The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
192khz, 96khz, 48khz. I hear the difference.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #811
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
Dunno, I do actually publically applaud someone who sees evidence, and reassesses their opinion. Hey I even got ONE upvote by doing so myself on this thread!

192khz, 96khz, 48khz. I hear the difference. – Post 679
Old 3 weeks ago
  #812
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
Probably great advice in theory... but impractical in reality. One must triage intelligently in order to avoid spending one's entire life comparing gear.
Firstly,
Trying something is not “comparing it”

zzzzzzzz

Secondly, If you own an audio interface and a computer with software for recording, it’s probably not difficult to try it at every sample rate.

Unless you don’t know what sampling rate is...
Then, yea
Don’t waste your time,
Old 3 weeks ago
  #813
Gear Addict
 
juiseman's Avatar
 

Why not just use the highest sample rate your setup can handle for
the project at hand? for me I get better RTL at 192KHZ at 64 Buffer vs
44.1KHZ or 48KHZ at 32 buffer setting (the lowest my setup can do)

I do hear a difference from 44.1K to 96K on my setup.
Then from 96K to 192K there is a slight difference but
not as noticeable.
And you all are forgetting the fact that
some plugins react differently at different sample rates.

For those that have GTR rig 5 do a test, between 44.1-192 you
can totally tell a difference in tone.
To me; GTR RIG 5 sounds actually bad at 192; too tinny compared
to 44.1 & 48.
96k seems the best of both worlds for this plugin....

And Yes; I have heard a difference between x interface vs y interface
at different sample rates. Some sound good at 48k, some sound better
at 96 or higher.

The old school way was to just record 2x the sample rate of your intended
release format.

soooo....88.2k for 44.1k (Pure Audio) and 96k for 48k (video & Audio stuff).

That is my experience....

Let the scientific argument continue...

(which is pretty informative by the way; interesting stuff)
Old 3 weeks ago
  #814
Lives for gear
 
DistortingJack's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by juiseman View Post
And you all are forgetting the fact that
some plugins react differently at different sample rates.
We're not. That was not the argument at all. We all here agree processing at higher sample rates can help with non-linear processes that generate or require upper harmonics such as compression, distortion, and pitch-shifting. You just haven't bothered to read the thread, in which case you're just adding noise to the conversation.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #815
Gear Addict
 
juiseman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DistortingJack View Post
We're not. That was not the argument at all. We all here agree processing at higher sample rates can help with non-linear processes that generate or require upper harmonics such as compression, distortion, and pitch-shifting. You just haven't bothered to read the thread, in which case you're just adding noise to the conversation.
Ok. You are correct; adding noise is what I have doing
by playing loud overdriven guitars at annoying volumes since
I was 16. I'm pretty good at adding noise; although 20 years
of playing guitar I wish were a better player.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #816
Gear Addict
 
juiseman's Avatar
 

Is this not what the thread was about? What was incorrect about what
my thought was on it? Did I not say in my experience?

I actually have to agree on this guys assessment and
how he described the "sound" pretty spot on.

"Ya know, I looked around on the internet for opinions on what people thought. It's pretty much dependant upon the type of music, the source, and how well tuned the listener is to the source.

Just like a master acoustic guitar player can feel subtle differences between one guitar and the next, whereas someone with little guitar playing experience would say all the guitars feel the same.

Anyway, not to bring up and old debate, or argue anything at all, but I do hear a difference between them with my acoustic guitar as the source.

48khz: mids are very hard, top end was muffled.

96khz: Immediate noticeable difference from 48khz. Cleaner highs, mids are softer and smoother, bass is tighter.

192khz: Top end very airy, the "metallic" tone of the steel strings comes through. Mids have the same sound as 96khz. The sound of the flatpick hitting the strings is more noticeable than 96khz, left hand finger noise across the frets and strings is also more noticeable than 96khz.

I hesitate to say 192 is *better* than 96. Just different. 96khz is definately better than 48khz, not even a close comparison.

What happens after they are converted to 16/44khz for CD, I don't know. All I wanted to say is that I hear a difference.

I would not hear a difference if I was listening to music or instruments I am not tuned to, say for example like a flute or piano."

Sounds like case closed to me...

later

Last edited by juiseman; 3 weeks ago at 02:37 PM.. Reason: Made people mad
Old 3 weeks ago
  #817
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
It's like the floodgate at the dam. All those electrons finally free to live up to their full potential and spawn in the perfect electrical mating environment of the tiny little traces on the PCB boards...
Dude stop! Next there will be a thread on what spermicide sounds better to put on your PCB boards......! I vote for KY.........
Old 3 weeks ago
  #818
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quipu View Post
My idea is to get the best equipment you can afford so that you, the music maker, the love of music and sound, will have maximum enjoyment in making the stuff.
Wouldn't 'maximum enjoyment' be just playing instead of obsessing over getting 0.000001% more /fill in the hype word du jour/ out of your system?

