Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Page 41 of 42 < 1 2 ... 39 40 41 42 >
Topic Options
#442589 - 01/15/04 01:14 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
kk@jamsync.com Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 649
Loc: ,,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:
[QUOTE]I've still not seen a repeatable blind listening test where 96k consistantly comes out on top. Give me the link, I'll be glad to read it.

Lawrence
I gave you a link and you referred me to a rude statement.

Perhaps you should READ. The question is not "who is on top", but whether it can be discerned at all and if so, what is the mechanism. Below is the usual text cited.

Karou and Shogo “Detection of Threshold for tones above 22kHz.” – Convention paper 5401 presented at the 110th Convention, May 12-15 2001, Amsterdam.

BTW, I'm assuming there are people here who are actually interested in empirical data...perhaps not.
_________________________
KK Proffitt
Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville
JamSync

Top
#442590 - 01/15/04 02:22 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Lee Flier Offline
10k Club

Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 15398
Loc: Atlanta,GA,UNITED STATES
Wow, this thread is almost 3 years old.

Since then I've had the opportunity to do quite a few projects at 96K. I will say this: while I can't hear a difference between 48 and 96 when we're talking about raw tracks (e.g. transferring directly from 2" source at both rates), it does make a difference when mixing. EQ and compression plugs in particular behave differently at 96 - I find it easier to dial in the sound I want and I seem to be able to use gentler EQ curves to get the desired result.

I'm not sure whether the end listener could tell the difference, or that I couldn't get pretty much the same result at 48. I haven't actually tried to do two identical mixes from the same source material, which might be interesting. But that isn't the only measure of whether or not something is useful. If the higher sampling rate makes my job easier and more enjoyable and improves work flow, I'm all for it.
_________________________
What The...?
http://www.what-the.com
http://www.myspace.com/whattherock

Radio KIRA
http://www.radiokira.com


NEW CD out April 7th! >> Get it here , or here ! <<

Top
#442591 - 01/15/04 02:58 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Lee Flier Offline
10k Club

Registered: 09/13/00
Posts: 15398
Loc: Atlanta,GA,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:

The compelling issue to me on this whole subject is not the issue of benefits or lack of benefits in high sample frequencies, but rather the desire by the majority of people to FIND benefits in higher sample frequencies. I find this utterly fascinating. I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say on the subject.

Why is it that we glom on to these "romantic" notions? Why do we seek out this "romance?"
I think Bobro answered this really well.

I will add that I would prefer NOT to find any benefits to higher sample rates, personally. Like Bobro said, those are some big-ass files, plus more expensive converters, etc. I'd really like to think that I can make great recordings on a cheap box at home. And I can, in fact, make pretty good ones. That doesn't mean I can't also admit it when something else sounds better, and I do think there are some practical, perceivable benefits to 96K as I mentioned in my last post.

Quote:

The interesting question to me is why so many people are so pulled to the desire to have there actually be benefits to high frequency sampling. Why do we want to believe that the ear is limitless, that our capabilities about beyond what logic, reason, science, and research indicate? Why do we yearn to know that we haven't found the limits? What is it in the human psyche that keeps trying to find holes in the research that defines our capabilities?

To me, this desire is a part of a Judeo-Christian-western mentality that actually taps into a religious issue. To me it is a God issue - an evolutionary characteristic of humans to want to feel that we can't "know" things, for "knowing" things starts to make our lives more clearly less significant than we like to think.
LOL... I think it's a lot simpler than that, at least to me: Those of us who care passionately about music, and audio, would like to think that we haven't heard the best of it yet. Perhaps we're hearing a particular sound or sonic experience in our imagination that we haven't heard achieved in a recording, and perhaps we believe that we may need to approach recording (and/or playback) in some fundamentally different way before that can happen.

