The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Launch of Pono Studio Headphones
Old 9th April 2014
  #2671
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bandpass View Post
Set the noise floor the same and have the extra at the top... Pono stun grenade.
The top is fixed by the electronics, not the word length.

Pono fail grenade.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2672
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
In 1948 Claude Shannon published a mathematical proof of the sampling theorem (theorem not theory). This means that it will be true now, tomorrow, and in the year 9293048. It is exactly as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
...so hence will be viewed as just as floating as 2+2=4 will, once all and sundry agree that the only constant is the speed of light and all the other stuff is a constructed grid we hold onto for dear life to make sense of this here ride we're all on, an image....but now I am making myself look ridiculous, right...so I better shuffle off......
Old 9th April 2014
  #2673
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
My full ABX session, unedited, from beginning to end.
I applaude your effort to do this, but I don't understand why you used a plugin on the "4" samples. What exactly does the plugin do, and why was it necessary? And (I have to ask): what is the result of your ABX on "4" without the plugin?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2674
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
...so hence will be viewed as just as floating as 2+2=4 will, once all and sundry agree that the only constant is the speed of light and all the other stuff is a constructed grid we hold onto for dear life to make sense of this here ride we're all on, an image....but now I am making myself look ridiculous, right...so I better shuffle off......
You are of course free to reject the entire foundation of mathematics, but do not confuse the certainty within mathematics with the evolving nature of science. Physical theories evolve with time; mathematical theorems are true forever.

If you don't like a mathematical truth, you must reject all of mathematics. Good luck with that.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2675
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Funny, Chris...I arrive at 24/48 as a happy place by my senses. This is without any ABX as it were. But I better get out of here quick before someone steps up to tell me I'm tripping again......
I don't think you would get too much push back from my side if 48k 24bit was the standard.

At least not from me.

But I do have to ask, do you think that any benefit that 48kHz gives over 44.1kHz is negated by having to convert it back to 44.1kHz for CD.

That's why I never bothered. Conversion in the early days was definitely noticeable to me so I stayed clear.

And as Neil put it, shouldn't the audience hear what you're hearing?

But I will concede to 48k 24 bit.

Because as we all know, the difference between rubber bands and sonic bliss is 3.9kHz and 8 bits.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2676
Gear Addict
 

I'm working on a record that was tracked at the same studio, but half of it was done at 24/96 and the other half 24/48. They both sound great and when it's all mixed and mastered it will all be fine, but working on this under a microscope it's obvious the 96 has better resolution and more sonic detail. My wife and kid may not be able to hear the difference, but it's right there. I can't believe this is even being discussed in 2014?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisj View Post
My full ABX session, unedited, from beginning to end. I told you I wouldn't be able to identify the harpsichords, and I couldn't, though I thought I could. I bailed out of several tests because I could tell they'd be too tricky to do 20 times in a row. 5 is 4, with Airwindows SlewOnly applied identically to both 4 examples (this is like a really vicious highpass, for mix checking purposes). At first I didn't think I was gonna be able to do 4, even.

24-96.zip with new 5 (all-brightness 4)
free SlewOnly plugin, for cleanly wiping out all lows


[... ABXer results... ]



This was grueling and unpleasant, and gave me my final 'take' on Neil's claims about 192K. I think 24 bit is great but 192K is seriously way in excess of what's needed or wanted, unless we're using noise shaping that cuts down error in the audible band using that samplerate (I have a noise shaper like that, and DSD works that way). Only then is it relevant.

I'm still a little dissatisfied with 44.1K but would probably be fine with even 48K, and I'm not worried about 44.1K anymore if it's handled properly. The problem is more causing it to splatter by making the reconstruction have to stress out the DAC beyond its design limits (Gibb effect, intersample peaking which can be shown using SSL's "X-ISM" meter). If you run this meter and the analog clip lights up on intersample peaks, there's your '44.1K' problem right there. The problem naturally goes away at higher sample rates, but at 44.1K your headroom for super highs is MANY DB down from full scale, whether you know it or not.

