dmmi

bitflipper

Its matter of opinion!

No, it's not. It's physics. Sample rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. Everyone has a right to an opinion, but that is not a license to just make sh*t up.

Nevertheless, I would be the last person in the world to want to dampen Freddie's enthusiasm. So pay no mind to naysayers like me and carry on, my friend. After all, with the economy like it is, disk drive manufacturers need all the help they can get!

.................................................
So lets look at the other side....

It'd be pretty hard to tell the difference despite the facts.....so save your money, conserve your resources and stay at 48 Hz/24 bit, this still sounds amazing, and will give more room to play within projects with the extra CPU reserve (64 bit OS or not)

physics can be used for the other side as well.....

So I say everyones right!

In the end, I think you are actually right!
I just say what I hear and feel, I can't prove anything! 
 
Regards
Freddie

 

Jose7822


dmmi,

Sorry to say it but the whole idea behind your post is flawed.

Higher bit depth does equal to higher resolution, but the same cannot be said about sample rate.

All you're doing by recording in high sample rates (as far as plain audio goes) is adding more frequencies.  For example, the difference between recording at 44.1KHz and 88.2KHz is that the latter will contain frequencies up to 44.1KHz, while the former only contains frequencies up to 22.05KHz.  This is known as the Nyquist Frequency.

Adding more dots (or samples to be more accurate) does NOT give you a better waveform (and this applies to real music not just sine waves).  Notice that when you compare video games to music, you do so with bit depth (which is fine).  But you also add Sample Rate into the equation and that is what's wrong.  Read about the Shannon-Nyquist Theorem and you'll see what I mean.  This is physics by the way.  It is FACT!


Take care!

Jose......I respect many of your posts.  You are very helpful and knowledgeable.

Having said that, I don't want to start a war.....so be kind.  Also, it appears as if I can help you for a change and enlighten you to some new possibilities/understanding.

so....I'm very sorry but you are wrong.  Note that the video game comparison is an elementary analogy to try to get a point across (plus I don't really know much about video sampling rates).....I guess it's easy for us to not dispute vision compared to sound.

Anyway....Sample rate is samples per second, so 44.1 KHz = 44100 samples/second.  So the analog to digital conversion process can simply be described in samples and resolution.  Basically the sample rate = how often and the resolution = where on the grid.  To compare with drastic measures lets say the sample rate was only 10 Hz.....you would then only be taking a sample 10 times a second, if you then zoomed in (not to far in this case) the waveform would be very "blocky" because the sampled waveform would have changed drastically since the last sample.

Try it on any of your projects with an audio waveform......you can most definitely zoom in far enough to see the individual samples.

I hope this helps....and keep in mind that I'm trying to explain in the simplest way possible so others can relate as well.  That said, please don't take this simplicity as an insult......I know of your knowledge.

Freddie H


Wiz! You're welcome my friend! =)


Regards
Freddie

Well, I checked them all out....8)

we may disagree technically, but there is no doubt, you are a talented fellow...

kudos..

Cheers

Wiz

I completely agree with the range of human hearing....Matson and Jose.

It's just the sampling rate doesn't have anything to do with the "cap" of frequencies......

It's simply the x- axis of the sampling process.

dmmi,

Thanks for the kind words.  I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking you or anything.  Just trying to correct what you've stated.

Again, the notion that having more dots or samples to represent a waveform is flawed as long as you capture twice the highest frequency desired.  The blocky waveforms we see in our DAWs are not the actual representation of them because that's not how the waveforms are represented in the real world.  When I say real world in this case, I mean what comes out of your speakers after the DAC.  You have to remember that there is an Interpolation process that reconstructs the waveform exactly as it was captured, and doesn't look anything like that blocky waveform you see in your DAW.

More samples doesn't mean that the waveform will be smoother.  It just means that you have more data to represent the same thing.  Going back to the example I gave you earlier, if you take a waveform recorded at 44.1KHz and the same exact waveform recorded at 88.2KHz, both waveforms should have the same data up to the Nyquist Frequency of the lower sample rate.  IOW, they will be identical up to 22.05KHz.  The difference will be in the extra high frequencies that were captured in the 88.2KHz waveform.  So basically, you're just capturing ultra high frequencies by recordin above 44.1KHz or 48KHz.  These are frequencies that we do not hear because of our hearing limitations.  You're lucky if you can hear anything above 19KHz.  By the way, have you heard what 19KHz and above sounds like?  It's not very pleasant if you ask me.


HTH :-)

 
EDIT:  That phrase came out wrong.  But hopefully, the example I gave afterwards makes that clear.
 
 
 

I have no problem with that people disagree with me. It is as it should be otherwise what's the point discussing it, if everyone think exactly the same, right!