I'm not really in the camp that wants to believe the ear is limitless, at least, not physically. But I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that psychoacoustics research is far from over, and that the impulses we receive from the ear can be perceived beyond the ear and interpreted by the brain in some interesting ways that we may or may not have touched on yet. I don't necessarily think the whole thing is beyond our understanding, nor do I have any clue whether higher sampling rates would at all address what I'm talking about. I'm just commenting on your general question about why humans feel there need to be things that are unknown. I don't "need" to have unknowns so much as I feel it's wise to always presume there are unknowns that I'm not seeing. I'd have missed out on a whole lot of great stuff in my life if I didn't always hold to that attitude.
_________________________
What The...?
http://www.what-the.com
http://www.myspace.com/whattherock

Radio KIRA
http://www.radiokira.com


NEW CD out April 7th! >> Get it here , or here ! <<

Top
#442592 - 01/15/04 04:14 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
zele Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 01/12/01
Posts: 1136
Loc: carmel,CA,UNITED STATES
A 3 year thread>>>>>>>>that's it ...I'm going back to 8 track carts and a quad format 70's surround-sound and four Voice of the Theatre speakers ---I think the speakers were 96 (lbs.)..the amp was 44.1 (lbs.) \:D
_________________________
C Jo Go Crystal Studios
http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/recording_studio.htm

Top
#442593 - 01/15/04 11:21 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
edmann Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 314
Loc: MA
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:

8. 96k converters may "sound" better due to filtering and other things but I've seen nothing that convinces me that it is the higher sample rate that's responsible for that.
Does this mean (IYO) own and use the (new) 96k converters but record at 48k? Bob Ohlsson also says that the new (96k) converters offer better performance than their 48k predecessors. However there are numerous reports of "they sound good at 96k but not at 48k" w/re to some new converter sets.
_________________________
Ed Mann

Top
#442594 - 01/15/04 11:28 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
edmann Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/26/03
Posts: 314
Loc: MA
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:


5. I've read some of Nika's posts over and over to try and understand what he's talking about and I've come to two conclusions...

A.) He's very smart and his reasoning makes sense.

B.) He has a huge ego that demands he let us know how smart he is. Although this does not cancel out A.

with all due respect to everyone - significantly large ego seems to go hand-in-hand with the artistic temperment and if we were to start a list of those with Big Ego, most of those who haunt (and moderate) these forums would be on the list, including myself. The trick is to be aware of it and keep it in check. I think Nika does a pretty good job.
_________________________
Ed Mann

Top
#442595 - 01/15/04 11:51 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 StoneinaPond:
Nika,

Excuse me for quoting myself (slightly ammended.)

Quote:
So we go back to the question of what part of a good converter, that just happens to sample at both 48 and 96, provides the increased joy or whatever it is that we hear?

I know some say they have listened to the same converter at 48 and 96 and hear no difference. Is that a true scientific test?

Because if you do hear a difference, how can you isolate which part played the bigger role in that equation?
How do you seperate the clocking from the filtering? Perhaps the question is illogical or based on faulty assumptions. But if you understand it and it has merit, can you respond?
Yorik,

Help me help you. I'm not sure I understand the question.

For reference, though, clocking has nothing to do with any of this. Clocking errors manifest themselves the same at 96k as they do at 48k, and they don't affect filtering.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442596 - 01/15/04 11:59 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 kk@jamsync.com:
http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt
kk,

THANK YOU!

I've been speculating on this subject for a couple of years (as you know) and have heard that testing had been done on intermod distortion of ultrasonic content causing distortion in the audible range due to electronic componentry, but hadn't ever found evidence of someone actually doing the tests. I'll file this one away.

Cheers!
Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442597 - 01/15/04 12:02 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 Bill Mueller:

It is a natural conceit that because we can build a mechanical system that approximates a function of the body (levers, pumps, bellows, this computer) that we believe the body then works like our invention. Sometimes this can be true but in the case of the brain and sensory perception, we are still far away. When perceiving information, the brain is constantly comparing the incoming info against a database of past events and synthesizing an experience from it. Therefor the experience of listening to a recording of a concert grand piano is better and more realistic (or far worse) for those of us who have actually stood next to a concert grand piano than someone who has only ever heard recordings. This is another form of habituation.

