Login / Register
 
Why the debate over 44.1 or 192 .
New Reply
Subscribe
phatbeatstudio
Thread Starter
#1
21st May 2012
Old 21st May 2012
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 588

Thread Starter
phatbeatstudio is offline
Why the debate over 44.1 or 192 .

Why the debate over 44.1 or 192 . Do people really believe there is absolutely no sonic benefit from 192 over 44 or 48.
I know there are many reasons not to because of CPU usage and such but if computers could process 192 as good as 44,1 or 48 would this debate be over.
I wanted to record at 192 I tried and found out that with regular $1500 monitors I could not here any improvement , BUT , at 32bit 192k in HDX with HD converters and Barefoot MM27s I could .
So does this debate of 192 is no better really just a matter of resources . CPU power and other equipment not actually being good enough to hear it. In 15 years when a Mac Pro is 40 cores will people still say 192 is no benefit . Im just thinking out loud here but is this debate really just a matter of resource VS reward. When did a audio engineer decide the very best audio quality possible wasn't wasn't a concern.
#2
21st May 2012
Old 21st May 2012
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Espoo Finland
Posts: 1,077

Petrus is offline
It is not a question of computer power, but the optimal working of the ADC. Higher sample rates bring problems with the converters, that is why higher sample rate is not necessarily better. Optimal quality seems to be around 88.2 or 96 kHz sampling right now, and it is dubious we really need more, as only the upper frequency limit gets raised, nothing more, and it is already well past our hearing limit.

Have you not read any of this: The Optimal Sample Rate for Quality Audio just a few threads down?
phatbeatstudio
Thread Starter
#3
21st May 2012
Old 21st May 2012
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 588

Thread Starter
phatbeatstudio is offline
What do you think of my opinion of people not really hearing the quality difference due to there own equipment not actually being good enough to hear its benefits
#4
21st May 2012
Old 21st May 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,102

SWAN808 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio View Post
What do you think of my opinion of people not really hearing the quality difference due to there own equipment not actually being good enough to hear its benefits
its a reasonable point but there is more to it than that. The main one being that its possible (and reasonably logical) that 192 results in poorer quality audio record/playback than 96 due to issues lavry has pointed out. Also faster sampling does not necessarily = higher quality due to reasons outlined in that article.

There is another aspect here however that Lavry etc dont discuss as its a separate issue - but if we are talking 'processing' audio ITB in a mix session once it has been sampled - then you could argue 192 or higher could be advantageous. Its not unusual for plugins to upsample 2x for example...however - it sounds like recording at 96 and processing at 96 or up-sampling if necessary could be best.
#5
21st May 2012
Old 21st May 2012
  #5
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,359

Bassmankr is offline
The majority at this site still record at 44.1k or 48k (someone starts a poll every 6 months on that it seems). Consensus as I understand per many threads here is that with great modern converters 44.1k or 48k is all you will need (there are great old converters at 44.1k / 48k). Some converters will sound better at 88.1k or 96k. 192k is for marketing purposes (my amp goes to 11). I think Lavry basically said 60k was the optimal sampling rate with computers which several others agree with, but given the standards in place I doubt we will ever see that come into play. I remember in the very first days of this stuff Sony thought that 50k was the optimal number so 48k was not much of a compromise. Given the Alge brothers are still mixing with Sony 3348's which only do 44.1k / 48k there is no shame with those sample rates or good old units despite what the marketer's want you to feel to push you into buying something new (the Alge's also feel that digital tape is the best LONG TERM storage medium to recall tracks decades in the future). If you already have converters then do some testing (hopefully with a friend so you can eliminate some expectation bias while listening) and see what works best for you. If this is about what converter to buy, look at what interface you want first as that will limit your converter choices, then read up here on your workable choices with that interface and other's experiences with them.
#6
21st May 2012
Old 21st May 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Marcocet's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 1,471

Marcocet is offline
phatbeatstudio
Thread Starter
#7
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 588

Thread Starter
phatbeatstudio is offline
#8
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Magucci's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 553

Magucci is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio View Post
earth is flat isn't it everybody else thinks so.
Yeah and the elephants are standing on turtles
#9
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: Up here
Posts: 7,303

elambo is offline
When an argument like "which sounds better" is as tough to prove as this I realize that there's no pressure to decide between them. Instead, I look at other factors, like CPU usage, and that's why I stick with 48K. It sounds as good as it needs to and mid-sized sessions don't consume my entire CPU, as happens with 96K.