Methinks that people spending $5000 on a power cable are stuck in a psycho-commercial trap and actually spend less time enjoying making music since they are encouraged and sometimes even indoctrinated to not like their sound.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #819
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quipu View Post
All well stated. Couldn't agree more.

Hearing is the only way to judge any equipment for sure. I read whatever I can find about "how it sounds" though. Unfortunately, and very revealing no doubt, is that if you look at a review of someone who had listened to a component, they only rarely speak about "sound". Seems strange that a sound producing component is not described in detail about "how it sounds".

Spec are a start, but they are not a substitute for actual concentrated listening.
Reviews are good, but if they don't comment about the sound itself, they are useless. "It sounds good" is not enough.
Some will be uncomfortable with this, but this is what this forum is for, it is worth saying that writing about sound shows how the writer listens to sound.
Veiled, congested, open, revealing, boxy, boomy, neutral, musical, fast, quiet, soundstage descriptions, and so on are very useful when describing the sound something makes. and there is more.......

Thanks for your post.
Yeah, well, the problem with 'how it sounds' is that it varies severely between people, between settings, between time of day.
It is exactly because of this mess of context and perception that people don't talk about 'sound' too much. It is pretty f*cking inconsistent and heavily driven by things that have nothing to do with 'sound', like price, insecurity and other peoples opinions.
This is exactly what makes double blind testing so usefull. It reduces or cancels out these prejudices we all have.

So, given that our brain screws us over in particularly devious ways, have you double blind tested your $5000 power cables? Or do you trust your ears to be absolute measuring devices that always tell the truth?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Mixwell View Post
I feel sorry for anyone reading this thread. Which was about...sampling rates..I think

Try everything once, use your intuition,
Use your ears.

Trust thine ears.

Well said.

Let thine hearing be your steering!

Yes the thread is about what your ears tell you is better sampling rate to use. System dependent, listening skills dependent, financially dependent, but mostly, as you say, use your ears: check the sampling rates comparisons from time to time and see how your opinion of what sounds best can change over time.

Thanks for the succinct statements.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #821
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrc View Post
My guess is that the differences have a lot to do with the transient response.
Reproducing a sine wave is one thing, but for something like a squre waveform better resolution helps for sure.
No it doesn't (and higher sampling rates do not mean increased resolution, just increased bandwidth).

I intended to post the correct image for you a while back but but forgot. Here it is:



Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #822
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
Yeah, well, the problem with 'how it sounds' is that it varies severely between people, between settings, between time of day.
It is exactly because of this mess of context and perception that people don't talk about 'sound' too much. It is pretty f*cking inconsistent and heavily driven by things that have nothing to do with 'sound', like price, insecurity and other peoples opinions.
This is exactly what makes double blind testing so usefull. It reduces or cancels out these prejudices we all have.

So, given that our brain screws us over in particularly devious ways, have you double blind tested your $5000 power cables? Or do you trust your ears to be absolute measuring devices that always tell the truth?
What was the last piece of hardware you compared with a double blind test?

Can you suggest a double blind test design Quipu can construct and conduct in under two hours without buying any additional equipment besides said power cables?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #823
Gear Guru
I don't understand why people don't do a test with patch cables and sure power cables. Easy same chain just swap em out..... Speaker cables are subjective and impossible to test but the other is easy and should show through a null what's going on......
Old 3 weeks ago
  #824
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
What was the last piece of hardware you compared with a double blind test?

Can you suggest a double blind test design Quipu can construct and conduct in under two hours without buying any additional equipment besides said power cables?
Sure - although I'm positive you aren't really interested in an answer.

Take a compressor and use the included IEC power cable. Send/return from a DAW and record the result.

Swap out to a $5,000 IEC power cable and send/return using the same program material and settings.

Then use one of the many excellent ABX programs available to import the two audio clips and let us know which is which.
Line them up sample accurate and do a null test and let us know the difference. (note that this will not work with modulation effects or other time based effects that will have variables which will never null)

Shouldn't take quite two hours...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #825
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
What was the last piece of hardware you compared with a double blind test?

Can you suggest a double blind test design Quipu can construct and conduct in under two hours without buying any additional equipment besides said power cables?
The simple answer is "absolutely not" - no-one can conduct their own TRUE double-blind test. I used to help with this stuff many years ago, and it's complicated.

The "double blind" component is that neither the tester nor the subject have any idea what the expected result is, whether there is supposed to be a difference or not, and if so, which component is though to produce which result. Ideally, the tester knows little or noting about the general subject matter at all. Ergo, its pretty much impossible to do your own test.

