Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Page 2 of 42 < 1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 >
Topic Options
#441419 - 04/07/01 05:35 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Julian,

This should also tell you that the converter has a lot more responsibilities than you may have thought. Don't undermine the quality of your A/D D/A signal paths. Think of the fact that your D/A converter is doing a whole lot more to replicating your original sound than you thought it was. The QUALITY of this converter can sure be important, then, no?

Anyway, I'm glad I could help.

Thanx!
Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441420 - 04/07/01 05:37 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
.....now if I could just get George to answer my first question I'd be happy. I'm sure he wants 96k for a reason, and I'm sure it's a good reason. Maybe he can hear some of those issues I discussed? Maybe in his league you've just "gotta have it" to get the gigs? Oh well. I'll patiently wait.......
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441421 - 04/07/01 05:39 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
no, i think i got something with this. i'll be back with a diagram. it basically creates a finer resolution instead of relying on anti-aliasing to make up the data.

the problem with the silly little mathmatical principle is that we dont deal with pure sine waves but complex waveforms. the better you can take a picture of that waveform, the better image you will have of it.

we see film at 30 frames a second because thats where our brains can be tricked although watch panning and quick actions strobe at certain rates. now if they increase the fps, this anomily wouldnt be as apparent or disappear all together...

i cant wait to try out 96khz now that i now what im listening for.
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441422 - 04/07/01 05:40 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
spookmuzik Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 190
Loc: Seattle,WA,UNITED STATES
Nika,

Still up!? When you say QUALITY, what things besides the filter type and slope are we talking about? Clock stuff? - OOooh - gotta go catch my bus! Great talking with you.

Julian m
_________________________
Keepin it Reel to Reel

http://www.dusty45s.com/

Top
#441423 - 04/07/01 05:56 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Barrett,

You make me laugh. *S*

I just spent 3 hours and 5000 words explaining why this is the case and why complex waveforms are filtered to the point of being sampleable accurately at 48k. I just went into incredibly long detail explaining all of this only to have you come back and say that Nyquist hisself was wrong? Because what I'm telling you is the heart of the Nyquist theorem.

What are you going to do next, tell me that gravity isn't right? That Newton has a major flaw in his works? You make me sound silly to think that I don't know that sound is not just sine waves, that it's complex waveforms. Of course it is, and I just spent three hours explaining this!!

One day Einstein was walking through the park and a student approached him and asked "Mr. Einstein, what if God were to do something drastic and by doing so prove your theory of relativity wrong?" Einstein answered "I would have pity on the lord. The theory is correct."

Alpha, the theory is not just correct here. It is mathematical law. I would HIGHLY advise you read this thread again, and ask a question if you don't understand it. Crow tastes bad, and feet can be difficult to dislodge.

This field happens to be a VERY strong forte of mine (in case you couldn't tell). I've got a lot I'll put on the line on this one.

And as to 96k, be VERY prepared to be disappointed.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441424 - 04/07/01 05:59 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by spookmuzik:
Nika,

Still up!? When you say QUALITY, what things besides the filter type and slope are we talking about? Clock stuff? - OOooh - gotta go catch my bus! Great talking with you.

Julian m


Julian,

Have a crack at Alpha. Help me out here.


Anyway, quality on converters= clock, converter chip, filter, and the analog section itself. Simple enough??


Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441425 - 04/07/01 06:07 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
are you not getting my logic and analogies? what do i need to explain better? im not that familiar with all that nyquist stuff aside from the general law of the difference in two point in time make up the smallest frequency stuff.

i got to figure out a way to draw this out.
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441426 - 04/07/01 06:19 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
***************************************************- 96kHz


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *- 48kHz

which one of those above looks more like a line?

if you had a choice of which one you want to represent a line which one would you choose? now which would you want to use to draw a complex waveform with?
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441427 - 04/07/01 06:22 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
also, maybe there are no readily apparent returns going from 48 to 96 but maybe the difference is more apparent at 192. its all about resolution over time.
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441428 - 04/07/01 07:00 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Am I not getting your logic an analogies?