As another wrinkle (one I find more relevant): someone made a point that different sample rates render different results. "Colors," I believe they called it. I agree, which means that one SR would be better for Genre A and another SR would be better for Genre B. When going with a natural, organic sound, I sense a benefit in 96K. For rock, I feel a slight advantage in lower SRs.
#10
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

popmann is offline
I don't need Barefoots or HDX to hear the benefit of 88/96. I can not, however hear one lick of difference in 96 and 192.

Look at how many people profess to hearing how much better Slate's VCC sounds at 2 and 4 times over sampling...lots of the same people who claim to not hear a difference between 44 and 96. What do you think the Slate plugs are doing? Up and downsampling, as many modern plug ins DO--using more CPU than they would to run natively at the higher sample rates.

I think it comes down to people not knowing what to listen for. Maybe on the lower end, their systems can't reproduce it--but, I can plug my Sony V6s into the Benchmark DAC1 and hear the same qualities, to a lesser degree that I hear at 96 on my Paradigms.

I don't believe I have super human hearing...nor do I believe I'm just biased--hell, I record mostly at 44.1, because that's what my (non computer based) recorder works at...I would LOVE to hear no difference! But, the issue is that it's not like BluRay versus DVD on a nice HD panel--you'd have to be BLIND not to see that difference. I think people in general never bought HD audio because it's NOT that different. It manifests at higher volumes...on nicer systems...better imaging and "third dimension"...better reverbs ITB...no need to boost highs to make up for the poor LPF getting in the way at 44. It's better-it's just not smack your mama upside the head better--which is what it takes to get people to buy.

Engineers here and elsewhere on the net lack the experience to know what to listen for...some are listening for some ray of God from above grand sonics that make their shitty Chinese U47 knock off and RME preamp sound like a classic record. They won't hear that with higher sample rates.

Hell-maybe I lack whatever it takes to hear that 192 is better...or worse, as Larvy seems to think it is--I feel like that's just taking up resources for no reason.
__________________
New singles available in all it's linear 88.2 glory:
Cogs In the Machine
Cliche
Older archives:
My work--now available in linear PCM for download!
#11
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,799

Jon Hodgson is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio View Post
The problem with that is . Its exactly what it says it is, A theory .
which is not anymore relevant than a opinion with hypothetical graph charts .
but it is the leading answer.

earth is flat isn't it everybody else thinks so.
It's a theorem, a mathematical proof, not a theory, they are very different things.

The theory is that 20kHz is the bandwidth we need to capture, that a 40kHz sample stream can contain all the information in a 20kHz bandwidth signal is not theory, it is fact.

(It's also fact that due to limitations in filters and other factors you'll need more than 40kHz, but thats because you'll have a signal with greater than 20kHz bandwidth that you need to capture, Nyquist-Shannon still applies).

There are reasons why in many circumstances there are advantages to working with even higher sample rates, but that's because there can be advantages to working with higher bandwidth signals (aliasing is the usual problem), Nyquist-Shannon still applies in those cases.
#12
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1,836

Enlightened Hand is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio View Post
The problem with that is . Its exactly what it says it is, A theory .
which is not anymore relevant than a opinion with hypothetical graph charts .
but it is the leading answer.

earth is flat isn't it everybody else thinks so.
Being a theorem (which it is) doesn't make it of equal relevance to an opinion. The problem with laypersons criticizing established scientific theory is that they often reason poorly and are largely ignorant of the facts involved in the matter. Such is the case with the Nyquist theorem and typical conversation in this place surrounding it's validity.

In credible testing, with credible sources the Nyquist theorem has been supported. It has been peer reviewed. It is NOT opinion.