Furthermore, ABX testing is still insensitive. I can tell whether I will or won't be able to keep up an observation 20 times in a row. When your heart starts pounding and you have to hold your head in precisely the same place and you're listening painfully loud, it's distracting. ABX sucks. All it can tell us is that, human beings can conclusively tell the difference between two 24/96 files otherwise identical except for the filtering of all >20K information.

Turns out this is a lot harder than it appears.

The reason it appears so easy is that, when pleasure listening, we are constantly getting hints of this reality but they are fugitive. They're not in the same place two times running. To pin them down every time requires that you hear and fix your attention exactly the same, over and over, maddeningly.

ABX sucks, but it has its uses. Please cut it out with the 'there are no audible differences' when there are.
chrisj, kudos for putting in all the effort to put together your tests and test yourself. Such testing can be grueling but doesn't necessarily have to be. One can take his time, relax, take breaks, etc. In fact, your findings may actually be more pertinent to your situation if you were to do your ABX testing in a more normal fashion.

A couple of points...
Quote:
Furthermore, ABX testing is still insensitive. I can tell whether I will or won't be able to keep up an observation 20 times in a row. When your heart starts pounding and you have to hold your head in precisely the same place and you're listening painfully loud, it's distracting. ABX sucks.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'insensitive,' but let's skip that.

With regard to listening painfully loud -- well, the science crowd has usually been quite careful to stipulate that, to be sure, listening at super loud levels, one can, indeed, often suss the difference in fades, reverb tails and the like when comparing 16 and 24 bit sources.

But while it may be interesting and worthwhile (on some level) to test one's hearing at the the pain threshold -- and the perceptual scientists have done this as well -- it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know or that is contrary to the understanding of many/most of those who feel 16/44.1 is an adequate if not ideal container.

Quote:
All it [ABX tseting] can tell us is that, human beings can conclusively tell the difference between two 24/96 files otherwise identical except for the filtering of all >20K information.
Actually, it can only tell us about the person being tested and the circumstances he's being tested in. So your testing would seem to clearly suggest that with those program files, your rig, and your ears, you are able, when listening at loudness levels above the pain threshold, to differentiate these particular files.

Perceptual scientists trying to determine human perception performance baselines would, of course, develop a set of standardized tests which they would test across as large and randomized a sample of human subjects as possible and use the resulting data sets to arrive at generalized conclusions.


PS... I haven't used ABXer. Can someone explain the "File placement was static" annotation?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2678
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezraz View Post
Audio is analog and so are our ears.
Incorrect. Audio is audio. Sound can be converted into an electrical pulse by a microphone. Digital is a way of encoding the electrical pulse from a microphone using numbers and then turning it back into electricity.

Analog is a way of encoding the electrical pulse using bumps in a groove or magnetic impressions on some rust. Still encoding.

Quote:
but why does a cd still sound like it's in a box as compared to vinyl?
your preference for the different "box" that vinyl sounds like is just that: a preference. Many people disagree with you, they dislike the noise, limited dynamic range, micro-pitch instabilities and so on of analog systems. It's taste, that's all.

And as has been pointed out so many times already, the common application of digital delays in the cutting heads of vinyl lathes assures you that a large proportion (if not the majority) of your precious 'pure' vinyl was
•band-limited,
converted to digital,
•delayed,
converted back to analog
and only THEN allowed to cut the groove on the master! You don't know which records you own have had this done. And you can't tell by listening. You have already enjoyed the 'analogness' of these records, so it's too late anyway!

All your vinyl are belong to us.

Quote:
digital has made some progress, and finally getting 24/96 digital is a big step up. ... also -- most of you ABX tests are garbage unless you are doing it on material your are familiar with, and following up over the course of weeks or months
Which is it? A "big step up", or something you have to make excuses for not being able to tell blindfolded? Why should people buy a new $500 player, fit fewer songs, and pay a premium price for content for a difference so small, they have to practice on material they are familiar with to be able to even hear the "improvement"?

Quote:
but i honestly can't accept these digital rules as anything more than digital rules.
the 'rules' have been backed up by perceptual testing. Even you have failed to notice which of your LPs are "digital". If you wish to remain ignorant of what Fourier, Shannon, Nyquist and the others have discovered, that is your right. If you wish to overturn it, however, you are obligated to provide a scientific alternative. I doubt you are capable.

