Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Page 42 of 42 < 1 2 ... 40 41 42
Topic Options
#442619 - 01/17/04 06:07 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Saint Johnny B Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 05/22/03
Posts: 4836
Call me an idiot if you like, but my innate sense tells me that with digital it's always, "more, better, faster, cheaper." That's been THE RULE in Silicon Valley for a quarter century or more. Of course Burr-Brown is in Ariz, but we can make an exception and include them.

And you now, if anyone really had all this A-to-D and D-to-A stuff nailed, there would be no debate.

And if you leave *everything* to math, and look only at formulas and read outs, then you are "hearing with your eyes."

I feel there is lot we don't yet understand and that more applied reserch is necessary to even ask the right questions. Then we will get the tests, papers and peer review.

We are trying to capture very complex 3 dimensional waveforms. They look like mountain ranges, peaks and valleys, all with different rise and fall times. Maybe we've been looking too much at X-Ray images and what we really need is something akin to an MRI to even begin to see what is really going on.

I'll be the first to admit I don't really know what the final answers and solutions will be. But I do know that when controvery exists, even controversy based on subjective hearing tests, that we have not yet arrived at the "holy grail." And to know, you don't know, is a real ego-busting mental space to be in.

I don't want to get too spiritual with everyone, but I look at my life as an unearned gift. And yet, I know in my heart that you and I have a right to be here, even if we did not earn it. When I get to that mental space and look at all the miracles and gifts we have, and all the little things, from the smile in a child's eyes to the grass sprouting from the ground, I know it's a wonderful life. And my self-esteem adjusts itself accordingly. Works for me. (End soapbox speech here.)

I think things will get better and better, it will just take some time. Nuf said. \:\)



Hope this helps.

Top
#442620 - 01/17/04 07:12 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Daniel_Dettwiler Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
A question

I compare converters and other gear from time to time to find out what I buy for my needs. At the moment I am still on the look for a 8 channal AD converter. A year ago I compared Prism Dream ADA and dB tech blue (now larvy engineering) and apogge 8kse. I did not buy one of them after, because none of them made me absolutely happy. Now two weeks ago I finally had to chance to compare the Prism with the EMM-Lab Meitner converter. The results were quite surprising. I might start another thread or not, or might aswell share the files. All the test where at 44.1 kHz (because at the moment I do not see any chance to work with higher sampling rate anyway due to DSP resources of my DAW)

To make sure the test was acurate I will make a second session with the two converters in another studio. Now while I am on it I thought I thought I could aswell do a test where I compare both converters at 44.1 and 88 kHz. However I am not really sure how todo an acurate test here. Basically if I want to see how the EMM performs at 44.1 and 88 I need to have two DAW's, both equipped with a EMM Converter and record to one at 44, to the other at 88. However we do not have two emm and as well not two prisms.

Now to record first to 44 and then in a second performance to 88 is kind of useless imo, because the differences in playbackperformance, levels etc would make acourate listening sessions impossible. Another solution would be to record to a studer 820 first, and then transfer to DAW, once with 44, once with 88.

How do others handle this problem? The test will be next monday, so feel free to give some tips for testing procedure.

Top
#442621 - 01/17/04 02:55 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
Dan,

Check private messages.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442622 - 01/18/04 06:22 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
guittarzzan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/23/02
Posts: 71
Loc: portland, or
I know little about this stuff. What I do know is that even with nice gear, I still am not happy with the consequences of converting to digital and then back again.
Imho, I think the next true genius person or r and d team of the next generation of digital will be he/they who come up with a 44.1/48 converter that just does the process better than ever before. One that doesn't cause everyone to have to run out and buy 10 120 gig drives to record music. One that has a truely authentic reproduction of tape saturation built in that is switchable i/o on each channel. One that would allow you to record a cranked Bogner XTC and still retain all the original life, texture and "realness" when you play back the track in your joe blow daw.
Why not just make better a/d/a for 44.1/48?