Even the instructions can be problematical and have to be thought out carefully.

A question such as "tell me which one sounds better " is inherently bad because it immediately alerts the listener that one is supposed to sound better than the other, and creates an immediate bias against answering " they both sound the same to me."

A protocol with something like the power cable would be quite difficult. First, listening tests where there is any significant delay in switching between two components tend to be unreliable because its hard to retain a detailed memory of a sound for long. Something like the Optometrist doing a glasses prescription is better . .. " Now which is clearer, A.... or B......"

Hence, if I was designing the test, there would have to be a switching matrix in which both cables could be connected separately but be in parallel during the switch over so the power doesn't go off.

A protocol would be something like this . The tester has a board with four switches :

Switch 1 starts with cable A only, puts them momentarily in parallel then switches to cable B only

Switch 2 starts with cable B only, puts them momentarily in parallel then switches to cable A only

Switch 3 starts with cable A only, puts them momentarily in parallel then switches back to cable A again

Switch 4 starts with cable B only, puts them momentarily in parallel then switches back to cable B again

Two changeovers, and two nulls. The nulls are very important in case the switching itself is giving the listener a clue.

The subject should ideally not be in a position to hear or see the switches being operated.

The testor is then given a random sequence, and a random timing for each change. The subject is asked to indicate each time they think they hear sound has changed.

Not exactly the sort of thing you can do at home. Quite reliable IMO, if done properly. You'd be surprised how many abilities to be able to see or hear a difference disappear when all the extrinsic clues are removed.

I don't know if your apparent opposition to the concept of double-blind testing is that it is inherently impractical for 99.5% of the users out there, or that you don't believe it produces reliable results. I agree with the first, but not the second.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #826
Gear Guru
What about a simple null test? That should show something no?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #827
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
Sure - although I'm positive you aren't really interested in an answer.

Take a compressor and use the included IEC power cable. Send/return from a DAW and record the result.

Swap out to a $5,000 IEC power cable and send/return using the same program material and settings.

Then use one of the many excellent ABX programs available to import the two audio clips and let us know which is which.
Line them up sample accurate and do a null test and let us know the difference. (note that this will not work with modulation effects or other time based effects that will have variables which will never null)

Shouldn't take quite two hours...
I think this test would work, although bringing in AD/DA does make it an imperfect test and adds more variables.

I had a few implicit assumptions that the listener would be listening to the direct signal, and that the cable would be used on a power amp as how they are most frequently used in the audiophile world, but that isn't necessary.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #828
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I don't know if your apparent opposition to the concept of double-blind testing is that it is inherently impractical for 99.5% of the users out there, or that you don't believe it produces reliable results. I agree with the first, but not the second.
I should clarify that it is ABX that I think is unreliable. I should not have lumped them together. From my own experience it is annoying to do, my ears are shot after 2-3 rounds max, and most of the well know ABX tests I know of produce null results, and people who feel validated by null results tend to gravitate to them. I do think double blind A-B is totally legit.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #829
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
What about a simple null test? That should show something no?
It would, but then you get into the endless debate of whether any difference you see is relevant/audible or not.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #830
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
I don't understand why people don't do a test with patch cables and sure power cables. Easy same chain just swap em out..... Speaker cables are subjective and impossible to test but the other is easy and should show through a null what's going on......
I've tested interconnects but I haven't tested power cables in the same way that I won't jump off a bridge to test if I indeed can not fly. As long as the laws of physics apply, there is no need to test power cables.

But if people believe in after market power cables, feel free to prove the laws of physics don't apply them. Extraordinary claims and all that...

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #831
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardis View Post
What about a simple null test? That should show something no?
What did you have in mind? A null test between which two signals exactly?

With power cables it isn't exactly trivial to test these things. (Especially a proper double blind test as Norfolk Martin clearly explains above).

Alistair
Old 3 weeks ago
  #832
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
What was the last piece of hardware you compared with a double blind test?
We were talking about a power cable...

Quote:
Can you suggest a double blind test design Quipu can construct and conduct in under two hours without buying any additional equipment besides said power cables?
Yes, it's quite simple.

Record some stuff with a variety of power cables (at a sample rate of your liking).
Do some ABX tests.
Profit.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #833
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
The simple answer is "absolutely not" - no-one can conduct their own TRUE double-blind test. I used to help with this stuff many years ago, and it's complicated.

The "double blind" component is that neither the tester nor the subject have any idea what the expected result is, whether there is supposed to be a difference or not, and if so, which component is though to produce which result. Ideally, the tester knows little or noting about the general subject matter at all. Ergo, its pretty much impossible to do your own test.
Yes, well, an ABX test takes away the problem that the person conducting the test could influence the subject. It acts as a randomized and non-biassed test conductor.