Lavry pointed out that the only matter of opinion is that of how high in frequency one would like to capture in audio recording for human beings to ultimately listen too. Given that no human hearing is capable of responding to ultra sonic frequencies or even frequencies in excess of (VERY generously) 30kHz (and in all likely hood none extends even that far, certainly none tested have come close) then there is simply no need to use sampling rates of greater than around 60kHz, which he mentioned in his paper. He also mentioned that it is therefore overkill to sample at 88.2kHz and above, but that if a compromise was to be made to satisfy those with the desire to sample at ultra high frequencies to accommodate the most sensitive human hearing, while still leaving comfortable margins 88.2 or 96kHz are fine (assuming an excellent converter in the first place). Sampling faster than that causes errors in the process that negatively affect the conversion. This is proven. It's not an opinion.

What ARE opinions (and hearsay, and rumor) are the many anecdotal, subjective, unverifiable claims that Joe Goldenears can hear improvement using 192kHz sampling rate. THOSE claims are "tough to prove". Sampling theory isn't. It IS proven. That so many are ignorant of how it works and insist on being considered worthy of consideration, despite the overwhelming ACTUAL evidence against them, is a testament to human self delusion.

All of our sciences are rooted in theory. That is not because one can simply create one's own truth. That's because no self respecting scientist is willing to foreclose on the possibility of future breakthroughs in understanding and perspective. However, just because a POSSIBILITY exists that something MIGHT change one day doesn't mean that what we know and can prove time and again is somehow just opinion.
__________________
Liz - recordist, mixing dragon lady
thoughts

https://soundcloud.com/audio-wisdom/sets/demo-reel
#13
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1,836

Enlightened Hand is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headstack View Post
Is this your theory? or do you have scientific proof that Joe actually can't hear the difference?
I can personally hear the difference.
I will ACTUALLY bet you $1000 that you can't prove that you can hear the improvement. Let me be clear. I mean IMPROVEMENT. Not difference. Difference you should hear, difference for the worse.
#14
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
 
projektk's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: California
Posts: 1,348

projektk is offline
I can hear a difference between conversions but I couldn't tell you which is which. I don't think higher conversions sound better, but there is a difference. Digital signal has an effect on audio that's for sure. But again who cares. I use 48khz, gives me much better performance than say 96 or 192...

Sent from my LG-P925 using Gearslutz App
#15
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Enlightened Hand's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 1,836

Enlightened Hand is offline
Which is exactly what I said in the first place.
#16
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #16
Gear addict
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 475

jigsawlogic is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio View Post
The problem with that is . Its exactly what it says it is, A theory .
which is not anymore relevant than a opinion with hypothetical graph charts .
but it is the leading answer.

earth is flat isn't it everybody else thinks so.
...and with that, the final nail in the coffin of whatever previously easily understood distinction between fact and opinion existed has been resoundingly hammered into place.

Score: Humanity 0, Internet 2. (The previous point being the notion of privacy, which may find a resurgence after enough people are denied employment over the content of their Facebook pages)
__________________
idle fingers are the nostrils playthings
#17
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,083

Aural Endeavors is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by phatbeatstudio View Post
What do you think of my opinion of people not really hearing the quality difference due to there own equipment not actually being good enough to hear its benefits
Most only think they can hear the benefits when listening on low or high end systems. Since you're human, and are subsceptible to many outside biases through alternate non-aural senses, most of which you, as a human, are unaware of, what you are "hearing" is not what initially entered your ears before being mangled by outside forces before reaching its destination known as the human brain. And I am not making this up. It's called perception.

To combat this phenomenon and to find out what you're truly hearing, you need to perform a proper and valid scientific A/B test with at least a confidence level of 95% or greater.
#18
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,083

Aural Endeavors is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE MAN IS HERE View Post
I think being Greedy is a part of human nature and this really has nothing to do with bits....

15-20 years ago most home recordist used 4 tracks, and did the best they could with them. Most folks were happy to have that. You were damn lucky if you had a R2R or a Dat.

Then, digital comes along....