*laughter again* Do you take me for an imbecile that doesn't understand this simple concept, that more sampling points at higher frequencies gets us closer to the samples of the real complex waveforms?? Do I not understand your logic? I completely do. As I said, I just spent 3 hours explaining for Julian why this logic (that looks as obvious as 2+2=4) is flawed - you just jumped in at the end.

Which looks more like a line?

How about this, if I told you thatI was going to give you some points and I wanted you to draw a straight line through them, which one would give you the straighter line?

**********************************
or
*................................*


I know, they'll both get us a straight line.
I know, you're going to say that we're not dealing with lines anymore, though. We're dealing with moving waveforms.
I know, I know, I know. And I'm telling you that that doesn't matter. I'm telling you that all of the samples in the middle don't matter. Not just like they don't matter that much. I'm telling you that they don't matter AT ALL. If you don't understand why this is so they you need to wake up in the morning with an open mind and read from the top down through this thread. The samples in the middle don't matter AT ALL. REALLY. They don't. They are completely and totally unnecessary. It's not like they only make a very very very minute improvement. I'm telling you they make NO improvement. None!! Nada!! Zip!!

I'm telling you that


.*...............................
.................................
................*................

Can draw the exact same complex waveform as if you fill in all of the dots in the middle. That:

.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.*...............................
.................................
................*................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................

will give us the EXACT same result as

.......**........................
.....*....*......................
...*........*....................
..*..........*...................
.*............*..................
*..............*.................
................*............*...
.................*..........*....
..................*........*.....
....................*....*.......
......................**.........


I'll give you one better. This is me telling you that:

.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.*...............................
.................................
................*................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................

will give us the EXACT same result as

....*...*........................
...*.*.*..*.*..................
..*...*....*.....................
..*..........*.*.................
.*............*.*................
*...............*..*.............
................*.*.*..*......*..
.................*..*.*.*.....*..
.....................*..*.....*..
........................**.*.*...
..........................*.*....


Not "close" to the same. I'm telling you that mathematical princples established by senor Nyquist dictate that it will be EXACTLY the same, unequivically.

That sounds outlandish, huh? Then that is the challenge to you to try to find the truth in it rather than take the knee jerk reaction that looks so apparantly obvious.

And I'll ask you the same question: are you not getting my logic and analogies?

And once you understand all of this, you'll see that 192k is even more farfetched.

I'll catch up with you in the morning.
Nika.

This message has been edited by Nika on 04-07-2001 at 04:09 AM
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441429 - 04/07/01 07:45 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
again, thats based on a sine wave. the comlexities of reality say otherwise. take a look at these pictures [i think an easy way to see the difference] for the magnified sake of arguement, this represents the visual equivilant of recording a waveform @ 48 and 96 and then upsampling the 48 to 96 for direct comparison of the resulting picture of the wave and i think you will find a difference between the two. now downsampling the 96 might give you the same wave as the original 48 BUT if you were to process both originals and then downsampled the 96 to 48, the results would be different.




by only capturing half as many coordinates, distortion results in the quantization. thus giving you a different picture.


"This is me telling you that:

.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.*...............................
.................................
................*................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................

will give us the EXACT same result as

....*...*........................
...*.*.*..*.*..................
..*...*....*.....................
..*..........*.*.................
.*............*.*................
*...............*..*.............
................*.*.*..*......*..
.................*..*.*.*.....*..
.....................*..*.....*..
........................**.*.*...
..........................*.*...."

i dont really know about that, whats your proof?

This message has been edited by alphajerk on 04-07-2001 at 04:54 AM
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441430 - 04/07/01 07:52 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
nika,

i bet you're regretting me joining this conversation now eh?

just playing devils advocate
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441431 - 04/07/01 12:29 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:

"This is me telling you that:

.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.*...............................
.................................
................*................
.................................
.................................
.................................
.................................

will give us the EXACT same result as

....*...*........................
...*.*.*..*.*..................
..*...*....*.....................
..*..........*.*.................
.*............*.*................
*...............*..*.............
................*.*.*..*......*..
.................*..*.*.*.....*..
.....................*..*.....*..
........................**.*.*...
..........................*.*...."

i dont really know about that, whats your proof?