Quote:
since audio is analog they don't concern the physical reality of the situation, digital rules represent compromises.
Only it's not. Analog encoding has compromises as we all know, BIG compromises. Physical reality is physical reality and as soon as a microphone is involved you are encoding. Analog is no more "reality" than digital is "reality". They are both encoding. Your philosophical pronouncements on this subject are a weak attempt to codify your personal taste as a 'scientific' principle.

This preference obviously varies from person to person. But the difference between the source electrical signal in the wire and the capture and playback by tape or vinyl is so large that analog is often used as an effect. People cherish these changes to the sound. OTOH, the difference between the source electricity in the wire and digital capture is so small that people often cannot tell. Digital is so transparent, we can use digital to capture the effect of tracking to tape.

Digital is so transparent we can use it to delay the signal cutting the groove on the master LP and people will happily buy those records and happily talk about how 'digital sucks'.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2679
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Which is it? A "big step up", or something you have to make excuses for not being able to tell blindfolded? Why should people buy a new $500 player, fit fewer songs, and pay a premium price for content for a difference so small, they have to practice on material they are familiar with to be able to even hear the "improvement"?


You forgot to mention they also have to "break in" their speaker cable before listening.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2680
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I don't think you would get too much push back from my side if 48k 24bit was the standard.

At least not from me.

But I do have to ask, do you think that any benefit that 48kHz gives over 44.1kHz is negated by having to convert it back to 44.1kHz for CD.

That's why I never bothered. Conversion in the early days was definitely noticeable to me so I stayed clear.

And as Neil put it, shouldn't the audience hear what you're hearing?

But I will concede to 48k 24 bit.

Because as we all know, the difference between rubber bands and sonic bliss is 3.9kHz and 8 bits.
Well, if the delivery can be in 24/48, why conversion?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2681
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
You are of course free to reject the entire foundation of mathematics, but do not confuse the certainty within mathematics with the evolving nature of science. Physical theories evolve with time; mathematical theorems are true forever.

If you don't like a mathematical truth, you must reject all of mathematics. Good luck with that.
Go to mybigtoe.com and spend a day or two there.....
Old 9th April 2014
  #2682
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Well, if the delivery can be in 24/48, why conversion?
I was talking about now.

Even if Pono became a standard, CD isn't going away just yet. Is it?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2683
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Incorrect. Audio is audio. Sound can be converted into an electrical pulse by a microphone. Digital is a way of encoding the electrical pulse from a microphone using numbers and then turning it back into electricity.

Analog is a way of encoding the electrical pulse using bumps in a groove or magnetic impressions on some rust. Still encoding.

your preference for the different "box" that vinyl sounds like is just that: a preference. Many people disagree with you, they dislike the noise, limited dynamic range, micro-pitch instabilities and so on of analog systems. It's taste, that's all.

And as has been pointed out so many times already, the common application of digital delays in the cutting heads of vinyl lathes assures you that a large proportion (if not the majority) of your precious 'pure' vinyl was
•band-limited,
converted to digital,
•delayed,
converted back to analog
and only THEN allowed to cut the groove on the master! You don't know which records you own have had this done. And you can't tell by listening. You have already enjoyed the 'analogness' of these records, so it's too late anyway!

All your vinyl are belong to us.


Which is it? A "big step up", or something you have to make excuses for not being able to tell blindfolded? Why should people buy a new $500 player, fit fewer songs, and pay a premium price for content for a difference so small, they have to practice on material they are familiar with to be able to even hear the "improvement"?

the 'rules' have been backed up by perceptual testing. Even you have failed to notice which of your LPs are "digital". If you wish to remain ignorant of what Fourier, Shannon, Nyquist and the others have discovered, that is your right. If you wish to overturn it, however, you are obligated to provide a scientific alternative. I doubt you are capable.

Only it's not. Analog encoding has compromises as we all know, BIG compromises. Physical reality is physical reality and as soon as a microphone is involved you are encoding. Analog is no more "reality" than digital is "reality". They are both encoding. Your philosophical pronouncements on this subject are a weak attempt to codify your personal taste as a 'scientific' principle.

