dubdisciple
Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5849
- Joined: 2008/01/29 00:31:46
- Location: Seattle, Wa
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 15:56:48
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby John T 2014/01/21 19:38:15
Goddard
You were free to question or dispute anything I had asserted. But that's apparently not your style.
Um, so where exactly did I insult, implicitly or explicitly, anyone who'd disagreed with what I'd posted?
If you are incapable of seeing it the first time around, I doubt you will see or acknowledge it this time. me pointing it out will likely just lead to circles of denial, wasting both of our times. I know they like to do stuff like that on gearslutz, but I'll pass. If you don't see it...shrug. For me it was never about disputing or questioning anything you said. Honestly, i don't know who is right. I have just always been skeptical of those who seem so dead set on being right. Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it that determines how well you are heard.
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 15:56:53
(permalink)
Lookit... there are some of us who simply don't need those ultra high sample rates and really have no business using them but get confused looking at fancy specs and marketing crap implying "MORE IS MORE" when in reality it isn't.
I think THAT was the point of the article and whom it was written for and very likely the reason Noel posted it in the first place.
I'm the last person to poo poo academia because that is a startling trend occurring more and more in modern society by those who either fear it or have an agenda at keeping people uneducated HOWEVER there comes a time when us not so academic folks need things dumbed down for us a bit so we can apply all this wonderful work to our own lives. That is kind of the point of scientific endeavor is it not? To enrich humanity as a whole?
I feel I walked away with some useful knowledge from this posting. I'll leave the finer points to the scientists.
Also the author did go well out of his way to say some of the things he was discussing were subjective, others were still being debated (and will likely continue to be debated) and some things are still unknown. There was very little pretense and at every turn he encouraged the reader to come to their own conclusions and do what is right for their own needs.
Just sayin'.
|
dubdisciple
Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5849
- Joined: 2008/01/29 00:31:46
- Location: Seattle, Wa
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 16:00:14
(permalink)
anyway, it has all died down now anyway. i got use out of the article, flaws and all. I doubt we are going to walk out of this thread holding hands and singing kumbaya, so I'll just leave it alone.. Have an awesome day
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 16:00:21
(permalink)
We all have our moments... and tone comes across pretty well even in text. Just please bear in mind that 1) there is a massive audience and 2) many users want to walk away with an understanding of how things work and, more importantly, how they can apply it. There were a lot of "golden nuggets" dropped in this thread, but is a bit hard to find them.
John T made a great point (butchered paraphrase here, sorry) that, as users, we really need to lay some trust that the engineers making the pieces parts did their job correctly (adequately)... our focus as operators is to know what is the best tool for the job.
That said, I respect the inputs of everyone in this forum and am thankful for what folks bring to the table. I do not have to "agree" with everything, nor does everyone have to agree with me... in fact, when I am wrong, being corrected is the best way for me to learn.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 16:02:07
(permalink)
mettelus
That said, I respect the inputs of everyone in this forum and am thankful for what folks bring to the table.
How DARE you!!! *fisticuffs* ;-p
|
mettelus
Max Output Level: -22 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5321
- Joined: 2005/08/05 03:19:25
- Location: Maryland, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 16:03:57
(permalink)
LOL... it is true... but I will still fight 
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC), i7-8700k, 16GB RAM, GTX-1070Ti, Win 10 Pro, Saffire PRO 24 DSP, A-300 PRO, plus numerous gadgets and gizmos that make or manipulate sound in some way.
|
Goddard
Max Output Level: -84 dBFS
- Total Posts : 338
- Joined: 2012/07/21 11:39:11
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 16:52:45
(permalink)
Just in case anyone wonders where I (and this forum) actually come from, I'd recommend to take the time to browse the old cakewalk.audio newsgroup thread from 1998 about 96k sampling (which I'd linked to in post #38): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/cakewalk.audio/sKdF8ZHvlJc/jLbRbsNd75QJ where it can be seen that most, if not all, the stuff in that "Science of..." blog and which has been raised and debated in this forum thread was already being argued about in the newsgroup back then, when PCs were woefully less powerful than today and 96k sampling was just becoming possible. Plus, a lot more, including very serious discussion and knowledgeable viewpoints being expressed and even some cussing too. Just in case anyone here might care about living up to their heritage...
|
Grem
Max Output Level: -19.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5562
- Joined: 2005/06/28 09:26:32
- Location: Baton Rouge Area
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 18:00:36
(permalink)
OMG Goddard! I remember that stuff!!! Where did you find that?!!! I got to looking around. Wow have we come a long way!