Yeah, Alpha, but that, right there, is my point. My proof is in the incredibly lengthy explanation I've given above. This is EXACTLY what I've been explaining. This is the crux of the issue. It is your inability to understand why this is so that is causing the impass.

I know, I know, it sounds as though I'm coming to you and saying that if you pick two numbers from one to 100 and tell me the first one that I can tell you what the other one was, or some other bogus thing like that. Or if you just tell me how many stoplights there are on I90 from Seattle to Boston that I can draw an accurate map of the country.

Alpha, I'd encourage you. Read the ENTIRE thing again, and ask me any pertinent questions that you don't understand so that I can answer them in a different way and hopefully get you to see the answer, but I'm not/can't/won't just start over from scratch again which is where you're at. You're still at the beginning, the first question that Julian asked.

I'm happy to get you to a level of understanding, but you have to help me get you there.

Thanx!
Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441432 - 04/07/01 12:29 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Oh, yes, and in the end, I promise not to say "told you so."
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441433 - 04/07/01 01:20 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 02/10/00
Posts: 2184
Loc: Williamson County, TN, USA
a.j,

how the FUCK did you post that gif??? or jpeg??? or whatever it is???

george
_________________________
George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com

Top
#441434 - 04/07/01 01:40 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by gm:
a.j,

how the FUCK did you post that gif??? or jpeg??? or whatever it is???

george


George,

Try to respond to his post. When you do that you'll see the HTML code in there to do it. It's the one that has the "IMG" phrase in it.


Thanx!
Nika.


But while you're at it, 96k?? Question? Am I being slighted on my original question? Are you just choosing not to answer for some reason? Let me know. It' the first question in this thread.

Oh, and while you're at it, if you care to comment on where this thread has gone I'm sure we'd be all ears. That is IF you have time to read it all. It kind of blew up in a hurry.

Thanx!
Nika.

This message has been edited by Nika on 04-07-2001 at 10:47 AM
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441435 - 04/07/01 04:26 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
its a JPG [both are 24 bit images, except one is half the resolution of the other]

i still dont believe what you are saying, it is IMPOSSIBLE to assertain the points between two coordinates of a complex form. its like taking the altitude of the bottom of the mountain i live in and taking the top of the mountain i live on and giving me the exact grade of the hillside with all its variances.

look at the images, they prove my point. i've been dealing with visual anti-aliasing for a long time and trust me a lower resolution will NEVER be as accurate a representation as the higher one. its the difference between scanning an image at 1200dpi and at 2400dpi. both will look smooth to your eye but processing the higher resolution will result in a better final image than the lower resolution.

but i will print out these pages next week and take a look again. unfortunately i dont have the time this weekend.


wassup george? i posted them like http://www.alphajerk.com/images/1.jpg except sub a [] for the <>. so are you feeling any of my logic here or is it just giving nika a hard time?


BTW: none of this says that i will be able to hear a difference between 48 and 96 but at least now i know what im listening for.
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441436 - 04/07/01 04:47 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Alpha,


Let me know when you've read it all and we'll start at the beginning. In the meantime, yes, you understand my point now, you just don't believe it. Wait until the formulas knock you upside the head. As I told Julian last night, it's very tough pill to swallow. I spit the pill out many times myself. It doesn't change the fact that Nyquist was correct. As for

Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
BTW: none of this says that i will be able to hear a difference between 48 and 96 but at least now i know what im listening for.



True. But listening for that will be like looking for a polar bear in the middle of the Congo, or looking for the answers to life, the universe, and everything at Chuck E Cheese.

You'll just be looking for the wrong thing in the wrong place. But wait until you read the text above. It'll get you eventually. Try asking Roger Nichols - our digital guru - if George doesn't respond. You'll be unpleasantly surprised.

Oh, and as for the mountain analogy, correct. That is EXACTLY what I am saying.................once we add the filter.


I'll talk to you when you're done with your reading.

Nika.



