation between analog and digital sampling rate no matter how it OUGHT to seem.

I have owned both ULN-8 and Orpheus. My preference is the Prism but none of that was based on ADAT output.

The defining question is the delivery format. If it is to be Redbook CD then whatever advantage you heard might well be eliminated by what you use for dither and SRC, IOW if it is going to end up as a CD then record at 24/44. Your ears will confirm the results from either the ULN-8 or Prism.

If it will be released as an SACD conversion or "someday Blueray" then at least 24bit and maybe a higher SRC-- but anything beyond 96 is mainly a benefit for the storage manufacturers who want to sell you twice the space than you would otherwise need.

If you have run tests with your plugins and can see/hear an advantage to higher SR then go for it-- but make sure the advantages are not compromised by your SRC workflow. Last data I saw still had Saracon or R8brain pro at the top of the heap.

As for which SR sounds "nicest"-- this is so dependent on who made the hardware that is cannot be intelligently debated.

Rich
__________________
Sonare Recordings
309 Gloucester Rd
Savannah GA 31410
912-484-8451
http://www.sonarerecordings.com/
#13
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #13
Lives for gear
 
camus's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,082

camus is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonare View Post
The defining question is the delivery format. If it is to be Redbook CD then whatever advantage you heard might well be eliminated by what you use for dither and SRC, IOW if it is going to end up as a CD then record at 24/44.
With all due respect, this is highly debatable. Especially if your mastering engineer is going to be using analog hardware to work on the material.
__________________
"There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."
-Bob's Mom
#14
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 2,283

HomeProducer is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I switched to 96 from 48 about 4 years ago. I thought the difference was very noticeable. I have constantly second guessed this from reading all the debating here from claims that it is no different, but the couple time in the last year or so I revisited 48 I went right back to 96. At-least with my gear it is wider and clearer sounding to me. Even if it is my just imagination and an audio myth or illusion, I will continue using 96 even if it is merely my digital good luck charm........ :-) did Nyquist sell rabbits feet by any chance?
I know high sampling rates are sexy.

But it could be that there is a slight gain mismatch causing this.
#15
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #15
Lives for gear
 
sonare's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: southeast
Posts: 1,556

sonare is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by camus View Post
With all due respect, this is highly debatable. Especially if your mastering engineer is going to be using analog hardware to work on the material.
I was addressing only what the OP was asking-- and what others had tossed in. In the example you cite the person to ask is your mastering engineer.

Rich
#16
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,184

Brent Hahn is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert L. View Post
Charging a piece of oxide positive or negative is the same as printing a 1 or 0, as it is one or the other. That would make the sampling rate of a track on a 24 track analog machine somewhere around 8 meg.

I think most of us will all agree that analog has better resolution than digital, which I would attribute to the higher sampling rate. My experience has shown me that 96 is the nicest sounding of all the sampling rates available, but I do believe that they will get 192 to sound better in years to come if there is a market for the improvement
Careful, now. Some poor kid might pick this up and repeat it and get kicked out of Full Sail.
#17
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,365

Syncamorea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
did Nyquist sell rabbits feet by any chance?
Only in symmetrically balanced pairs.
#18
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #18
Gear Head
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 54

jayalanthomp is offline
Switched to 96K last year and haven't looked back yet. It makes a big difference when you have to SRC down to a lower rate later on. In other words, the higher rate allows you to keep more of the integrity of your mix if you ever need to convert down for some reason. If sample rates did not matter, we should all just record at mp3 and save all kinds of disk space and cpu! Most here find the thought of recording at mp3 ludicrous, right? So let's extend our common sense a little...Higher sample rates do help when edits, plugins, and SRC are considered. -JT
__________________
Peace,

JT
www.JayAlanThompson.com
#19
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 3,078

mattg082 is offline
You are not a real man unless you use 96khz 24 bit. So be a real man and do it or buy a better computer like a real man(A MAC). Now here is a monkey pissing all over your 48 khz dfegad <I'm 48khz I don't sound as good waa waa
#20
4th August 2010
Old 4th August 2010
  #20
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,563

edva is offline
I might add that the ULN8 will in any case give you excellent pre amps and super-excellent A/D/A conversion.
#21
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,330

Flying_Dutchman is offline
just try and forget all discussions, cuase its all BS, cause its not your situation
believe your ears and try it
__________________


Just do it
Fezzle
#22
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #22
Fezzle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a

+1

with my lynx converters I can honestly say I notice a slight improvement ein the high end, seems a little clearer. It sais on the tech spec that at 96K the frequencey response extends to abot 45Khz as opposed to 25Khz, so if its getting extended information, perhaps this affects what I CAN hear
#23
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #23
Gear nut
 
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 115

Albert L. is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Talk Ent. View Post
That makes no Sense, if 96 is better than 48 than how is 192 worse?
This is a function of the sound of the converter chips and not the analog electronics or clocking. The converter chips that are currently available that have 192 capability sound very flat and sterile for some reason that is beyond my ability to understand but within my ability to hear.

In the next comment on my post the poster mentioned that analog doesn't sample. It most certainly does. With analog tape you have oxide particles which are glued to a mylar backing. These particles are charged either positive + or negative -. There is no alternative between being charged + or - which is exactly the same concept of digital binary code. With binary code you have 1 which is on or 0 which is off. It is a series of switches that store the data that is your music. The only difference between a + and a - and a 1 and a 0 is what we call them, the concept is the same.