I have kept quite on this thread because most of my friends are here and I really don't want to show any preference. However  truth is truth fact is fact and the problem is it would be cowardly of me not to interject my view here. You all know I have been outspoken on this subject in the past and I have stated that higher sample rates are nice but completely unnecessary. I stand by that for all the reasons posted here by Bitflipper and by Jeff. Fortunately they state the case better then I can. Therefore I will not add anything here except to say it pains me to see a friend on the wrong side of this. I do know that any change done with the expectation of an improvement often can seem to be an improvement even when it really is no different. Ask yourselves how many times you have been in the process of mixing and do some change or add another plugin and think wow that is it. Only to come back some time later and wonder what was I thinking. Much of this is due to us all being human and subject to perception and all the problems that that word creates. 

We are all fallible. It is really important for all of us to listen to those that argue from a factual standpoint.  We also need to rid ourselves of what so many rely on and it is the "f" word "feelings" about a subject. It may sound good it may even have a little logic behind it but if it ain't true it wont work out.

To me high sample rates are like the phrase 110%. There is no such thing but we use it all the time. Just looking at the idea of say 96 kHz as a sample rate intuitively without any further investigation seems to be the ideal sample rate. But time after time the truth is what ever benefit it may offer is way beyond anything humans can hear.  Again we tend as humans to add our own "value added" to something even if it can't be for us any better. We use terms of its "clearer" or "more air" or it "feels" better. Try testing for any of those terms. They really mean nothing even though we use them all the time. In this regard its a lot like all the wonderful people that still love a pure analog world. They would never dream of playing anything other then a vinyl record and have strong belief that they are blessed with that goal of all who profess this of having special abilities known as "golden ears". 

Interesting side note. I have never noticed any difference in the "quality" of the sound coming out of my system with Sonar's 64 bit or 32 bit audio engine. Don't get me wrong here I use the 64 bit audio engine only because I can not because I am in anyway worried about the quality of the resulting audio.

 

Optic cables! Light, no need of gold cables there either, right. 

I still use Adat-Tos-link-cables in good quality in gold, anyway! Funny it does sounds better too, because I did a blind test.

http://www.profigold.co.uk/en/home/


--->adat 1-2, 3-4 gold; 5-6, 7-8 standard tos link cables from RME! You did hear different! And swith around again so 1-2,  3-4 *standard cable and 5-6, 7-8 gold! Same again i heard the different! Other people in the studio heard the different too even if they didn't knew what was what...




Regards
Freddie

Jose7822


dmmi,

You're lucky if you can hear anything above 19KHz.  By the way, have you heard what 19KHz and above sounds like?  It's not very pleasant if you ask me.


HTH :-)

BTW- as an aside - MOST adults, including most people here, won't be able to hear anything above  16 K - maybe 17K if loud enough. Those who can hear above that are either very young or very few and far between.

John

I have no problem with that people disagree with me. It is as it should be otherwise what's the point discussing it, if everyone think exactly the same, right!

I have kept quite on this thread because most of my friends are here and I really don't want to show any preference. However  truth is truth fact is fact and the problem is it would be cowardly of me not to interject my view here. You all know I have been outspoken on this subject in the past and I have stated that higher sample rates are nice but completely unnecessary. I stand by that for all the reasons posted here by Bitflipper and by Jeff. Fortunately they state the case better then I can. Therefore I will not add anything here except to say it pains me to see a friend on the wrong side of this. I do know that any change done with the expectation of an improvement often can seem to be an improvement even when it really is no different. Ask yourselves how many times you have been in the process of mixing and do some change or add another plugin and think wow that is it. Only to come back some time later and wonder what was I thinking. Much of this is due to us all being human and subject to perception and all the problems that that word creates. 

We are all fallible. It is really important for all of us to listen to those that argue from a factual standpoint.  We also need to rid ourselves of what so many rely on and it is the "f" word "feelings" about a subject. It may sound good it may even have a little logic behind it but if it ain't true it wont work out.

To me high sample rates are like the phrase 110%. There is no such thing but we use it all the time. Just looking at the idea of say 96 kHz as a sample rate intuitively without any further investigation seems to be the ideal sample rate. But time after time the truth is what ever benefit it may offer is way beyond anything humans can hear.  Again we tend as humans to add our own "value added" to something even if it can't be for us any better. We use terms of its "clearer" or "more air" or it "feels" better. Try testing for any of those terms. They really mean nothing even though we use them all the time. In this regard its a lot like all the wonderful people that still love a pure analog world. They would never dream of playing anything other then a vinyl record and have strong belief that they are blessed with that goal of all who profess this of having special abilities known as "golden ears". 

Interesting side note. I have never noticed any difference in the "quality" of the sound coming out of my system with Sonar's 64 bit or 32 bit audio engine. Don't get me wrong here I use the 64 bit audio engine only because I can not because I am in anyway worried about the quality of the resulting audio.

You are so right, John my friend! Agree 100 % with you on that!
I have no problem with friends disagree with me at all, just so everyone knows! We just discussing and I like that, that's just fun. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; if I'm right, I'm right, I have no problem admit if I'm wrong... no problem...as long we don't call "names" I think that's cool!
 
 
Best Regards
Freddie

Jose7822

MatsonMusicBox

Jose7822


dmmi,

You're lucky if you can hear anything above 19KHz.  By the way, have you heard what 19KHz and above sounds like?  It's not very pleasant if you ask me.


HTH :-)

BTW- as an aside - MOST adults, including most people here, won't be able to hear anything above  16 K - maybe 17K if loud enough. Those who can hear above that are either very young or very few and far between.

Well, there you go.  I did a hearing test a few years ago and got up to 19KHz (but it was very faint).  18KHz was loud and clear though.
 
Again, it was not a pleasant sound (though we're talking about sinewaves here).
 
 
Take care!
 
 

Of course - it varies by individual and by things such as race, gender, etc. statistically. It also diminishes over time. I've no idea of your age, but if it was "years ago" - it is probably lower than that now. Also depends on volume. It's not a strict line, but more like a medium-steep low-pass filter - if you turn it up high enough - you can hear it, but at normal volume, you can't.

Fun (or sad) to try in Wavelab (or any tool) which can generate specific frequency waves. It's freaky to see the db meter showing 90 and hear nothing! I think I made it to about 17.5/18 a couple months ago when I tried it.

Be careful folks ... it might burst your bubble about how good you think your ears are!

rhythminmind

Freddie H


Optic cables! Light, no need of gold cables there either, right. 

I still use Adat-Tos-link-cables in good quality in gold, anyway! Funny it does sounds better too, because I did a blind test.

http://www.profigold.co.uk/en/home/


--->adat 1-2, 3-4 gold; 5-6, 7-8 standard tos link cables from RME! You did hear different! And swith around again so 1-2,  3-4 *standard cable and 5-6, 7-8 gold! Same again i heard the different!

Other people in the studio heard the dfiffernt too even if they didn't knew what was what...




Regards
Freddie

Your not serious are you?
If so please do this forum/new members/& new musicians a favor & stop posting false information.

 
 
You are 100 % right, it can't and it shouldn't be any differnet, impossible I know...
I don't know if it just my TOS cables but it is? What can I say?
psychologic effect?   
http://www.profigold.com/en/products/oxypure/?page_id=245
  
 
Regards
Freddie

Hey Matson,

It was just two years ago.  I don't remember what I used for sine waves, but I was listening through my headphones (touted to go up to 80KHz) using the FF400.  I might try to do it again, but I just know that 18KHz was very distinctive for me.  19KHz was very soft in volume, perhaps due to the very steep lowpass filter we have (just assuming here).  By the way, I'm currently 31 yo.


Take care!

rhythminmind

Freddie H

rhythminmind

Freddie H


Optic cables! Light, no need of gold cables there either, right. 

I still use Adat-Tos-link-cables in good quality in gold, anyway! Funny it does sounds better too, because I did a blind test.

http://www.profigold.co.uk/en/home/


--->adat 1-2, 3-4 gold; 5-6, 7-8 standard tos link cables from RME! You did hear different! And swith around again so 1-2,  3-4 *standard cable and 5-6, 7-8 gold! Same again i heard the different!

Other people in the studio heard the dfiffernt too even if they didn't knew what was what...




Regards
Freddie

Your not serious are you?
If so please do this forum/new members/& new musicians a favor & stop posting false information.

You are 100 % right, it can't and it shouldn't be any differnet, impossible I know...
I don't know if it just my TOS cables but it is? What can I say?
psychologic effect?    

Regards
Freddie

Give your belief in "audio magic" a reality check & record the outputs of both adat ports phase cancel the tracks.

Yes, my friend and I bet its the same sound = no sound!
 
 
Best Regards
Freddie

John

You are so right, John my friend! Agree 100 % with you on that! I have no problem with friends disagree with me at all, just so everyone knows! We just discussing and I like that, that's just fun. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong; if I'm right, I'm right, I have no problem admit if I'm wrong... no problem...as long we don't call "names" I think that's cool!

I know and that is what makes you a great member on this forum and a very good friend. I wish a little of you could rub off on a lot of others. Me included.LOL

You are so kind John!
I like you too. The same to you my friend, you are one of the BEST Members of Cakewalk too!
 
Best Regards
Freddie

thanks john that you didnt even mention me - since i started the disussion about freddies imaginary soundleap and i actually (on a lower technical level) was exactly exposing what those other guys you mentioned did...
and i thought i also was one of those froends of yours here ;-)
c´mooon