This message has been edited by Nika on 04-07-2001 at 01:49 PM
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441437 - 04/07/01 08:03 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Curve Dominant Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 4223
Loc: Philadelphia USA
Nika,

George's silence speaks volumes. There's obviously some political reason that prevents him from publicly admitting that you've proved your point. As far as aj, I'm surprised that you bothered to respond to that blather in the first place. There is, after all, such a concept as "anti-aliasing" in digital imaging, but aj's the computer graphics whiz, so I'm sure he knows all about that.

Thanks for the explaination. It's reassuring to know somebody around here actually knows what the f*ck they are talking about.

curvedominant
_________________________
Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com

Top
#441438 - 04/07/01 09:17 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
the antialiasing filter only provides the AVERAGE between the two coordinates, not actual REALITY. its kind of like drawing a map. a map has the curves of the road but they arent exact curves.

44.1 digital sound has an edgyness to it, some people call it brittle compared to analog. as you can easily see in the pics above, the lower sample rate results in an edgier picture while the higher sample rate results in a smoother picture even though both have been converted to the same rate in the end.
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
#441439 - 04/07/01 09:37 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by alphajerk:
the antialiasing filter only provides the AVERAGE between the two coordinates, not actual REALITY. its kind of like drawing a map. a map has the curves of the road but they arent exact curves.


That is absolutely not true. Read the text.

That is, unless you're talking about graphics again. In audio the above statement is entirely false.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441440 - 04/07/01 09:42 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
spookmuzik Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 190
Loc: Seattle,WA,UNITED STATES
Hey Alpha,

Its all about the wiggles man! If a sin wave is made more complex by adding upturns and downturns, the sample rate will ALWAYS be fast enough to count every single up and down, as long as it is at least twice as fast as the highest (ie fastest in cycles per second)frequency that the Filter allows into the converter.

If... you believe that the curves of the most complex waves are still sinusoidal - then there is no way that the "form" can be any shape other than the one the converter draws on the way back out (D to A)

Julian M
_________________________
Keepin it Reel to Reel

http://www.dusty45s.com/

Top
#441441 - 04/07/01 10:09 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
KBP Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/12/01
Posts: 135
Loc: VV,CA,UNITED STATES
Man I'm getting dizzy reading this. Do you guys actually do music. I wish you had a more lamans way to explain this. I'm kinda getting it, but at the same time I'm not. I would think that higher sampling rates would be better because even though gear is usually rated at no higher than what we can hear, It does do a gradual roll off from 20k up. I've never seen a graph that hits 20k and then brickwalls. So from this I would gather that there is info going on that we feel rather than hear. And maybe as tracks get added on top of each other higher sampling rates would allow for a more complete interaction of instruments.

Is not what you guys are talking about with the dpi and such more to do with bit rate as far as how smoothly a sine will be represented.

Try not to mind my little simple mind, I'm just a curious observer.

thanx
KBP

Top
#441442 - 04/07/01 10:35 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
KPB,

Both of your points are valid. You might try looking into the post I referred to above. This entire thread has been about a misconception of 96k. What you are discussing are actual plausible benefits. I dicussed several of those, including the one's you've mentioned, in the thread I referred to above. I think you'd enjoy that material.

Ignore this thread. It's about an archane argument, and then disproving that incorrect impression. It's really not worth following up on.

imhoymmvfwiw,
Nika
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441443 - 04/07/01 11:19 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Curve Dominant Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 4223
Loc: Philadelphia USA
>>quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by alphajerk:
the antialiasing filter only provides the AVERAGE between the two coordinates, not actual REALITY. its kind of like drawing a map. a map has the curves of the road but they arent exact curves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
reply by Nika:
That is absolutely not true. Read the text.
That is, unless you're talking about graphics again. In audio the above statement is entirely false. <<

Yeah, well, guess what? It doesn't work that way in computer graphics, either! Anti-aliasing in computer graphics doesn't do anything remotely like providing an "average between two coordinantes." Sheesh, aj, that is some chronic sh*t you are smokin' down there.
_________________________
Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com

Top
#441444 - 04/08/01 12:42 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
spookmuzik Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 190
Loc: Seattle,WA,UNITED STATES
Nika, gm,

What of the idea that the human system for localization of sounds, makes use of the difference in arrival times of a sound to left ear and right ear. The smallest differences in arrival time that can be ascertained by a human are still shorter than 1/44100th of a second. However they are longer than 1/96000th. In other words, 96k sampling allows the phase relationship between two stereo tracks to be sufficiently accurate for our abilities to localize sounds left to right, front to back. (apparently our up down abilities are not so good at all, especially when things approach directly above our heads - LOOK OUT!)

