192 kHz in real life ... quite surprising ...

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by oky****

blah blah blah

Has it ever bothered you that anyone who knows what they're doing thinks you have no clue what you're talking about?

fuuck

[DSD_Mastering]

Everyone is arguing the same exact thing as they did in the 801 post thread Recording at 192k

With today's fast cpu's and hard drives, resources are not a problem now. So that argument is dead.

If it doesn't hurt anyone and it makes you and/or your client feel better.. do it!

People are not going to change their mind on the matter. It's like beating a dead horse. Manufacturers rely on bench testing, not ABX testing. We're in the trenches every single day listening/recording/mastering hi-rez files. We know what we hear/feel.

So instead of hiding behind theorys, white papers and laws... go listen to and make some damn music!


Regards,

[Remoteness]

All very good points, Bruce.

Thanks!

[klaukholm]

oky****,

Please do not insult one of our most valuable contributors!

It is not good form to be anonymous, particularly when making such inflammatory remarks.

Once again this wonderful forum of Steve's is being abused. Out of respect for steve and Mr. Lavry, pleas go back, clean up your posts and add a signature with your real name and some infor on your affiliations either in the signature or in your profile.


Dan, we all understand that this is highly insulting to you and I am sure all the regulars on the forum want to keep you here as a posting member.
Please come back and ignore the troll.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by oky****

...
it is in fact a lie to say that there is absolutely no up side to 192kHz sampling. period.
...

Now that is a lie.
Fact is:
Not a single human individual could hear a difference between 96 kHz and 192 kHz in any scientific double blind test on this planet!

Your argument is foolish (or driven by "special interest") and insulting to Mr. Lavry.
Anything above 96 kHz is not beneficial to perceived audio quality. period.

For the High sampling frequency debate we might spare us the waste of time and look into the debates between religion and atheism.
You have to believe in 192 kHz in order to justify it, but you can't proof any advantage of it.
(OK, the shorter latency, that would be about it.)
I'm not against using higher sampling rates for the sake of higher sampling rates alone, but only if it is doable without compromising the workflow or the economics of a production.
Speaking about real world scenarios there are so many more factors that are more important in a recording.
And some manufacturers of DSD or 384kHz AD convertors like DAD build them with an audible fan. How more idiotic can it get...

In order to get something you can't hear, you get noise that you must hear, great

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

So instead of hiding behind theorys, white papers and laws... go listen to and make some damn music!


Regards,

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Dan, we all understand that this is highly insulting to you and I am sure all the regulars on the forum want to keep you here as a posting member. Please come back and ignore the troll.

+1

Please don't let a troll keep you from contributing to the forum. Ignore this thread, by all means, but please don't leave.

Daniel

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by Sannytown

Dan, I'm not sure who else to ask. But, I'm open to replies from others as well.

I'm not that Dan, but I am also one, if you will, so I'll jump in (without claiming I even know remotely as much as he does about the theory...

I always record at 24-bit, but I just setup a new daw and apparently it was set to 16-bit. So, my whole session was recorded at 96K/16bit (a wierd format for sure). It sounds fine. We weren't recording anything quiet (mostly drum kit and electric guitar), so I don't think the noise floor will be an issue.

Indeed, it won't be, unless you are runing levels at - 60 dBFS... Think I've accidentally made such a recording, too (and of something classical...).

If I had known we were tracking at 16-bit, I would have at least used dither. But, the files I have were captured from 24-bit converters, truncated to 16-bits. What other consequences, besides decreased signal-to-noise ratio, will there be in this situation?

None, and even that will surely not be an issue. Most likely, noise from the room, the mics, etc., will be higher than the AD noisefloor, and provide a kind of "natural dither"...

Don't worry, just mix it...

Daniel

[synthoid]

I'm sure that I speak for the whopping majority of those who read this forum when I say that we hope that oky****'s nonsensical ranting doesn't stop Dan Lavry from continuing to make valuable contributions here.

-synthoid

[klaukholm]

Moved discussion to separate thread.

[Remoteness]

FYI, I have deleted and edited a few of these posts in an effort to curb the offensive and disrespectful commentary.

The last few weeks have been a serious let down for me.
I've had just about enough of this belligerent and cantankerous behaviour.

Enough is enough -- If it means I now have to edit, delete or ban folks that don't understand the dynamic of this forum, so be it...

And, you can count on it -- Giving the benefit of the doubt may be a thing of the past if this keeps up.

[Remoteness]

We are officially done with this side bar.

Let's get back to the original topic with a respectful tone to all.

Please: Let's do the right thing and move on.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Fact is:
Not a single human individual could hear a difference between 96 kHz and 192 kHz in any scientific double blind test on this planet!
Anything above 96 kHz is not beneficial to perceived audio quality. period.

OK, this may be your personal belief ... others may have different experience

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

And some manufacturers of DSD or 384kHz AD convertors like DAD build them with an audible fan. How more idiotic can it get...