Why would a blind man take a picture of something if he could never see the picture?

down with huge file sizes and up with converter quality...that's what I'd like to see.

that's my noob 2 cents and I'm stickin to em \:D

steve

Top
#442623 - 01/18/04 06:42 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
guittarzzan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/23/02
Posts: 71
Loc: portland, or
One last thing and this is for GM if he's still listening. I have a product idea I'd love to see and I think it'd be a great piece to add to the digital home/project and maybe even some pro studios that aren't already using tape.
Ok, here goes...tell me if I'm nuts, but I gotta put this out there:
What would the possibilites be of a rackmounted, 2 track cassette recorder with excellent heads, signal path and running at a higher speed than standard; that was designed for just adding tape saturation to the signals then sending them to daw off of the playback head in real time. One could do all the multiple takes to different tracks or playlists as normal with daw, but each one would already have the desired tape saturation on it. Furthermore, instead of rewinding and doing overdubs, he could just keep recording over the new section of tape. When the cassette was used up, throw it away/recycle and pop in a new one.
I realize there would be some time nudging to do, but my noobish logic tells me that if the unit was built right, it could add some nice warm fuzzy to the digital world with very little hassle or expense...compared to a nice 2" machine etc.
Perhaps one could already do this with any tape deck, but having one that ran at a higher speed would be a nice plus.
I don't have the money for developing something like this, but what do you think??? Can we expect one of these from GML next spring?? \:D

chuckling,
Steve

Top
#442624 - 01/19/04 06:29 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Daniel_Dettwiler Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
Quote:
I know little about this stuff. What I do know is that even with nice gear, I still am not happy with the consequences of converting to digital and then back again.
Imho, I think the next true genius person or r and d team of the next generation of digital will be he/they who come up with a 44.1/48 converter that just does the process better than ever before.
Funny, but I know what you mean. I was looking for converters for a long time. I used prism and dB Tech Blue and was never completly satisfied. Now finally I could do tests with the EMM Meitner Converter (MK4). It is a DSD converter but outputs PCM as well. I compared (very carefully) this EMM vs Prism and vs StageTec in 44.1. Tomorrow I will place my order for the EMM, the miracle is done. Check it out.

Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com

Top
#442625 - 01/19/04 09:07 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
gm Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 02/10/00
Posts: 2184
Loc: Williamson County, TN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by guittarzzan:
[...]What would the possibilites be of a rackmounted, 2 track cassette recorder with excellent heads, signal path and running at a higher speed than standard; that was designed for just adding tape saturation to the signals then sending them to daw off of the playback head in real time. One could do all the multiple takes to different tracks or playlists as normal with daw, but each one would already have the desired tape saturation on it. Furthermore, instead of rewinding and doing overdubs, he could just keep recording over the new section of tape. When the cassette was used up, throw it away/recycle and pop in a new one. [...]
There was a time when this would have been an obvious product. But it's so much easier and much, much cheaper to emulate that that's going to be most explored direction.

George
_________________________
George Massenburg

http://www.massenburg.com

Top
#442626 - 01/20/04 01:09 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
guittarzzan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/23/02
Posts: 71
Loc: portland, or
Daniel, did you run a distorted guitar through the emm? From my little experience, the high gain guitars seem to show the most degredation or alteration in sound from the conversion.
Oh and the other thing...how much does that thing cost? I'm guessing $7k or more which is well out of my price range.

cheers,
steve

Top
#442627 - 01/20/04 06:35 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
adebar Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
Another question daniel,

did you also make comparisons with the dCS converter? They can output DSD and PCM at the same time too.

Top
#442628 - 01/20/04 06:54 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Daniel_Dettwiler Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
Quote:
Daniel, did you run a distorted guitar through the emm? From my little experience, the high gain guitars seem to show the most degredation or alteration in sound from the conversion.
Oh and the other thing...how much does that thing cost? I'm guessing $7k or more which is well out of my price range.

cheers,
steve
Hy Steve

No distorted guitar, sorry. I listened to a Steinway D ( in a huge recording hall), a Drum and acoustic guitar. I might try dist. guitar when I get my EMM and compare to studer 2" or Prism. its around $7000 for 8 Channals AD.