I'm not a huge fan of digital, but hell... is it cleaner sounding and you can do alot when it comes to editing, plugs, etc...

For some, Digital is basically a dream compared to the old way of doing things. SO... with that said, you'd think people would be happy with even the "basics", say 16bit 44.1 compared to what was available in the old days, as mentioned.

No, they're not content, they want more... and then debate over it, ONLY to abandon the whole thing as crap or obsolete when the next latest greatest comes along....
Interesting perspective!
#19
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #19
Gear maniac
 
phillipc421's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 299

phillipc421 is offline
Most consumers will not be able to differentiate between the sample rates on their gear or with their ears.
#20
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #20
Lives for gear
 
popmann's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Nashville
Posts: 4,690

popmann is offline
That's true...but, to what relevance? They listen to mp3s from Amazon and think they sound fine. So, we should now record directly to mp3? Did Fleetwood Mac's engineer say "well, we just have to make Rumours sound good enough for 8 track cassette...?"

That's kind of a straw man argument. You should go ahead and throw in "well, a good song at 44 is better than a bad one at 192"...
#21
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #21
Gear interested
 
ricordu's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 29

ricordu is offline
I'd prefer 96k on Lavry than 192 on Motu

Ricordu
#22
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #22
Lives for gear
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 9,102

SWAN808 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by popmann View Post
Look at how many people profess to hearing how much better Slate's VCC sounds at 2 and 4 times over sampling...lots of the same people who claim to not hear a difference between 44 and 96. What do you think the Slate plugs are doing? Up and downsampling, as many modern plug ins DO--using more CPU than they would to run natively at the higher sample rates.
but you are confusing 2 separate processes here. One is Ad/DA conversion - the other is signal processing at a given sample rate.

AD/DA conversion is about effectively sampling - then reconstructing an audio signal. Lavry states that because of the limitations of human hearing and the potential for inaccuracies at high rates - higher sample rates does not necessarily mean higher quality audio reproduction in digital systems.

However - in a computer - digital signal processing - IE changing that sampled analogue waveform which came in thru the A/D converter and now exists as 1s and 0s, is a different topic....

My own opinion is that I dont think there is a huge problem with 44.1 recording and playback provided you use good converters. If you are simply using the computer as a tape machine - doing mixing and processing OTB I think its probably fine.

The issue is that I dont think 44.1 provides enough headroom for the significant amounts of digital signal processing done ITB that is common now days. Once you start stacking on the plugins I think the digital audio information is changed in ways that digital artifacts mount up.

One potential solution is to record at 44.1 and use plugins that upsample. However here you have to rely on real time sample rate conversion - which has its own limitations.

I think if you are running a system that uses a lot of ITB - 96k is probably the way to go and keep plugins processing at project sample rate-no realtime SRC-just a clean overall rate for recording and processing.

However at the moment I dont think thats ideal for most because of CPU power issues - not sure we are there yet. Also - a lot of sample libraries are at 44.1 so they need to be upsampled. I am hoping the next generation of computers will make 96k more common and possible on a wider scale due to faster CPU and cheap storage, and because of the rise of ITB - production tools such as sample libraries and processors will be optimised for 96k for producers to work with at high quality to maintain high audio integrity - then downsampled for consumption.

Id be curious what others think - Im just freewheeling some thoughts...
#23
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #23
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 10,272

Send a message via Skype™ to Doc Mixwell
Doc Mixwell is offline
44.1 sounds perfect in my studio, with the level of ADA converters I am using....its a no brainer...Working on Music, that will end up on a CD and Digital Distribution Medium.

I stopped drinking the high sample rate KOOL AID many years ago, after using 96K for years, the results led me to believe my audio was not aesthetically pleasing.

It was brighter, with looser bass. Thinner sounding. 44.1 to me sounds more even with less problematic brightness, [exacerbating the treble range] and the bass is more even and firm to my ear. Its more pleasing to my ear.

It is not "loose" sounding. It is not "bright"...