This preference obviously varies from person to person. But the difference between the source electrical signal in the wire and the capture and playback by tape or vinyl is so large that analog is often used as an effect. People cherish these changes to the sound. OTOH, the difference between the source electricity in the wire and digital is so small that people often cannot tell. Digital is so transparent, we can use digital to capture the effect of tracking to tape.

Digital is so transparent we can use it to delay the signal cutting the groove on the master LP and people will happily buy those records and happily talk about how 'digital sucks'.
One way is encoding by 1 & 0's and the other is %100 linear. Most people can hear and "feel" the difference. If you can't then perhaps you would have been better suited to have been a scientist or mathematician? I don't get the clinging to 44.1 B.S. It is inevitable that file size issues will be a thing of the past at some point, be it 50 years or next year. At that point there will be no reason not to have the best resolution possible. It's very limited thinking to say that we will always be using today's standards.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2684
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
I was talking about now.

Even if Pono became a standard, CD isn't going away just yet. Is it?
I wouldn't mind if it got replaced by 24/48 all round. This is the whole point of being excited about Pono. With all its stupidness, it STILL drives in that general direction.

But then who are we kidding, right? 24/48 doesn't actually sound any different than a CD anyway. Right?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2685
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
I'm working on a record that was tracked at the same studio, but half of it was done at 24/96 and the other half 24/48. They both sound great and when it's all mixed and mastered it will all be fine, but working on this under a microscope it's obvious the 96 has better resolution and more sonic detail. My wife and kid may not be able to hear the difference, but it's right there. I can't believe this is even being discussed in 2014?


i agree that we all musn't be at 24/96 all the time, just that it's better and necessary for advancement of digital music. i did a coupla projects in 2009-2010 at 16/44 only because of a crappy rig and mp3-itus.

so many people have so much invested in digital being "as good" that they get really offended if people don't agree with them, as if the nature of the universe was somehow concerned with silicon chips trying to understand soundwaves.

computer programmers run the world now, but for some reason this is the only spec from decades past that they still stick to, because of the general lack of consensus regarding people's perception of sound.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2686
Quote:
But then who are we kidding, right? 24/48 doesn't actually sound any different than a CD anyway. Right?
Not really, no.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2687
Lives for gear
 
GJ999x's Avatar
OK a new direction for discussion - PONO is for people willing to pay a high price for a small (at most) marginal effect, right?

We're here talking about the world of pro-musicians, engineers etc.

What about all the 1%ers, billionairs etc. If I had unlimited funds as sceptical as I am I'd probably go with the highest res format avilable.

Instant new market out of nowhere! Most growth industries at the moment are focused on this end of the market, the tiny, super-rich end - those guys are surviving the recessions just fine. How much of their music collections will they be prepared to replace? All of it...

Then all I have to do is find a hugely successful musical artist, one who is more into passion and emotion than logic and science, and isnt befuddled by little phillistines or facts or whatever, I think the Venn diagram is basically just a circle there.... and bingo...

That said, I reckon even Neil Young believes in math.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2688
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
If feel my patience with those who remain willfully ignorant yet who insist they have a right to spew utter nonsense is wearing dangerously thin.
well if you are talking about me, i'm sorry you are so upset. i can take a digital picture of me apologizing and email that over.

or maybe its neil young, eddie vedder, dave grohl, and thousands of other people who just dropped $300 on the idea that they will finally get 24/96 (or higher) digital files and a proper mobile device to play them on for christmas this year that is bothering you? i want listeners hearing my stuff in the best quality the market can bear.

you honestly seem madder than my digital audio 101 professor 25 years ago. maybe you are him? i don't doubt your theories or maths, nor any math you can hit me with. if it can be proven it can be proven in black and white. but the second you need something as convoluted as a musical ABX test the data goes to ****e. i doubt your application of them to my ears. and i have that right to point out the flaws.

you've answered most of my volly's and i have learned some things, i appreciate that. but you have not convinced me that 16/44 digital is more than enough data for my music or for my location sound.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2689
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mellotronic View Post
One way is encoding by 1 & 0's and the other is %100 linear.
What is this supposed to mean?