The only difference is that you do not need a conversion process to produce the + or -, that conversion is done by the wave forms that go into the coils inside the tape head and are transfered to the magnetic particles on the tape. Because the magnetic particles cut out the middle man of the binary code conversion process, clock, aliasing filters, etc. there can be a greater quantity of samples taken in the form of +s and -s that are stored on the charged particles of oxide on the tape
#24
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,476

Bill@WelcomeHome is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Real Talk Ent. View Post
I was asking for a few different reasons but the main reason is i was thinking about getting a ULN-8 and running it Via ADAT in and out of my 003R so i can get great quality instead of the mediocre ADDA in my 003
If it matters at all, it will matter more with high end gear.

It has often been remarked by many posters over the years that not all converter sets sound great at all the rates offered by those sets.

And not all converter sets are equal. A Prism 44.1/16 is going to sound better than a Terbo Crumpus 44.1/16.

And after a certain point the quality is no longer an issue, it becomes more a matter of what flavor you like. Mytek, Benchmark, Larvy is a good example. They each offer a product at roughly the same price point, all three are fine converters, and they do not sound at all alike.
#25
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #25
Lives for gear
 
tampa's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: London, Ont, Canada
Posts: 1,265

tampa is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertshaw View Post
I switched to 96 from 48 about 4 years ago. I thought the difference was very noticeable. I have constantly second guessed this from reading all the debating here from claims that it is no different, but the couple time in the last year or so I revisited 48 I went right back to 96. At-least with my gear it is wider and clearer sounding to me. Even if it is my just imagination and an audio myth or illusion, I will continue using 96 even if it is merely my digital good luck charm........ :-) did Nyquist sell rabbits feet by any chance?
It's not your imagination robert, it's quite obvious in my experience.


Pete
#26
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #26
Gear addict
 
bino_5150's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 329

Send a message via Yahoo to bino_5150
bino_5150 is offline
Lmao I remember a year or so ago we had this huge infamous "Bit Depth of Analog Tape" thread. I see the handwriting on the wall here... I know where this is going!
__________________
BINO of MO THUGS RECORDS

www.facebook.com/bino5150
www.reverbnation.com/bino5150


"So we da best like that DJ Khaled guy, and what I really mean when I say we, - is I..." ~BINO, from "Ride Out", available for download on myspace.
#27
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #27
Lives for gear
 
rcb4t2's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 3,429

rcb4t2 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert L. View Post
96K has double the resolution of 48. A bunch of years ago I read about someone who calculated the number of oxide particles that were charged positive or negative on a 24 track tape track width. It was something like 8 million.

Charging a piece of oxide positive or negative is the same as printing a 1 or 0, as it is one or the other. That would make the sampling rate of a track on a 24 track analog machine somewhere around 8 meg.

I think most of us will all agree that analog has better resolution than digital, which I would attribute to the higher sampling rate. My experience has shown me that 96 is the nicest sounding of all the sampling rates available, but I do believe that they will get 192 to sound better in years to come if there is a market for the improvement
Dude this is totally not right - 96k doesn't have double the resolution - the bit rate has a much higher bearing on the resolution. 96k is just able to pick up higher frequencies - in my opinion, these frequencies don't really matter because they're outside the range of human hearing. And in CD format they'll get cut off anyway.

I don't have a problem if people want to use higher SRs - I sometimes use 88.2 if I'm in the mood, and maybe I can hear a difference maybe I can't. I would bet money that in a proper blind test people couldn't consistently tell the difference. (PS: what frequencies can your monitoring chain reproduce?)

Also, about tape machine "sample rate", I think that's off base, you can't really equate them.
#28
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,221

Audiop is offline
Guys you need get a grip on:

Wordlength
Bitrate
Sample rate
Bandwith
Resolution




/Peter
#29
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #29
Gear nut
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Location: Madrid, S-pain
Posts: 78

damianschwartz is offline
In my personal experience, i work on projects that end mostly on Vinyl (and i do quite a lot), i work at 88.2 i think it´s obvious that plugins have more resolution at 88 or 96, also, you generate less aliasing on higher freqs. Then i transfer the mixdown to tape, and send it on tape for mastering and vinyl cutting, if we also do cd, they make a digital master from the same tape. For me 88.2 became the standard sample rate.
#30
5th August 2010
Old 5th August 2010
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,365

Syncamorea is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert L. View Post
sound very flat and sterile for some reason that is beyond my ability to understand but within my ability to hear.
Classic!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert L. View Post
In the next comment on my post the poster mentioned that analog doesn't sample. It most certainly does. With analog tape you have oxide particles which are glued to a mylar backing. These particles are charged either positive + or negative -. There is no alternative between being charged + or - which is exactly the same concept of digital binary code. With binary code you have 1 which is on or 0 which is off. It is a series of switches that store the data that is your music. The only difference between a + and a - and a 1 and a 0 is what we call them, the concept is the same.
Any one else see the link between this and quantum mechanics, statistical thermodynamics and classical thermodynamics?

Rather than charged particles on magntic tape, think about polarization of magnetic particles by the recording head in the deck. It's not so much that you have zeros and ones with respect to the polarization, but many possible orientations.

http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/Magnetism/Guide/magrec.php

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/1..._Recording.pdf
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
sparksymusic / Music Computers
2
lucasmusic / So much gear, so little time!
2

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.