The most obvious form of this auditory preconception is language. We listen to a string of discordant phonems and synthesize a thought from it! This could not happen if the ear/brain worked in the kind of vaccum that is described when you only address the electrochemical/mechanical conversion of disturbances in an elastic medium.
Bill,

Ah, OK, I follow you. Interesting, for sure, but it seems like speculation without any source of reason for cause at this point? Kind of like an invention without necessity? Just my observation.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442598 - 01/15/04 12:34 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 edmann:
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:

8. 96k converters may "sound" better due to filtering and other things but I've seen nothing that convinces me that it is the higher sample rate that's responsible for that.
Does this mean (IYO) own and use the (new) 96k converters but record at 48k? Bob Ohlsson also says that the new (96k) converters offer better performance than their 48k predecessors. However there are numerous reports of "they sound good at 96k but not at 48k" w/re to some new converter sets.
There are a lot of parts to a converter. The converter chip itself certainly has improved over time - especially in the past couple of years. So are you paying attention to the actual microchip that does the conversion? Clearly by the time that gets implemented into the rest of the circuit, including a power supply, analog filtering, analog circuitry, etc., one is not guaranteed to get better performance.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442599 - 01/15/04 02:01 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
StoneinaPond Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 2009
Loc: New York City
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:

Help me help you. I'm not sure I understand the question.

For reference, though, clocking has nothing to do with any of this. Clocking errors manifest themselves the same at 96k as they do at 48k, and they don't affect filtering.

Nika.
Ok, let me try and rephrase this.

An A/D and D/A converter consists, as you say, of analog front and back end, filters, clock, sampling mechanism (48/96) and then power supply.

So, when sampling at different rates, does the filter mechanism change?

I would expect it to. (This could be a misconception.)

Will that then change the sound at the output of the converter?

It could.

So, given that the analog front and back end are the same, the power supply and the clocking (you say) are the same, how do you know which part of the rest of the process, namely the sampling rate and the filtering, is actually responsible for the change?

a = 48 sampling
b = filter for above
c = 96 sampling
d = filter for above

So a + b provides one result.
And c + d provides another.
c + b wouldn't make sense.
a + d I imagine would sound terrible.

So how do you isolate which part of a + b gives a different result from c + d?

Am I chasing my tail?
_________________________
Yorik
Stone In A Pond


"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

Top
#442600 - 01/15/04 03:00 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
kk@jamsync.com Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 649
Loc: ,,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
Quote:
Originally posted by kk@jamsync.com:
http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt
kk,

THANK YOU!

I've been speculating on this subject for a couple of years (as you know) and have heard that testing had been done on intermod distortion of ultrasonic content causing distortion in the audible range due to electronic componentry, but hadn't ever found evidence of someone actually doing the tests. I'll file this one away.

Cheers!
Nika.
You're very welcome, Nika. I've always enjoyed reading and learning from your posts!
_________________________
KK Proffitt
Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville
JamSync

Top
#442601 - 01/15/04 03:06 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
kk@jamsync.com Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/16/00
Posts: 649
Loc: ,,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by edmann:
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:

8. 96k converters may "sound" better due to filtering and other things but I've seen nothing that convinces me that it is the higher sample rate that's responsible for that.
Does this mean (IYO) own and use the (new) 96k converters but record at 48k? Bob Ohlsson also says that the new (96k) converters offer better performance than their 48k predecessors. However there are numerous reports of "they sound good at 96k but not at 48k" w/re to some new converter sets.
The Prism ADA8 sounds excellent at all rates. They're also upgrading to 192.

Sounds wonderful with the Pyramix DSD also.

You really have to live with a converter to check it out. Just listening to it once, with one type of program material isn't enough to make a judgement. Similarly, shootouts don't tell the whole story, either, because the best way to check a converter is with just you in the room when it's totally quiet with no distractions. Only then can you check for anomalies in reverb tails, depth and separation of soundstage, etc. because you can focus.
_________________________
KK Proffitt
Chief Audio Engineer, JamSync, Nashville
JamSync

Top
#442602 - 01/15/04 03:48 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
Yorik,

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

The sampling rate does not make an audible difference. The filters that are put in place do. Besides the filters, other things can affect the sonic difference between 48k and 96k, but it is not the "sample rate" that is doing this.

For example, the paper put forth by kk above indicates a study that was conducted that tells us that when you play material that the ear can't hear through a poor quality amp and speakers, that the amp will create distortion that you will hear. This can create an audible difference between 44.1k and 96k sample rates, but only because the 96k sample rate has all kinds of high frequency content that the ear shouldn't be able to hear. In this situation it is not the change in sample rate that is making the difference, but rather the inclusion of high frequency content and a poor quality amp that make the difference.