Quote:
Most people can hear and "feel" the difference. If you can't then perhaps you would have been better suited to have been a scientist or mathematician? I don't get the clinging to 44.1 B.S. It is inevitable that file size issues will be a thing of the past at some point, be it 50 years or net year. At that point there will be no reason not to have the best resolution possible. It's very limited thinking to say that we will always be using today's standards.
It is profoundly weird how people will accept the science that makes 192k sampling rates possible, but reject the very same science when it tells us that 192k sampling is equivalent to 44.1k in the 20 to 20 kHz band. There is no more "resolution" with higher sampling rates.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2690
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
Not really, no.
Thought so.

Only, for a brief second there I also felt like I had Kenny coming on board with the 24/48 train....after untold posts to say 16/44.1 sound the same.....
Old 9th April 2014
  #2691
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
I applaude your effort to do this, but I don't understand why you used a plugin on the "4" samples. What exactly does the plugin do, and why was it necessary? And (I have to ask): what is the result of your ABX on "4" without the plugin?
I've linked to the plugin as well as my re-upload of the files used, including the 5a-b pair.

All it is, ALL it is, is a massive highpass coded in the most primitive way. You get only the slew value between pairs of samples, which translates to 'loads of treble and nothing else'. I did it because I was getting nervous about hearing the difference between 24/96 and filtered 24/96. Using that, the amount of energy in the 5 files is literally about half below and half above 22.050K, and IF you can hear the over-22.050K information in the otherwise identical files, you can pass the ABX test every time.

I passed it every time on 5, and I passed it every time on 4 once I worked out what I was listening for. I failed everything else, no matter what I did.

If you actually read the full ABX report you would have seen this, and that I failed the more difficult 'harpsichord' one as I thought I might do. I defy humans to distinguish THAT one, but happily cymbals are more revealing.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2692
Quote:
Originally Posted by GJ999x View Post
OK a new direction for discussion - PONO is for people willing to pay a high price for a small (at most) marginal effect, right?

We're here talking about the world of pro-musicians, engineers etc.

What about all the 1%ers, billionairs etc. If I had unlimited funds as sceptical as I am I'd probably go with the highest res format avilable.

Instant new market out of nowhere! Most growth industries at the moment are focused on this end of the market, the tiny, super-rich end - those guys are surviving the recessions just fine. How much of their music collections will they be prepared to replace? All of it...

Then all I have to do is find a hugely successful musical artist, one who is more into passion and emotion than logic and science, and isnt befuddled by little phillistines or facts or whatever, I think the Venn diagram is basically just a circle there.... and bingo...

That said, I reckon even Neil Young believes in math.

well an ipod touch is $229, so if you need a dedicated audio player because you need your phone for 1400 other things, that might be where you start.

then there's the fiio for about $250 that plays hi-resolution and has nice audio specs.

then pono will be about $400 with the guarantee from their store that they will subscribe you to the highest quality masters on that release.

then sony (who are they?) picks up the hi-res market with the walkman zx1 ($700), their boombox that plays FLAC, and the bookshelf unit with HD digital. no prices on those that i know of.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2693
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Thought so.

Only, for a brief second there I also felt like I had Kenny coming on board with the 24/48 train....after untold posts to say 16/44.1 sound the same.....
C'mon. I could understand you arguing for 24/96, but how much difference could there possibly be between 44.1 and 48? (48 was NOT devised to be an improvement on 44.1)

Granted 24 bit will lower the noise floor, but only with certain material would this be remotely evident.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2694
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
I wouldn't mind if it got replaced by 24/48 all round. This is the whole point of being excited about Pono. With all its stupidness, it STILL drives in that general direction.

But then who are we kidding, right? 24/48 doesn't actually sound any different than a CD anyway. Right?
t doesn't but I'll meet you in the middle and waste some hard drive space to keep everyone happy.

You haven't answered my question though. If you knew that CD was the final product, would you still work at 48k?