Quote:
Another question daniel,

did you also make comparisons with the dCS converter? They can output DSD and PCM at the same time too.
Hy Adebar (I forgot your name, sorry)
I could not get hands on a dCS (and Larvy Gold Series). But since I was looking more for a great multichannal converter I thought that to do that with stereo AD's would anyway be out of any budget. To get 8 Channals of dCS would be incredible expensive.

Do you have a dCS? We could compare it to the EMM at any time then, I'd be more than interessted.

More important for me right now is to find a great DA-Converter. Here I mainly need a 2 channal DA rather than a 8 channal DA. So dCS or Larvy Gold migtht be interessting here.

Cheers
Daniel
http://www.ideeundklang.com

Top
#442629 - 01/20/04 11:11 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 LawrenceF:
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
Lawrence,

Sorry, I had meant to respond and I seemingly forgot.

No insult taken.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442630 - 01/20/04 11:16 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 gm:
There was a time when this would have been an obvious product. But it's so much easier and much, much cheaper to emulate that that's going to be most explored direction.

George
For the sake of Guzzman, I just wanted to elaborate on what George is referring to. Anything in the analog world can be numerically represented. As such, any occurrence in the analog world can be represented in the digital world. Certainly some processes will be harder to numerically represent than others. Analog tape, on the other hand, is a very simple formula as its non-linearities follow a simple curve, and any additional characteristics of the medium (including high noise, et al) are also easily represented. Therefore, analog tape simulation is remarkably easy to reproduce digital with numerically identical results to using a given tape deck.

Other processes may be harder. Some will be harder only with the requirements of real-time processing. But analog tape simulation happens to be fairly easy to audibly-identically reproduce.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442631 - 01/20/04 11:36 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
guittarzzan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/23/02
Posts: 71
Loc: portland, or
Well, as I happen to be a PC HD user, I'm still waiting for someone to bridge one of those ananlog tape sat. plugins our way. From talking with a few of the companies, that day is coming, but when is unsure.
Speaking simply in terms of the tape sat emulation, how does the Hedd compare to say the Mcdsp, Duy and CS Phoenix plug ins?
thnks,
Steve

Top
#442632 - 01/20/04 07:47 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Duardo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/05/02
Posts: 242
Loc: My Basement
Quote:
my innate sense tells me that with digital it's always, "more, better, faster, cheaper." That's been THE RULE in Silicon Valley for a quarter century or more. Of course Burr-Brown is in Ariz, but we can make an exception and include them.
Right, and that can apply to digital audio as well...more tracks, cheaper storage, and so on. But it doesn't necessarily mean that we need to use more numbers to properly capture and replicate this stuff, does it?

Quote:
And you now, if anyone really had all this A-to-D and D-to-A stuff nailed, there would be no debate.
Right, but again, who's to say that higher sampling rates are what we need? Obviously, we're not "there" yet and probably never will get all the way "there", but while there's plenty of evidence to back the idea that 24/44.1 is all we need, is there any to back the idea that we do?

Quote:
We are trying to capture very complex 3 dimensional waveforms. They look like mountain ranges, peaks and valleys, all with different rise and fall times.
Actually, isn't it two-dimensional waveforms we're trying to capture, those two dimensions being frequency and amplitude? And those complex waveforms can be broken down into sine waves, which are very simple, is that not true?

Quote:
Imho, I think the next true genius person or r and d team of the next generation of digital will be he/they who come up with a 44.1/48 converter that just does the process better than ever before.
My thoughts exactly, although does the marketplace really want this? Who's going to put out a new converter that only does 48kHz, but does it better than anyone else? I know a few manufacturers who feel that their converters sound just as good at the lower sampling rates, but I don't see them saying so in their advertising. Seems like it's easier to give the people what they want than what they really need.