In other words, it is not the fact that the sample rate changes that makes a difference audible. It is something that correlates to a change in sample rate that makes it audible. It is the filters used to achieve the new sample rate, or additional frequency content captured by the new sample rate, or possibly other things that are a side effect of changing the sample rate that are noticeable. Any of those differences, however, can be eliminated, showing that a change in sample rate does not an audible difference inherently make.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442603 - 01/15/04 04:00 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
StoneinaPond Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 2009
Loc: New York City
Quote:
The filters that are put in place do.
Yes, but I assume the filters are different for each sample rate, no?

Without using exactly the same filtering prior to the sampling at different rates, how do you know the frequency is'nt a contributing factor?

Two variables and neither can be fixed with the other to really see the effect of either.

Sorry to harp on this. Just trying to get a handle on the issue.
_________________________
Yorik
Stone In A Pond


"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

Top
#442604 - 01/15/04 04:25 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 StoneinaPond:
[QUOTE] The filters that are put in place do.
Yes, but I assume the filters are different for each sample rate, no?

Not exactly. Often the coefficients are the same. They just run the clock faster. Other times ONE filter is pulled out but the rest of the filters remain. The typical converter design works like this:

analog filter -> sampling (2.8MHz) -> Filter 1 and downsample -> Filter 2 and downsample -> Filter 3 and downsample (by now we're down to, say, 88.2KS/s) --> Filter 4 and downsample to 44.1KS/s).

When you want to go to 48KS/s we switch clock crystals to one that puts out 48KS/s instead of 44.1KS/s. When you want to go to 88.2KS/s we simply pull out the fourth filter and send the data straight out. If we want to go to 96KS/s we pull out the fourth filter and switch clocks. Etc.

Without using exactly the same filtering prior to the sampling at different rates, how do you know the frequency is'nt a contributing factor?

Two variables and neither can be fixed with the other to really see the effect of either.

Sorry to harp on this. Just trying to get a handle on the issue.


We have done tests with a fixed sample rate (96k) and used different filters and found differences with some and no differences with others. We have done tests with one filter and multiple sample rates and, providing a good filter, found no difference.

But Nyquist and Fourier answer the question for us - more samples doesn't help describe the waveform so long as its bandwidth is fixed and the appropriate number of samples are used.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442605 - 01/15/04 04:49 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
StoneinaPond Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/22/02
Posts: 2009
Loc: New York City
Nika,

Thanks.

I believe I have just come full circle in my head, but with a much better understanding of what's going on. (My therapist will be so glad.) \:D

You're a Mensch.
_________________________
Yorik
Stone In A Pond


"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

Top
#442606 - 01/15/04 05:20 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
Yorik,

As always, call if you have questions.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442607 - 01/15/04 09:09 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
studioman adam Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 08/27/01
Posts: 707
Loc: Baton Rouge,LA,UNITED STATES
Funny to see this thread again...

Nika - I think I'm jumping in your boat. I really like the way you explain human behavior. I would like to know more about what you think as far as human progress and it's natural destructive balance.
_________________________
studioman adam
[][][][][][][][][][][][]
"uh........OK?"

Top
#442608 - 01/15/04 09:26 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Loopy C Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 03/05/01
Posts: 702
Loc: Valyermo,CA,UNITED STATES
I would like to know if your book is done yet?
_________________________
Chris R. Gibson
aka Loopy C
Micworks
Ken Tamplin Mastering

Top
#442609 - 01/15/04 09:55 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Taurus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/09/03
Posts: 70
Loc: USA
What about sonic differences between 44.1 and 96kHz in consumer level equipment?

You know, hundred dollar CD players from Pioneer or Technics vs. the same recording on sacd or dvd-audio played on a $170 universal player?

It's great y'all get to use four figure convertors with carefully designed circuitry, but what about those Regular Joes out there?

[T]
_________________________
Changes aren't permanent, but change is.