Grem
Michael Music PC i7 2600K; 64gb Ram; 3 256gb SSD, System, Samples, Audio; 1TB & 2TB Project Storage; 2TB system BkUp; RME FireFace 400; Win 10 Pro 64; CWbBL 64, Home PCAMD FX 6300; 8gb Ram; 256 SSD sys; 2TB audio/samples; Realtek WASAPI; Win 10 Home 64; CWbBL 64 Surface Pro 3Win 10 i7 8gb RAM; CWbBL 64
|
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
Cakewalk Staff
- Total Posts : 6475
- Joined: 2003/11/03 17:22:50
- Location: Boston, MA, USA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 18:05:24
(permalink)
In all 3 of the cases I listed depending on the corresponding render bit depth setting in preferences. By default however SONAR only creates float files when doing bounces or freezes since the render bit depth is set to float. Goddard
Noel Borthwick [Cakewalk]
The storage format on disk is always standard WAV file format (WAVE_FORMAT_PCM or WAVE_FORMAT_IEEE_FLOAT, WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE in some cases). The bit depth is determined as follows:
1. Bit depth for recorded project audio data is determined by the record bit depth setting in preferences.
2. Bit depth for imported project audio data is determined by the import bit depth setting in preferences.
3. Bit depth for internally rendered (bounce, freeze, etc) project audio data is determined by the render bit depth setting.
Typically a SONAR project will contain multiple bit depth audio depending on the data it was created with and the intermediate bounce operations performed. The different bit depths are all converted to 32 or 64 bit float at playback time depending on the double precision mix engine setting.
Ah, I see. That's precisely what I was curious to know. In what cases would float format WAV file storage be done?
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 19:27:33
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby jb101 2014/01/21 19:37:12
Beepster
Thanks for the confirmation on that. I guess at that point the only way to possibly resolve the theoretical issues is through quantum computing (which is like... wow man) and optic circuitry where light is used instead of electric current which although electricity technically moves at light speed is slowed down by the resistance of the conductive material.
Hmm. Interesting line of thought. Off the top of my head, I suspect you couldn't solve it with light based computing, because you'd still be at the mercy of a conversion step, and that's where all the problems discussed really arise from; the conversion step. For example, the filter problem; that only matters in the analogue domain. We can make incredible digital filters. But unfortunately, we need to do the filtering before we go digital, as the Nyquist theorem shows. Beepster
For our humble sacks of mostly water trying to make pleasant sounding noise though really... it looks like we've gone WAY beyond what we actually need. In a very short time at that.
That, I'm certain is the case. If we want to make good sounding records, we're far better off focussing on rooms, mics, technique, and musicianship (whether technically flash or just instinctively cool-sounding). In terms of the back end of pres, convertors, summing, and what have you, this stuff even at prosumer level now is way better than it will ever need to be. And that's what always strikes me most about these arguments. Anyone obsessing over sample rate is looking in pretty much exactly the wrong place.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 19:29:35
(permalink)
Goddard
Just in case anyone wonders where I (and this forum) actually come from, I'd recommend to take the time to browse the old cakewalk.audio newsgroup thread from 1998 about 96k sampling (which I'd linked to in post #38):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/cakewalk.audio/sKdF8ZHvlJc/jLbRbsNd75QJ
where it can be seen that most, if not all, the stuff in that "Science of..." blog and which has been raised and debated in this forum thread was already being argued about in the newsgroup back then, when PCs were woefully less powerful than today and 96k sampling was just becoming possible. Plus, a lot more, including very serious discussion and knowledgeable viewpoints being expressed and even some cussing too.
Just in case anyone here might care about living up to their heritage...
You've raised this twice now, that it's an old discussion. Which indeed it is. To which I have to ask: "And?" So it's an old discussion. Your point?
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 19:35:03
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby jb101 2014/01/21 19:36:44
Goddard
And "pretentious knowledge posturing". Is that anything like a recording "engineer" who facetiously entitles his blog "Trust Me I'm A Scientist" This has become a bizarre and tiresome thing for you to keep kvetching about. The "facetious" there, as you know, comes from his own website logo, in which he's clearly pointing out the joke himself. He's not a scientist, and you can't trust him on that basis. That's his joke. If that's a bit too subtle, what with being clearly a joke, and clearly IN THE LOGO OF THE WEBSITE, he goes to great pains throughout the article, to repeatedly say that he's all for people taking a different view and disagreeing with him and exploring the topic further. Jeez, I bet you're such fun at parties, Goddard.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
jb101
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2011/12/04 05:26:10
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 19:35:57
(permalink)
John T
If we want to make good sounding records, we're far better off focussing on rooms, mics, technique, and musicianship (whether technically flash or just instinctively cool-sounding).
In terms of the back end of pres, convertors, summing, and what have you, this stuff even at prosumer level now is way better than it will ever need to be
And that's what always strikes me most about these arguments. Anyone obsessing over sample rate is looking in pretty much exactly the wrong place.
That's my Quote of the Week. Thanks, John T. I've kept out of this thread pretty much thus far, but this post is excellent.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 20:03:17
(permalink)
I have already made the point about the importance of all this. Not much really! The great news is once upon a time when these things were being developed yes a lot of interest was shown at the time and I am glad it was too but the fact is now that all this stuff under the hood and behind the scenes is just so good now one does not need to concern themselves with it all.
The whole idea is now regain our focus on songs/compositions, delivery, performance all way important stuff before anything that happens even after this point eg mics, preamps, converters etc.. And if you have got all that music stuff happening then you can actually use a 32 bit system and record in 16 bit 44.1K even to do it all and the end result will still be great. It will always be great and win everytime.