-Duardo

Top
#442633 - 01/20/04 08:01 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
adebar Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 709
Loc: Wiesbaden, GERMANY
Quote:
Hy Adebar (I forgot your name, sorry)
I could not get hands on a dCS (and Larvy Gold Series). But since I was looking more for a great multichannal converter I thought that to do that with stereo AD's would anyway be out of any budget. To get 8 Channals of dCS would be incredible expensive.

Do you have a dCS? We could compare it to the EMM at any time then, I'd be more than interessted.
dCS showed a 8-channel unit 3 years ago on the Tonmeistertagung in Hannover (or was it still Karlsruhe?).
Unfortunately this model was never prduced in series. I asked Bert van der Wolf what happened with the 8-channel unit and his answer was a little indifferent. For me it seemed dCS put more effort in the DSD products than in the 8-channel AD. Maybe it would have been to expensive.

7k for the Meitner is a good price (less than 1k for a channel).

I don´t have dCS but would like to try it this year. Mabe then we could compare to your EMM?

Top
#442634 - 01/21/04 04:14 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Daniel_Dettwiler Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/06/01
Posts: 422
Loc: 4125 riehen,,SWITZERLAND
Quote:
Mabe then we could compare to your EMM?
absolutely!

Top
#442635 - 01/23/04 11:22 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Pio2001 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/05/01
Posts: 63
Loc: Lyon,AK,FRANCE
Quote:
NIKA WROTE : Take a waveform with mixed content - any waveform you want. Play it into the ear. Hook up electrical nodes to the VIII nerve and log exactly what the synaptical response to your waveform is. Then filter all of the >20KHz material out of your waveform using a linear phase filter and do the same thing and (excepting random noise variations) the synaptical response (the physiological response) will be the same. In other words, the information that gets sent to the brain from the ear is only tied to the information below 20KHz. You can change the info above 20KHz all you want and it will have no effect on what the brain receives from the ear. Thus, it does not affect our hearing.
Quote:
NIKA WROTE : the brain, while perhaps getting the information, can do nothing with it and does not recognize its presence (the results of the Oohashi study).
While the second part contradicts the first (Oohashi et al.'s study showed that the information does have an effect on the brain), it seems to me that Oohashi's paper doesn't prove nor dismisses that this information can be conciously perceived. Look at Table 2. Subjective evaluation of sound quality under FRS and HCS conditions in http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548 . It shows that the subjects conciously heard the difference between the full range and the "26 or 22 kHz" lowpassed source (the paper doesn't tell which one was used \:\( ) with a probability of having guessed inferior to 1% in 4 experiments out of 10.
The problem is that we don't know the global significance level of the whole set of experiments. The probability calculations on this kind of tests can be very tricky. For example, if you run an ABX test until you get a 5% significance level, there is a probability of 20% that you succeed by chance before 100 trials ! Look at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=15192 for a discussion about weirdness in significance levels in blind tests (look especially at Gabriel's amazing results in a test where he didn't listen to the audio samples ;\) (a blind and deaf test !) ).
The point is that without knowing the exact number of trials and subjects, and without knowing if the number of trials were fixed in advance, we can't tell if these four isolated <0.01 results mean anything.

We're currently trying to ABX some resampling, lowpass, and dithering processes here : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=17118&
Maybe some of you will be interested.

Quote:
NIKA WROTE : 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.
You mean the electronics alone, without the speakers ? Because I thought that we both tested this ourselves with speakers.

But if you refer to the distortion caused by the internal resampling process or clipping (possibly digital) of consumer PC soundcards, try this : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?showtopic=9772
This audio sample sounds completely distorded as soon as it goes through clipping or resampling. Have fun, but take the warning seriously ! Some people already fried their tweeters with it. Better use headphones.

Top
#442636 - 01/23/04 11:33 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Pio2001 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/05/01
Posts: 63
Loc: Lyon,AK,FRANCE
Oh sorry, you meant the comment in slide number 13 of Griesinger's doc ! I completely forgot about it and now realize my mistake... my comments were quite off topic.