Top
#442610 - 01/15/04 10:18 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Paul Frindle Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/20/00
Posts: 362
Loc: U.K
Quote:
Originally posted by edmann:
Quote:
Originally posted by LawrenceF:


5. I've read some of Nika's posts over and over to try and understand what he's talking about and I've come to two conclusions...

A.) He's very smart and his reasoning makes sense.

B.) He has a huge ego that demands he let us know how smart he is. Although this does not cancel out A.

with all due respect to everyone - significantly large ego seems to go hand-in-hand with the artistic temperment and if we were to start a list of those with Big Ego, most of those who haunt (and moderate) these forums would be on the list, including myself. The trick is to be aware of it and keep it in check. I think Nika does a pretty good job.
Following this really old thread from time to time - but have nothing more to add to the masses of postings I did before very early on.

I really hope that the above comments about ego are not supposed to apply to myself? The Doc's telling me at the moment that I'm actually suffering from "damagingly low self esteem" :-(

Could actually use some of that ego you talk of it seems. How do you go about aquiring it? :-)

Top
#442611 - 01/15/04 10:23 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
Paul,

Send me an SASE.

I have plenty of extra 'round here. I can spare several gaggle of it.

\:\)
Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442612 - 01/15/04 10:23 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Paul Frindle Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/20/00
Posts: 362
Loc: U.K
Quote:
Originally posted by gm:
Lawrence,

Brilliant post, man.

Thanks,
George
Agree - many good points.

Top
#442613 - 01/15/04 10:29 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Paul Frindle Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/20/00
Posts: 362
Loc: U.K
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
Paul,

Send me an SASE.

I have plenty of extra 'round here. I can spare several gaggle of it.

\:\)
Nika.
LOL!

Top
#442614 - 01/16/04 01:17 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Extreme Mixing Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/03/01
Posts: 440
Loc: Van Nuys ,CA,UNITED STATES
Nika George, Paul, and others...

Thanks so much for your willingness to share with those of us who care to learn and to progress in digital audio. There is a lot to know, and frankly, I am too busy working to do much primary research. Having complex theories explained in ways that relate directly to the way I work is VERY helpful. It is the main reason I frequent these boards. I certainly don't need another thread on which mic to use for Kick Drum or why mixing in the box always sounds flat and lifeless. Lawrence is a bright guy, but he mainly starts threads intended to bait unsuspecting newbies into discussing how his setup is superior to all others, especially Pro Tools. He should not be the one to point out anyone else's bulging ego!

Anyway, thanks again for all of the effort!

Top
#442615 - 01/16/04 11:42 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 Taurus:
What about sonic differences between 44.1 and 96kHz in consumer level equipment?

You know, hundred dollar CD players from Pioneer or Technics vs. the same recording on sacd or dvd-audio played on a $170 universal player?

It's great y'all get to use four figure convertors with carefully designed circuitry, but what about those Regular Joes out there?
Taurus,

Yup! I don't think anyone is arguing that consumer converters are not as good, and that differences will manifest more clearly there.

Except.......

First, you have the paper quoted by kk above that tells us that consumers that have consumer converters also have consumer amps, and consumer amps put out a lot more audible distortion when fed material above the audible range.

Second, I have two iPods - one at home and one in the car. iPods seem pretty popular, and if not iPods, other mp3 players. People are doing more and more listening to this type of "available" music then they were before - in the car, at the office, while biking, while cooking and doing laundry, etc. I don't think I'd be able to hear a better converter in those situations, and those situations represent over 98% of my "as a consumer" music listening to date. If, "as a consumer" I cared much more I would be happy to buy better converters, coupled with better amps, etc. But if I am willing to buy better converters, why do I need to go to 96k?

Just some thoughts for you.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442616 - 01/16/04 02:23 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Loco Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 08/11/00
Posts: 1242
Loc: Miami Beach,FL,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by Taurus:
What about sonic differences between 44.1 and 96kHz in consumer level equipment?

You know, hundred dollar CD players from Pioneer or Technics vs. the same recording on sacd or dvd-audio played on a $170 universal player?[T]
I can hear the differences in both pro and consumer. I do hear clearly the difference bewteen something recorded at 88.2 and 44.1. The processing feels different as well. The EQs feel different. The compressors.... But it may matter only for the 1% of the population.