In order to get something you can't hear, you get noise that you must hear, great

Have you heard of something called "machine rooms" in the studios ? Or you put even your computer next to the speakers ? I am sorry but this type of argumentation (in order to ridicule a product or a concept) sounds a bit silly to me ...

Originally Posted by DSD_Mastering

People are not going to change their mind on the matter. We know what we hear/feel.

So instead of hiding behind theorys, white papers and laws... go listen to and make some damn music!

Exactly ... There are millions of things in this world that according to (human made) theories are not supposed to work, yet they work. I really wonder how many people present in this discussion really TRIED to record something in 192 /96 etc. kHz, to listen and compare. I am afraid that very few. As mentioned before, it is like arguing about which meal tastes better without actually trying any ...

Instead of repeating some theories or presenting loud dogmas as above, I would MUCH more appreciate if people share their own real experiences. This is the only thing that really counts in the end

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

OK, this may be your personal belief ... others may have different experience

But then, you didn't actually compare 96 and 192, did you...?
You (quote) "recorded few things in 192k, the same in 96k, converted 192k samples to 96 and compared".

I somehow don't think that's quite the same as a direct comparison.

Daniel

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by d_fu

But then, you didn't actually compare 96 and 192, did you...?
You (quote) "recorded few things in 192k, the same in 96k, converted 192k samples to 96 and compared".

I somehow don't think that's quite the same as a direct comparison.

Daniel

Well, first - to compare directly 96 vs 192 (48,44 etc.) recordings, has some practical difficulties, since you cannot have them in one session (and to quickly switch). You have to open a new session for each sample rate etc. Second, the comparison should be practical in the end. The right thing would be to convert whatever you compare to 44k (using the best available SRC) and then compare since this is the present public output for audio works. If there you would find that the recording originally conceived in higher sample rate sounds better (or worse) that the other, it would have a practical meaning ...

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Well, first - to compare directly 96 vs 192 (48,44 etc.) recordings, has some practical difficulties, since you cannot have them in one session (and to quickly switch). You have to open a new session for each sample rate etc. Second, the comparison should be practical in the end. The right thing would be to convert whatever you compare to 44k (using the best available SRC) and then compare since this is the present public output for audio works. If there you would find that the recording originally conceived in higher sample rate sounds better (or worse) that the other, it would have a practical meaning ...

You could also simply use an analog A/B switch while running 2 identical systems. One running 96khz, one running 192khz.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Well, first - to compare directly 96 vs 192 (48,44 etc.) recordings, has some practical difficulties, since you cannot have them in one session (and to quickly switch).

Such a test setup would require two players, two (identical) converters and an analog switch before the speakers. And someone to switch without telling you what you're llistening to...

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

You could also simply use an analog A/B switch while running 2 identical systems. One running 96khz, one running 192khz.

Yes, sure, it is possible. Whatever is really done, listened to, compared and shared, is good. Would be great to hear some real experiences ... But no more theories and dogmas, please ...

[HobbyCore]

This test has been done a number of times in my personal experience. Unfortunately I can only relay to you what I experienced... which is useless IMO.



If someone else decides to do this test, I urge you to be very semantic. There is a huge difference between asking the listener 'does this sound DIFFERENT' and 'which sounds better'. It's pretty easy to say if something sounds different even with very very small differences, but determining quality seems to require much more magnitude of variation between sources.

[okydoky]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Instead of repeating some theories or presenting loud dogmas as above, I would MUCH more appreciate if people share their own real experiences. This is the only thing that really counts in the end

hi,

i have experience doing high quality recordings in world class studios, using a-list players, and grammy winning engineering.

recordings have been done simultaneously to well-maintained studer 827 2-inch synchronized with digidesign pro tools at 192kHz [192 i/o interfaces], using the exact same signal paths.

the pro tools recordings at 192kHz compared favorably with the 2-inch.

i don't see any need to be more specific here [lots of cowboys and salesmen ].

i don't know if that is of any help to you, but i do hope so.


right.

[ISedlacek]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

There is a huge difference between asking the listener 'does this sound DIFFERENT' and 'which sounds better'. It's pretty easy to say if something sounds different even with very very small differences, but determining quality seems to require much more magnitude of variation between sources.

Exactly ! The difference is the main point. The theories try to suggest there is no difference. The real experience mostly says there is a difference. The aesthetical preferences can be kept aside for a time being ..

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

Exactly ! The difference is the main point. The theories try to suggest there is no difference. The real experience mostly says there is a difference. The aesthetical preferences can be kept aside for a time being ..

There is a difference for sure. Even the folks (such as Dan Lavry) who believe 192khz is a waste say there is a difference, and some even use that as the crux of their argument as to why it's wasteful.

I have done abx blind tests and very accurately was able to determine the differing signals in 48v96 and 96v192 on a variety of converters.