I can easily discern differences with sample rates. And my conclusion is that 44.1 sounds the best in my studio. I base my conjecture on many years of Digital Audio experience.
#24
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Nick Morris's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,238

Nick Morris is offline
What were you using for years at 96k that sounded this way? When did you decided to change and what made you discover this difference? I worked for many years at 48k and was sent a couple 44.1khz sessions and those instantly sounded lofi compared to what I was use to hearing. In my experience, the higher the sample rate the better my converters sound. 384khz is king for PCM in my studio. The only thing that sounded better was DSD. This is based off a merging technologies sphynx2 converter. I currently work large PCM projects at 96k. 384khz for small PCM projects like classical recordings. Capture in DSD. This may have to do with most of the mixing taking place on a euphonix CS2000.

I spent a looooong time with converters and believe that there is no rule to which sample rate is best. To me it really depends on the converter you have. Every converter will have a sample rate which it performs it's best at. Mine happen to sound better at higher rates, (sphynx2, Burl B2, Euphonix AM713,MA703).
__________________
www.ElaireStudios.com
Robo-Mic RMS robotic remote controlled mic stands aimed at mic'ing amps
#25
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #25
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 10,272

Send a message via Skype™ to Doc Mixwell
Doc Mixwell is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Morris View Post
What were you using for years at 96k that sounded this way? When did you decided to change and what made you discover this difference? I worked for many years at 48k and was sent a couple 44.1khz sessions and those instantly sounded lofi compared to what I was use to hearing. In my experience, the higher the sample rate the better my converters sound. 384khz is king for PCM in my studio. The only thing that sounded better was DSD. This is based off a merging technologies sphynx2 converter. I currently work large PCM projects at 96k. 384khz for small PCM projects like classical recordings. Capture in DSD. This may have to do with most of the mixing taking place on a euphonix CS2000.

I spent a looooong time with converters and believe that there is no rule to which sample rate is best. To me it really depends on the converter you have. Every converter will have a sample rate which it performs it's best at. Mine happen to sound better at higher rates, (sphynx2, Burl B2, Euphonix AM713,MA703).
More importantly than what hardware I've used and what mixes I've fought....to your point, all ADA converters sound different at different sample rates. Because of their design, filter networks, clocking, circuit topology,PSU etc. They all sound different and the subjectivity of it is mind boggling. The simple answer is to find out for yourself. I do not have a nuclear booster pack attached to my computer hardware to record, process and store more samples, for this difference. There may be a time in my career, where sampling high makes more sense to the application, but I don't think I'll see that day any time soon.

I speak in highly general, preferential terms. I do not preach, or dictate what the other gearmonkey women or man, should be using in their applications. I only mean to share, my viewpoint, which has been derived by years of working at different rates, with different genre's, and people compeled to test science against music. It is derived from completing projects from start to finish, pretty much doing everything myself. Because I have found, that it doesn't matter what you use. Sure. The good ones sound great at all sampling rates. They have Different responses, but all great. I think it does't matter, what you use, because no matter what - we are recording[encoding and decoding] more High Freq. content with higher sample rates,

They might sound different from one another, but we are capturing up to 48kHz, with 96K, and then 96kHz with 192k sampling rates. Electronically, I think this can be a problem for the entire system, instead of breeding more fidelity. It will depend on many things. I have been tricked many times by 96K being "better", and then when I start processing the audio, things are not "better" at all. My viewpoint, is that 44.1 with good converters sounds absolutely fine to me, [if you like those ADA converters] and that you will have less conversion in the end, to the medium its planned for. Whatever sampling rate you use, you should plan for as little [or none] sample rate conversion as possible. I hate sample rate conversion. It sucks.