There is a potential problem with the different recordings having distinguishable features that have nothing to do with the test. I'm thinking of file length, someone talking in the background, recording of a different event, change in mic position, anything that can identify the individual recordings.
So you'd need to make sure the only difference is the thing you try to test.

But i think that if this is taken care of any ABX software can perform a double blind test.
And what it tests for is not 'does it sound better to you' but rather 'do you hear a difference'.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #834
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
Not exactly the sort of thing you can do at home. Quite reliable IMO, if done properly.
I dunno. You're suggesting two instances of the same chain. That is bound to have some variation between them. So you're assuming the difference in the cables would be significantly large compared to the differences between the test systems.

Much better (i think) would be to record the same chain (including the thing that does the recording) and change the power cable on one device in that chain.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #835
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
I should clarify that it is ABX that I think is unreliable.
Why do you think this?
Quote:
my ears are shot after 2-3 rounds max, and most of the well know ABX tests I know of produce null results, and people who feel validated by null results tend to gravitate to them.
You can make ABX tests in a variety of ways. It could even be done with very long material, altho the total testing time would be pretty long as well...

Quote:
I do think double blind A-B is totally legit.
ABX is also double blind if done right. And it's basically just a variation on the A-B test.
I think it's kindof strange to think ABX tests are not valid but A_B tests are.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #836
Lives for gear
 
IanBSC's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
I think it's kindof strange to think ABX tests are not valid but A_B tests are.
A-B tests don't require me to compare what I'm hearing with multiple sounds in my short term memory. You flip the switch and it is different, or it is the same. Way more straightforward.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #837
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

The way I test is to push a button back and forth rapidly with my eyes closed until I don't know which is which. Then I run the audio. I also match the audio to within .1 dB. beforehand checking at several frequencies or else I'll always prefer the louder one.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #838
Lives for gear
 
monomer's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IanBSC View Post
A-B tests don't require me to compare what I'm hearing with multiple sounds in my short term memory. You flip the switch and it is different, or it is the same. Way more straightforward.
Aah, ok., i understand.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #839
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quipu View Post
Have you ever listened to one of those makes-no-sense-to-spend-so-much systems? You would be amazed! A $10,000 mixer or convertor is in another "league" than anything less expensive. People that buy those expensive components are not just rich.

Of course, buy only what you can afford, but don't kid yourself, the ridiculously expensive gear is ridiculously wonderful and untouchable for sound reproduction!

I never understand why people always put down very expensive audio equipment or even equipment that is not overly expensive for what it does. Seems to me that poor sounding equipment, inexpensive stuff should get more bad rap than it does.
I have listened to those system in a show, assuming you are talking about sound systems in the 50K$-100K$ ... and lots of them sound awfull ... to me I firmly believe that there is no 1 better system because passed the basic level it’s a question of taste. They are all different to a point.
You could argue that my hearing is bad if I dont like a $80K sound system, but how can you account for the fact that some I like that others dont, at the same price ?
I smile when I read “a better system will be more transparent”. People may agree on that when you talk mixer but not when you talk sound system. Some like me like a “transparent” system, even to a point that some albums sound awful, but others like a system (usually warmer) where anything you put on it sound “sweet”. Some think a dead room (no reflexion) is ideal while some would find it dull.
To answer your question, I believe that people saying an expensive sound system is useless either did not listen to one for their taste, or often just dont put value in the difference so to them its a waste of money.
Same thing happen when a guy who loves softsynth argue with someone with a vintage analog synth, quickly someone will say “you wont ear the difference in the mix” or “the people listening dont know the difference and dont care” ... Well, if you listen to the synth outside the mix, or you ear the difference, then the difference is significant to you
And thats where the problem is. You cant make the best mix for everybody like you cant make the best song for everybody. You pick your target audience and hope for the best.
But then again, what do I know ?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #840
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monomer View Post
We were talking about a power cable...


Yes, it's quite simple.

Record some stuff with a variety of power cables (at a sample rate of your liking).
Do some ABX tests.
Profit.
This power cable thing is mind boggling. The 50 - 60 HZ AC current is being filtered and converted to DC by the power supply in the amplifier/preamp etc etc. Provided the cable can supply the current and a good ground then if you have power issues with the gear the power supply design is to blame. If you're getting 'dirty' power than the only option that really works is transformer isolating the AC current. It's simply impossible that 3 - 10 feet of 'magic' wire can make a difference in the thousands of miles of high voltage lines, mulitple transformers, simple solid copper house wire and simple inexpensive power receptacles.
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