This is something an acoustics teacher of mine brought up as a possibility ... I only have notes on it, not the source of the information. If I can find the source I'll post it.

any truth to this claim?

Julian M
_________________________
Keepin it Reel to Reel

http://www.dusty45s.com/

Top
#441445 - 04/08/01 01:31 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Nika Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/22/01
Posts: 2938
Loc: Ft Wayne,IN,UNITED STATES
I've yet to do any research on the relationship between sampling frequency and stereo image. For this reason I am not prepared to discuss this theory as a rational possibility.

I will tell you, however, that your information from your teacher looks somewhat suspect to me.

Thanx!!
Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#441446 - 04/08/01 02:09 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Orgasmatron the mighty Offline
Member

Registered: 04/07/01
Posts: 7
Loc: like i would tell you,WV,UNITE...
so tell me george...
have your interests in audio been waning as of late? Just curious as to why you would bother asking mr Jerk how the fuck he put a Jpg in your forum, but you would totally ignore the restof the topic altogether? Maybe I can refer you to a forum concerning the wonders of HTML.... would you be more comfortable monitoring that?

and i just wanna give a shout out ta all muh homies down on da south side, YO! Wahzzup!

Orgasmatron the Mighty

Top
#441447 - 04/08/01 02:51 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
1176 Offline
Member

Registered: 03/25/01
Posts: 11
Loc: Nashville,TN,UNITED STATES
Probably cause he fell asleep from all the dribble being spouted out by Nika. Even HTML starts looking interesting. Maybe we could get Nika his own forum for his birthday or something. I bail pretty quick when his posts start filling up. I wonder why a guy who knows so much is schelping gear at Sweetwater...Nothing personal, just my .0005 cents

Top
#441448 - 04/08/01 03:10 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
alphajerk Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
curve,
yes it is , mary jane sure is purty. but my statement was a bit broad, i just didnt feel like getting into details. it IS basically the same thing thats happening with audio... to create a smoother representation.


not that im going to speak for george here but nika seems quite set in his beliefs so what would be the point of posting? it is everybody's personal right to record whatever sample rate they please isnt it? people think im nuts for recording at 48... so what?

personally i think nikas not thinking outside the box enough on this one. IF 44.1 is perfectly fine then why does SACD sound SO much better. like a stated earlier, maybe 96k wont show you benefits but 192k will... or like the some megahertz that SACD can attain. the benefit could lie int he processing and not at the origination.

i record @ 48khz. i find it to be quite reasonable and looking at my waveforms at the sample level, i cant visually detect in them what it would have been if it were 96khz, i probably cant aurally either. BUT the ONLY way to find this out is to record something at 48 and 96 and compare the two waveforms to see if 48 left out any detail that 96 caught. it could even be an LP, not even micing something.

i doubt i will use 96khz since it occupies twice as much HD space for no possible return and im fairly content with 48khz. i AM looking foward to being able to release 48khz material because i DO hear a definate different from 44.1, maybe i have a little higher range than some people [my eyesight is better than most so why not my ears?].

actually i got dragged into this conversation anyways. i dont really care that much about it. shit, i cant even record @ 96khz anyways and would probably melt down my computer trying to do so... gawd i need a new one. when are those damn dual733's coming out? i care more about what mics im using and pres, oh and of course the instruments, the room... besides, what digital equipment i do have operates at 48khz anyways, im not buying something just because it can do 96 anyways, although i am getting a 1296 [for the 12 I/O, not the 96khz]. when i actually one day do hear 96khz, ill tell you then what i think of it, maybe this summer ill try something out when i have a smokin G4, DP3 is mailed to me, and i have my 1296.

my orgasmatron, thats one hell of a first post.
_________________________
alphajerk
FATcompilation
"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Top
Page 2 of 42 < 1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 >