Top
#442637 - 01/27/04 04:26 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Pio2001 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/05/01
Posts: 63
Loc: Lyon,AK,FRANCE
Actually, the probability calculus for the table 2 linked above is much easier than I thought, but since I don't know if everyone here is familiar with blind tests, here are some explanations.

The result of a blind listening test is given by a number p, which is the probability that the result of the test was acheived only by chance. For example, if someone tries an ABX test, where he must tell if X is A or X is B, and gives 8 good answers out of 8 trials, p=1/256, because there is only one chance out of 256 to get 8 times the good answer by chance.
A blind test is considered to be successful if p is inferior to 0.01.
P inferior to 0.05 is already considered to be a good indication that the subject of the test really hears the difference.

In the Oohashi experiment , the listeners were asked to qualify the sound using pairs of words ( Psychological evaluation of sound quality, results in table 2 ). For each pair, the correlation with the fact that the sound was lowpassed or not is given by the p value, calculated according to the article of Scheffé, given in the bibliography.

Since the significance level (actually, the "probability of having guessed by chance") was inferior to 1% four times out of 10, in order to know if people conciously heard the lowpass applied during the experiment, we must calculate the probability of getting a confidence level inferior to 1% four times at least among 10 experiments.

The probability of getting it j times exactly is
nCr(10,j) x 0.01^j x 0.99^(10-j)

(probability of getting j given successes and 10-j failures, multiplied by the number of combinations of j elements in a list of 10). Thus the probability of getting at least 4 successes was

Sum(nCr(10,j) x 0.01^j x 0.99^(10-j) , j=10 to 4)

That is 2x10exp-6, or if you prefer 0.000002, or 0.0002 %.

This shows that in this experiment, there was an audible difference between the sound lowpassed at 22 (or 26 ?) kHz, and the same sound, but with the ultrasonic content in addition.

Now we have to reproduce this experiment in order to comfirm it. Since it is expensive and difficult to have access to super tweeters and high definition recordings in PCM.

An easy way is to use a 24 bits 96 kHz computer soundcard (a real one, preferably that doesn't resample during playback, not a Creative Audigy), with the audio samples discussed here , and some good headphones.

You can see that one people claims to have succeeded in recognizing the full range sample from lowpassed ones using a blind test simulator, but he's away for some time and it is not clear yet if he performed the test properly (he may have tried many times with many failures and reported his only success, that can have occured by chance). And if he is right, we also saw that what he heard was at least partly the artifacts introduced in the audible range by the resampling / lowpass process.

I tried with HD-600 headphones (30 kHz @ -3 dB IIRC) and a Marian Marc 2 soundcard, but couldn't hear the difference between the samples posted by KikeG in that thread.

Top
#442638 - 01/27/04 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
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Pio2001:
[QUOTE]While the second part contradicts the first (Oohashi et al.'s study showed that the information does have an effect on the brain), it seems to me that Oohashi's paper doesn't prove nor dismisses that this information can be conciously perceived. Look at Table 2. Subjective evaluation of sound quality under FRS and HCS conditions in http://jn.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/3548 . It shows that the subjects conciously heard the difference between the full range and the "26 or 22 kHz" lowpassed source (the paper doesn't tell which one was used \:\( ) with a probability of having guessed inferior to 1% in 4 experiments out of 10.

Pio,

It is great to see you around these parts again. I will have to go back and review my documents. I have two copies of the Oohashi study - one as presented to the AES and the other, slightly different, as presented to the American Physiological Association (?). The one that I have looked at most frequently mentioned an inability for subjects to discern between low passed and full bandwidth material consciously, though brain wave patterns did change.

Nika.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442639 - 01/27/04 04:51 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 Pio2001:
Actually, the probability calculus for the table 2 linked above is much easier than I thought, but since I don't know if everyone here is familiar with blind tests, here are some explanations.
Pio,

I believe we are talking about two different references in the text. Early in the Oohashi study he mentions that the perceptibility of the test differences was moot. It was later, when studying subjective characteristics, if I recall correctly, that Oohashi claims he saw the differences manifested.