On the consumer side, you can hear the difference between a CD and a DVD/SACD. Curiously, my wife could hear a difference between DVD-A and SACD. Sorry Taurus, she liked better the SACD material. I'm with her and with Ronald Prent on this one. BUT.... she loves her iPod. And it sounds especially good overdriving the cassette adapter on her van.

So, now that the audible differences between sample rates are minimal, the breaking point is on the convenience of the format. Working at 96K generates gigantic amounts of data. It's hard to keep up with the backups. The track count decreases, the power available decreases. So, for pop is a no-no and the final user doesn't care anyway. For the rest, is good to have the option.

That's it!
_________________________
"There's no right, there's no wrong. There's only popular opinion" Jeffrey Goines

Top
#442617 - 01/16/04 09:42 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
LawrenceF Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/11/01
Posts: 481
Loc: ,,UNITED STATES
Quote:
Originally posted by Extreme Mixing:
...Lawrence is a bright guy, but he mainly starts threads intended to bait unsuspecting newbies into discussing how his setup is superior to all others, especially Pro Tools. He should not be the one to point out anyone else's bulging ego!...
My setup superior? Hardly. Ego? A little.

My comment about Nika were not meant to be insulting. I was just stating my observations. He is a very smart man with a big ego. This is a normal state for many very intelligent people. In fact some would argue that for intelligent persons like Nika a regular oral expression or demonstration of that intelligence is a requirement of continued growth. A workout of sorts.

Really. If you go back in this thread he pretty much explained it all early on in a fairly simple manner. The whys and the hows. People continued to debate it without much research or serious thought. It was humourous. The rest? That was Nika polishing his skills convincingly refuting most every counterpoint. Great stuff actually. No personal attacks. Facts, science and the occasional nod to an original thought or theory.

For three years (???) on this thread he's shredded most every argument supporting 96k. If someone else posts a reply about why high sampling rates are valid he'll return and do it again and again. That's the ego part. Not a bad thing at all but most of us would have had our say and let it go long ago.

So Nika...

If my comment offended you in any way that was not my intention. With hindsight it may have been harsh. Oh... the power of words.

I do enjoy your posts.

Lawrence

Top
#442618 - 01/17/04 02:26 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Curve Dominant Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 4223
Loc: Philadelphia USA
Quote:
posted by Paul Frindle:
I really hope that the above comments about ego are not supposed to apply to myself? The Doc's telling me at the moment that I'm actually suffering from "damagingly low self esteem" :-(
Could actually use some of that ego you talk of it seems. How do you go about aquiring it? :-)
Paul,

Ego and low self esteem are not mutually exclusive.

Similarly, ego does not necessarily equate with self confidence, or peace of mind, for that matter.

Everybody possesses ego. EVERYBODY. For one human being to accuse any other of being egotistical is like accusing somebody of being too reliant upon oxygen to breathe.

What I see on this thread is not a need for people to keep their egos "in check." What I do see, is a need to resist the temptation to "police" each other's egos. That distinction seems to hold the difference between counter-productive argument, and productive discourse.

In order for productive discourse to occur, each party must allow the other to maintain their ego. Sublimation of self-confidence in expressing one's views is not a prerequisite for this; on the contrary, confidence more often demonstrates a proven objectivity that transcends egocentric analysis. That distinction seems to hold the difference between the "I would like to believe" view, and the "I have seen evidence of" view. The folks in the second catagory will most often come across as more self-confident, and confusing that with "ego" is the more counter-productive scenario an engineering mind could choose.

Is all this talk of psychology a mere tangent of the subject at hand? I think not. Psychology is a significant if not dominating factor in this subject of "does it sound better if the sample rate is higher" debate, in my not so humble opinion.

We all work in what is likely the most subjective of any of the engineering sciences - which is a mind-bending dichotomy in itself! How does one possibly marry the concreteness of engineering with anything so subjective as recording art? I can only think of one answer to that question: Very carefully, and with a mind wide open. And in my (semi-limited) experience, I see sublimation of ego and/or confidence as leaving one poorly equipped for embarking on such a venture.
_________________________
Eric Vincent (ASCAP)
http://www.curvedominant.com

Top
Page 41 of 42 < 1 2 ... 39 40 41 42 >