Wasn't the whole point of 88.2kHz so that it converted better to 44.1kHz?
Old 9th April 2014
  #2695
Airwindows
 
chrisj's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1 View Post
With regard to listening painfully loud -- well, the science crowd has usually been quite careful to stipulate that, to be sure, listening at super loud levels, one can, indeed, often suss the difference in fades, reverb tails and the like when comparing 16 and 24 bit sources.

But while it may be interesting and worthwhile (on some level) to test one's hearing at the the pain threshold -- and the perceptual scientists have done this as well -- it doesn't really tell us anything we didn't know or that is contrary to the understanding of many/most of those who feel 16/44.1 is an adequate if not ideal container.

Actually, it can only tell us about the person being tested and the circumstances he's being tested in. So your testing would seem to clearly suggest that with those program files, your rig, and your ears, you are able, when listening at loudness levels above the pain threshold, to differentiate these particular files.
You do realize I play drums over the pain threshold too? And have been doing it all my life? And that I'm 45 years old?

As much as the young folks love to blast their earbuds causing hearing damage, I really kinda suspect younger people than me will have an easier time hearing >20K content. I mean, if _I_ can hear it, come ON.

Also, are you really prepared to say, "You may listen to and enjoy music. Except you're not allowed to TURN IT UP, oh, and also, don't pay too close attention"?

Screw the pain threshold. I want digital audio I can ROCK OUT to, including its highs. I am quite uninterested in the fact that if I turned it down and then ignored it, I wouldn't be able to tell a difference. If you shut the speakers off, ALL files cannot be distinguished, but who cares?

Anyone else have luck ABXing the brightened files? It's a good start. I still doubt people will be able to hear removal of 20K and up from things like the classical music, but you can try 5a and 5b as 'training wheels' for 4a and 4b. We probably can't go beyond that point without becoming dogs.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2696
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
What is this supposed to mean?



It is profoundly weird how people will accept the science that makes 192k sampling rates possible, but reject the very same science when it tells us that 192k sampling is equivalent to 44.1k in the 20 to 20 kHz band. There is no more "resolution" with higher sampling rates.
Science evolves and changes when new evidence to back up new theories come along. IMHO we're still in the early days. In your opinion we reached "singularity" and my crappy and brittle sounding cd's are at the highest level humans will ever be able to create. Guess what was on Steve Job's menu before he passed? Improving bandwidth and aesthetic quality of digital sound. Why would Neil Young and so many high end gear manufactures bother with this if there is nothing to it? This is like arguing with bible thumpers who take everything they read verbatim, but impart no intuition or insight into what they're reading.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2697
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post
t doesn't but I'll meet you in the middle and waste some hard drive space to keep everyone happy.

You haven't answered my question though. If you knew that CD was the final product, would you still work at 48k?

Wasn't the whole point of 88.2kHz so that it converted better to 44.1kHz?


Well yeah, I would, but then I might also record the 2track back in from analog summing/desk after, so doesn't really apply.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2698
Gear Guru
 
Kenny Gioia's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
Thought so.

Only, for a brief second there I also felt like I had Kenny coming on board with the 24/48 train....after untold posts to say 16/44.1 sound the same.....
The thing is, I don't mind 24 bit being a standard as it's true, it's what I'm recording at. So who cares.

44.1 or 48. Again. Whatever floats your boat.

It's when we get into 96k and 192k and night and day underwater rubber band discussions that I start to see red.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2699
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nspaas View Post
C'mon. I could understand you arguing for 24/96, but how much difference could there possibly be between 44.1 and 48? (48 was NOT devised to be an improvement on 44.1)

Granted 24 bit will lower the noise floor, but only with certain material would this be remotely evident.
I am mainly arguing for 24bit personally, as whatever all you lot say as in my reality that does something positive. 192kHz, not so much. From 16 to 24bit, yep, I want it. And 48 seems to hold just a little more joy than 44.1, too.

And what do I care whether it was devised as an improvement? Besides, I sort of have to go 48 here, as in 44.1 my Expert Sleepers rig doesn't output midi to all my synths reliably.
Old 9th April 2014
  #2700
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia View Post

It's when we get into 96k and 192k and night and day underwater rubber band discussions that I start to see red.
I am with you on the 192 lark. Don't see it.

Feels like this thread is balancing out a little since my last visit a while back.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump