Oh no... here we go again. Last year we had a massive discussion about this. After 2 years of recording at 88k, I will NEVER record at anything less. I currently don't have the interface to record at 192k so I have not made the comparison. I do up to 26 tracks of 88k direct to disk. There IS a difference. Through the right equipment everyone I have played it for could hear the difference.

I can only listen to MP3s and even CDs when I am driving, etc. When I want to listen to MUSIC, it drives me nuts.

A High-res FREAK...
Prog_head

I believe 96kHz is the sweet spot for human hearing which includes 2nd and 3rd harmonics.

192kHz if your producing dog whistle audio or bat mating calls for National geographic.

Hold on one second Scott. 48kHz is THE standard spec for all video formats (DVD, miniDV, DVCPro etc etc). So a blanket statement about sample rates has to include all media. 44.1 has been the standard for CD Audio and it is defined in it's specification for manufacturers to produce gear that is compatible. There has not been any new standard set that I'm aware of. Processing signal and final product are two different conversations.

So, in essence, you may be correct in recording but not in delivery.

what are your thoughts?

ORIGINAL: prog_head

Absolutely not true. I can hear it and none of the guys, Lavry, Katz, etc make this claim. The problem lies in the filter that must applied to any digital audio and there is NO SUCH THING as a perfectly vertical brickwall filter. I believe that I read that Katz upsamples EVERYTHING not matter what the destination. There is even a difference when mastering...

I hear it everyday and have been through double-blind tests and so on.... I don't mind you having an opinion that the above is true, but stating it as fact when it is not is something that I have to challenge.

44.1 and 48 will both be dead as recording mediums in 5 years or less. At least by any professionals. In fact, that is why there is still so much analog still being used. 48k does not do music justice.

My two cents,
Scott

Wrong, there is no difference mathematically. The difference you hear is that some converters will sound better at certain sampling rates. Many will sound best at 96kHz (since that's the big buzz word), some will sound better at 44.1kHz or 48kHz. Please read some of the thread I posted above - it takes all the details and makes it easy to understand. Processing will also sound different at different sampling rates - sometimes better and sometimes worse. Let's also keep in mind that the reason for higher sampling rates is to attain higher frequencies (Nyquist's Theory). These frequencies are typically filtered out completely before they even reach your DAW or at least before they reach your DA converter. Look at you specs on your equipment - most all is 20Hz to 20kHz. This means filtering.

Your last statement is quite bold. It may be correct, but it will not be for sound quality, it will be from hype and marketing.

Hold on one second Scott. 48kHz is THE standard spec for all video formats

Yes, this is true. But only because people have thought that it was good enough. Once we move one step beyond DVDs (I am betting and hoping it is Blu Ray) we will easily have both the storage capacity and bandwidth to finally move beyond the crappy CD standard. Regardless of the arguments made by the naysayers, there is a huge difference and once we have the storage to be able to use better quality, we will. It is inevitable. HD video is way beyond SD. Some people may naysay that as well. It is obvious then that they have 1) never seen HDTV or 2) are blind. The same goes with HD Audio. It is so apparent once you get used to it it become difficult to listen to CDs. They sound muffled and dull.

My statement was mostly referring to recording. In 2 more years we will be doing the same number of 96k tracks as we can do 48k today. Who needs more than 50 tracks? Get real. They used 64 and more in analog and digital tape but mostly for overdubs which we can do much more intelligently with DAWs. As I said before, I record 26 tracks at 88.2k direct to disk. Rarely do I want for more. 14 for drums, 2 for guitar, 2 for keys, 2 for bass, 2 for sax. That still leaves 4 tracks free. Scratch vocals usually all go on one.

Again, my point is, I don't care about what this theory states, or that guy says. Listen. That is all that matters and there is a difference.

Deleted by the poster.

READ THE ****ING LINK I PROVIDED FOR A PRIMER ON WHY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ****!

My my my.... As with any musical pursuit, listening, LISTENING, is what matters. Also, one person's opinion does not make it truth.

ORIGINAL: prog_head

READ THE ****ING LINK I PROVIDED FOR A PRIMER ON WHY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS ****!

My my my.... As with any musical pursuit, listening, LISTENING, is what matters. Also, one person's opinion does not make it truth.

Greetings prog_head, (something I never imagined ever saying before)

Does this also apply to your own stated experiences? Does it also include your best live musical experiences over the years when the only 192kH device available was the "silent dog whistle" you could mailorder in the back of comic books? If you build it, they will come. More correctly, if you build it, and hype it enough, they will come and throw money at you all day long.

What strikes us most when we record and present our music, and who is our intended audience? Is it the mysterious "golden eared" people that can apparently discern the audible difference at frequencies well beyond the proven capacity of the human ear (yes, I am aware of second and third harmonics), or is it average people that play our music on a wide variety of devices? Do you feel that they are the majority of your audience when they buy or listen to your music? I certainly would not deny their existence, in fact I equate them with people I have met over the years that can pick up a cheap musical instrument and make magic with it, within reason. Or does it mainly depend on song/rhythm structure, delivery and stage presence (if playing live), hook, or countless other factors. What could the most successful and talented producers, musicians, and engineers in history do with this great new aural opportunity, I wonder? Probably nada without skill at the board, strong songs, musicianship, and all the other things that set them apart as being professionals.