The problem is that neither I, nor anyone else present was able to conform on what they felt was the 'best' one. I found that to be very telling, and completely in line with what has been said by numerous experts on the subject.

I'd be more than willing to try again with an even wider chasm of say 48v192 and see if those present could claim a statistically significant 'best' rating for one.

edit: Can you please point me to someone (with reasonable credentials) who says there is no difference? I don't believe I've seen that. It seems everyone agrees there is a difference. The argument appears to be whether there is a positive contribution by increasing the sample rate.

[Dale]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

You could also simply use an analog A/B switch while running 2 identical systems. One running 96khz, one running 192khz.

any switch you use will color the audio making the point moot.

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by Dale

any switch you use will color the audio making the point moot.

I guess I should have just said 'patchbay'. I thought this much would be obvious.

If you think a patchbay is going to colour the results enough to make a marked influence on the test, then I believe the test doesn't even need to be done. If a patchbay is enough to influence the outcome then we have other significantly larger problems to solve first before ever considering the sample rate... such as the quality of our patchbays. LOL.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by ISedlacek

OK, this may be your personal belief ... others may have different experience

My belief is irrelevant here. Name one individual and quote the published test setup, that can hear a difference between 96 and 192 in an ABX setup. I'm waiting.

Have you heard of something called "machine rooms" in the studios ? Or you put even your computer next to the speakers ? I am sorry but this type of argumentation (in order to ridicule a product or a concept) sounds a bit silly to me ...

I'm not ridiculing anything. And location recording is one situation, where you can't always have the converters in a machine room.

...
Instead of repeating some theories or presenting loud dogmas as above, I would MUCH more appreciate if people share their own real experiences. This is the only thing that really counts in the end

Presenting dogmas are those who claim there is a perceptual difference between 96 and 192.
And experiences are great, but doing ABX tests knowing what you are listening to is like pulling yourself out of a swamp by pulling your hair up.
It's impossible to be not influenced by knowing what you hear then. It's so simple but these discussions never end, amazing.

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

My belief is irrelevant here. Name one individual and quote the published test setup, that can hear a difference between 96 and 192 in an ABX setup. I'm waiting.

I'm not ridiculing anything. And location recording is one situation, where you can't always have the converters in a machine room.

Presenting dogmas are those who claim there is a perceptual difference between 96 and 192.
And experiences are great, but doing ABX tests knowing what you are listening to is like pulling yourself out of a swamp by pulling your hair up.
It's impossible to be not influenced by knowing what you hear then. It's so simple but these discussions never end, amazing.

Do you accept Da Lavry's argument that 192khz is inferior because it introduces increased error in the signal?

[Dale]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

I guess I should have just said 'patchbay'. I thought this much would be obvious.

If you think a patchbay is going to colour the results enough to make a marked influence on the test, then I believe the test doesn't even need to be done. If a patchbay is enough to influence the outcome then we have other significantly larger problems to solve first before ever considering the sample rate... such as the quality of our patchbays. LOL.

as I have no way of knowing anything about you, I assumed that what you wrote was what you meant!!
(ah, coloured means the other side of the pond!)
maybe I should start a topic on the quality of ones patchbay and wiring!! "Where can I get get the cheapest patchbay and or digital switcher"

[David Spearritt]

The dismissal of scientific theory is a poor argument. True, there are some things in life where theory cannot explain the result convincingly, but these are few and far between.

If you go in for heart or brain surgery, you sure hope the surgeon has his theory sorted and doesn't just say that, oh well, to hell with theory and knowledge, I'll just wing it.

Deterministic things like sampling are well understood. Other math like calculus and Newton's laws are well understood, they make bridges and buildings stay up, keep aeroplanes in the air and cars on the road. These things are not subjected to whimsical, alternative, hypothetical explanations from people without a thorough grasp of theory.

Also, just because you choose 192 on the front of an A/D, you have not isolated one variable to test, even though it appears that way. Lots of other factors change as well and therefore concluding that sampling rate caused the changes is ludicrous.

[HobbyCore]

Originally Posted by Dale

as I have no way of knowing anything about you, I assumed that what you wrote was what you meant!!
(ah, coloured means the other side of the pond!)
maybe I should start a topic on the quality of ones patchbay and wiring!! "Where can I get get the cheapest patchbay and or digital switcher"

It was my mistake to not be clear in the first place. I did not mean to come off as condescending in the followup post, my apologies.

I'm in american also. I just learned to spell oddly because my entire family speaks/writes british english and I was home-schooled as a child.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by HobbyCore

Do you accept Da Lavry's argument that 192khz is inferior because it introduces increased error in the signal?

I hear this, but don't know enough about it. As someone who uses but doesn't build AD converters I am more interested what can be heard and what can not be heard. So far I'm waiting for the news, that anywhere in the world someone could reliably hear a difference between the two in a valid ABX test. AFAIK it has not happened to this date.