If the project is going to mastering, I will let the ME do that...because he has better hardware and software than I...but even still, I have been very happy with the projects I mix, and send to master @ 44.1. With 96K, I have found, the sound overall, has more HF artifacts, but I must stress - I can only speak to my own worn ass ear's. I have found, I struggle more with mixing at Higher Rates. I find, the bass does not sound that great to me, and I struggle to find a good sound. All of this could be good or could be bad. All of it, could be good or bad. Context is king here. Application key. Aesthetic is subjective. The Objective, is a cement wall. Your work? Is done with a sledge hammer. It will get messy.
#26
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #26
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,083

Aural Endeavors is offline
For all the people that claim they can hear a difference, I invite you to take a scientific sample rate test I plan on posting. Yes, even though it will be posted on a forum, it will indeed still be scientific, the results of which will be valid and statistically significant. Just don't come back crying claiming you couldn't hear a difference because the test was flawed, after you failed it. And no, the test is not designed to fail the subjects, it's designed to provide every opportunity to pass. So, if you indeed can hear the difference, you will pass. My guess is that near 100% will fail though.

EDIT: And by the way, I hope there will be a very high pass rate, but we'll see.
#27
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #27
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Location: Sydney via London
Posts: 23,288
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via Skype™ to psycho_monkey
psycho_monkey is offline
I've never heard of a debate over 44.1 or 192. No-one in the real, working world works at 192kHz (at least, in the pop/rock-type world; there may be the odd classical or audiophile jazz recordist working at 192, and certainly for archiving or sound design it has it's uses).

I've not seen a real, tracking and mix session at 192k EVER.
__________________
Recent Indie credits include:

Jack Robert Hardman (New EP now on sale), Morgan Joanel,
Edens March
and High-Tails.

If I've helped you out, please consider supporting these artists as a favour to me!

Major label credits include Pharrell/Alicia Keys, Ricky Martin (Aus #3), John Legend, Taylor Henderson (Aus #1 ARIA Album), Di-Rect (Dutch #1 single), etc
#28
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #28
Gear Head
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 40

macartie is offline
Oversampling?

Modern AD/DA converters use oversampling. So the converter is sampling in the MHz range regardless of which sample rate you choose in your DAW. The highest frequency sampled is already well higher than 192 kHz.

When you choose a sample rate, you're basically deciding how many of these extra samples you'd like to throw away. But you're not really deciding anything that affects sound quality. (Probably not, anyway.) 44.1 or 48 kHz for me!
#29
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,083

Aural Endeavors is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE MAN IS HERE View Post
Please do post this test, I'm very interested in seeing the results.

Not to ridicule ppl here, but it's a known fact our ears can play tricks on us, All the time. Therefore, sometimes we tend be a little biased, epsecially when it comes to the name tag on the box, or the bigger number. ( you know how men think biggger is better...)
Here's some others biases that can have an effect on the perception of sound:

Brand/manufacturer/developer recognition
Brand loyalty
Brand "stigma" (Behringer)
Technology hype
Theoretical hype (a big one here)
Specs
Cost
Bigger numbers (like you said). I.e. "1 to 11" (It goes to 11: It must be good)
Looks, aesthetics or lack of, color of the equipment
Apparent and actual build quality (solidity or lack of)
Post-ownership/Pre-ownership
Pre and post bank account size after ownership.
Your past experiences with brand.
Where it's made

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE MAN IS HERE View Post
99.9% of the "A/B" home tests ppl conduct are NOT valid, as they're flawed due to many factors. Lack of proper test equipment, improper testing methods, etc....
Spot on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE MAN IS HERE View Post
Here's a simple test.... How many times have you ever reached and tweaked an EQ, thinking it made a difference to the track, but ONLY to find it wasn't even patched in. However, you thought it made a difference, until you realized your error.

IF you say no you've never done this, you're lying or haven't mixed much...
I'll admit it. Has happened many times to me, and I've got over thirty years of experience.

Here's another test. If you've got a board in your studio. Tweak an auxillary knob in the studio that isn't routed to anything in front of another engineer or a client, and say, "check this out... how does that sound?" Or say, "better?". More often than not, you'll get a response in the line of something like, "great!" or "that's cool, what did you do?" or "I like it". Of course, you need to be able to accept any consequences that may result from this, if any. LOL
#30
25th May 2012
Old 25th May 2012
  #30
Gear maniac
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Southwest
Posts: 219

scorpiwoman is offline
I like 48k myself
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
BLueROom / The Moan Zone
260
AlexLakis / Music Business
306
Matt Grondin / High end
30

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.