NIka.
_________________________
For more...

Top
#442640 - 01/27/04 05:48 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
Pio2001 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/05/01
Posts: 63
Loc: Lyon,AK,FRANCE
Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
I believe we are talking about two different references in the text. Early in the Oohashi study he mentions that the perceptibility of the test differences was moot. It was later, when studying subjective characteristics, if I recall correctly, that Oohashi claims he saw the differences manifested.
I remember having read something like this too, but I can't find it in this online version. I had a pdf version in which I think that it was said that the subjects could not directly hear the difference, but that the correlations appeared when they were asked to comment on the sound. I don't have it anymore. And I don't remember about the table number 2, showing the p values. I first saw it in the page linked above.

I now wonder if had not misunderstood the part saying "None of the subjects recognized the HFC as sound when it was presented alone."

Quote:
Originally posted by Nika:
It is great to see you around these parts again.
No problem, actually, this is pure chance. There was the usual "louder is not better" ranting in the forum that I moderate, so I came here to search for threads about the same topic, just in time to see that the 96 kHz thread had just been reactivated :p

Top
#442641 - 01/29/04 08:12 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
charles_maynes Offline
Member

Registered: 12/17/02
Posts: 10
Loc: Burbank,CA
Wow-

A very thoughtful thread-

I think it was mentioned a few times before, but I feel compelled to mention it again-

It seems that the thread is concentating on the empirical realities of A to D operation and the limits we tend to live with. But I have to say- that in many cases, the cheap 96k converters will sound better that even some "Professional" 44.1/48k convertors. I have listened to work I have done in ProTools with my old fashion 888/24 played through an HD192 system and was very impressed with the details in the sound that I was frankly was unaware of (this was a good sort of unaware!) this was straight ahead 48k recordings. I might add, it was not a subtle difference in quality. This was using the sync i/o also.

On the input side- It is exhaustively documented that there is plenty of sound beyond the reach of our ears. And I still frankly have not yet heard a recording of ANYTHING that even remotely made me believe I was not listening to a recording. Granted, I record stuff that most people don't (sound effects) but I can surely say that the stuff I have recorded in the field at 96k is clearly superior and more lifelike compared to 48k. The depressing thing is that the films I work on tend to get reduced - soundwise to 5.1 mp3's

So I guess we should ask - Is the extra effort worth it?

charles maynes

Top
#442642 - 01/29/04 08:32 PM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
charles_maynes Offline
Member

Registered: 12/17/02
Posts: 10
Loc: Burbank,CA
Wow-

A very thoughtful thread-

I think it was mentioned a few times before, but I feel compelled to mention it again-

It seems that the thread is concentating on the empirical realities of A to D operation and the limits we tend to live with. But I have to say- that in many cases, the cheap 96k converters will sound better that even some "Professional" 44.1/48k convertors. I have listened to work I have done in ProTools with my old fashion 888/24 played through an HD192 system and was very impressed with the details in the sound that I was frankly was unaware of (this was a good sort of unaware!) this was straight ahead 48k recordings. I might add, it was not a subtle difference in quality. This was using the sync i/o also.

On the input side- It is exhaustively documented that there is plenty of sound beyond the reach of our ears. And I still frankly have not yet heard a recording of ANYTHING that even remotely made me believe I was not listening to a recording. Granted, I record stuff that most people don't (sound effects) but I can surely say that the stuff I have recorded in the field at 96k is clearly superior and more lifelike compared to 48k. The depressing thing is that the films I work on tend to get reduced - soundwise to 5.1 mp3's

So I guess we should ask - Is the extra effort worth it?

charles maynes

Top
#442643 - 02/12/04 12:06 AM Re: George, Watch this!!!....(96k)
drmad69 Offline
Member

Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 15
can someone explain why it is that plugins upsample to 96 or 192k when you feed them 44.1?

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