I have a friend that works in a big-ticket hi-fi store, where they actually have speaker cables as big as your wrist, and sell for thousands of dollars for an 8-foot pair. I won't even mention the uber dollars you can drop when you start to look beyond the speaker cables. I have had the good fortune of trying many different kinds of music and media on some of these systems, and they do sound pretty good, but not tens of thousands of dollars more good. By the way, the people that own the store go home to much less expensive systems, and are more than happy. Once again, if you build it, they will come.

I certainly respect your opinions and experiences, and applaud your foresights into the future when mere mortal ears will be able to hear all these subtle nuances that make everything sound better, perceived or real. I still think that there is much more to it than technology itself, but, as you said above (see bolded quote.) Technology is wonderful, but there is also a good deal of BS involved in many circumstances. But, as you stated above ...

Best Regards

DTS DVD's sound much better than DD. That much I'll agree. BluRay may improve the DVD market, but ask yourself this. If DTS (or DTS ES) sounds so freekin great (and it is obviously better) WHY don't we have EVERY DVD pressed this way?

The new Gladiator set will NOT have DTS ES as the original did.

I have a buddy with those "golden ears" who swears by his $5K MIT speaker cables, personally I'd spend my money elsewhere.

I listen to over %90 of my music on my iPod which is running Apple's AAC (supposed to be "like" 192 vs 128 MP3) and I'm quite satisfied.

Still, we never quit striving for "bigger", "better" or "best" do we?

But what do I know? I'm still using a MOTU 2408 MK1!

ORIGINAL: jmarkham

well .. i started this whole messy thread.. and i've been working on some
projects being done in 192 .. and i swear i can't hear the
difference between 96 and 192 ... i think (just for
the heck of it) .. i'll do the similar experiment i did with PT vs.
Sonar .. but with tracks done at 44.1, 48, 88.2, 96 and 192 and
see if people can tell the difference once smooshed back
down to 44.1/16. Would be interesting i think .. i mean
we *should* be able to tell the difference if what the highenders
say is true.

jeff

The Test:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.asp?m=135176

Results:
http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=135110&mpage=2&key=&anchor

---

Two board members always (we've done this a couple times) seem be able to detect the difference:

Yes... Proghead (Scott)
and Akshara

The rest of us were guessing.

Would still like to try your test Jeff.

The rest of us were guessing.

I remember that... I guessed correctly

thanks steve,
well , if it's been done ... probably no use in repeating
it. i was disappointed that i couldn't get the .zip file of the
original test ... just wanted to see if i could hear the
difference.
jeff

Other than more is more .. is there any reason people record at
192 kHz? This seems like such total overkill I don't understand why ..
unless your target audience are bat populations....

jeff

Based on what I've been able to learn from this and other forums, for the majority of users/listeners its the quality of the converters (difference between E-Mu 1820M, M-Audio Audiophile 192 and Lynx 1, for example) that the crux of the tale depends. What say you, eh?

Try it if you ever have get the chance, you will be shocked.

Dude, I have done this. And no, I have not picked out the 44.1/48, ever. In fact, I have even been listening to a DVD-A disc that I naively assumed was 96k before even listening. I noticed right away that the cymbals were all mush like they are on all 44.1/48k recordings and sure enough... 48k. Man, there is a difference. It is the live vs. Memorex thing. Once you get used to it, it becomes very obvious. Some people on hear think I have super human hearing... I don't. The clarity and depth that you get from the high-res CANNOT be duplicated on a CD. I have done CD vs 96k and the CD just sounds like the speakers are covered by wet blankets. I used to be in your camp, until I heard it. Man, I immediately took back all of the stuff I ever said about analog recording, et al. You may want to continue believing these people (there are MANY experts, MANY more that agree with me) that say what they say. I use Apogee converters and I hear it instantly. Kind of a new heightened sense.

Beyond that, I don't care what anyone says, I hear a difference and I KNOW there is a difference. Through any of my converters (Tascam, MOTU, Apogee, M-Audio) I hear the same difference.

Enough said.

ORIGINAL: prog_head

CP, have you tried this one yet? It proves that mathematically all kinds of things are going on in the 88k that is not in the 44k. Really, it does.

I have not, I will try it. Also, make sure you're not mixing up processing at a given sampling rate vs recording at a given sampling rate.

To respond to your previous post I did say world class converters, as they are very accurate at any sampling rate (not true with most inexpensive and mid level converters). Many inexpensive converters (M-Audio, Tascam, RME, etc.) will sound better at higher sampling rates for that reason. Even mid level converters like Lucid, Apogee, etc. are hit and miss. I was talking about high end converters, where the converters have no compromises. I suppose you could identify which sampling rate was which if you can hear above 22kHz. I know two people that can. Keep in mind that all my arguments are for 22kHz and below, where nearly ALL inexpensive converters filter. Take a look at the specs on your Tascam and M-Audio converters - they usually filter at 20kHz or 22kHz, meaning there's no content above 22kHz. Same thing with most studio monitors - 20kHz.