And that's what always strikes me most about these arguments. Anyone obsessing over sample rate is looking in pretty much exactly the wrong place..........Well said John T
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 21:14:18
(permalink)
I'd only quibble with one thing there, Jeff, and it's this: I think mics can be quite decisive. You don't need the most expensive mics, but you do need to choose carefully. And while budget mics are currently better than they've ever been, there's still a ground floor, quality wise, beneath which it's inadvisable to fall.
post edited by John T - 2014/01/21 21:25:41
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/21 23:04:56
(permalink)
jb101
John T
If we want to make good sounding records, we're far better off focussing on rooms, mics, technique, and musicianship (whether technically flash or just instinctively cool-sounding).
In terms of the back end of pres, convertors, summing, and what have you, this stuff even at prosumer level now is way better than it will ever need to be
And that's what always strikes me most about these arguments. Anyone obsessing over sample rate is looking in pretty much exactly the wrong place.
That's my Quote of the Week.
Thanks, John T. I've kept out of this thread pretty much thus far, but this post is excellent.
To me it's obvious. I'd rather record a really good drummer playing a really good kit through really good mics in a good room on a cheap soundblaster, than record anything at all on bad instruments through bad mics on a $2000 192k interface*. I'm not even joking. Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy was recorded on gear that had an effective bit depth of about 12 bits maximum (probably closer to 9 or ten), and an effective frequency response that starts to tail off sharply at about 16k. And apart from some inevitable hiss, it sounds amazing. Anyone who records at 192k is more than welcome to play me their record that sounds more pristine and hi fidelity than The Rain Song, when they get round to it. Meantime, many people have beaten even that incredibly high bar recording at 44.1. I like a UK band called Elbow. All live instruments, mostly done in a a fairly scruffy, but sonically agreeable room a few miles from where I live. Sometimes they go somewhere fancy for overdubs of choirs and brass and so on, but mostly happens in this scrappy room. Keyboard player engineers it all. Doesn't even have a console, all straight into - and mixed in - Logic. Their stuff sounds likes it's carved out of diamonds. The distinction is not sample rate. * for the record, I have a v700 IO in front of me, which did cost $2000, and has a knob on it I can reach out and turn to 192k. Which I don't bother to. So this isn't "people with the gear that can" vs "people with the gear that can't". I can 192 any time I want to. I know it gains me nothing, I've checked.** ** Yeah, yeah, I've not got your magic ears or whatever. Sure.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 00:04:55
(permalink)
Some of the forum wisdom I've collected over the years (names redacted to protect the guilty, but none of these are made up):
"48kHz 32bit floating and above sounds always better. That is why we majority professional use it."
- {a once-frequent CW forum contributor}
"Since i know more than most here about this sampling rate / bit Resolution vs Quality improvement thing i thought i jump in...id say roughly going from 24/96 to 24/192 is a 5% improvement while going to 32/192 is like 20-25% improvement."
- {a Gearslutz forum contributor}
"Dan Lavry and Ethan Whiner do not record for a living...how would they know how an external clock affects a recording rig?"
- {another helpful Gearsluts contributor}
"Turntablism was a huge step forward along with digital sampling."
- {a much-abused vendor representative, on this forum}
"Do you like movies about gladiators?"
- {a departed Cakewalk employee, quoting Airplane!}
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
ston
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 965
- Joined: 2008/03/04 12:28:40
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 08:05:25
(permalink)
ampfixer
I guess the Cliff notes for that article would read something like "44.1 or 48k is just fine for most things".
26KHz would be fine for me :-D
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 09:09:18
(permalink)
Goddard
Just in case anyone wonders where I (and this forum) actually come from, I'd recommend to take the time to browse the old cakewalk.audio newsgroup thread from 1998 about 96k sampling (which I'd linked to in post #38):
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/cakewalk.audio/sKdF8ZHvlJc/jLbRbsNd75QJ
where it can be seen that most, if not all, the stuff in that "Science of..." blog and which has been raised and debated in this forum thread was already being argued about in the newsgroup back then, when PCs were woefully less powerful than today and 96k sampling was just becoming possible. Plus, a lot more, including very serious discussion and knowledgeable viewpoints being expressed and even some cussing too.
Just in case anyone here might care about living up to their heritage...
Those were the days! :-)
|
robert_e_bone
Moderator
- Total Posts : 8968
- Joined: 2007/12/26 22:09:28
- Location: Palatine, IL
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 11:47:06
(permalink)
Wait - I thought THESE were the good old days. Carly Simon said so.
Bob Bone
Wisdom is a giant accumulation of "DOH!" Sonar: Platinum (x64), X3 (x64) Audio Interfaces: AudioBox 1818VSL, Steinberg UR-22 Computers: 1) i7-2600 k, 32 GB RAM, Windows 8.1 Pro x64 & 2) AMD A-10 7850 32 GB RAM Windows 10 Pro x64 Soft Synths: NI Komplete 8 Ultimate, Arturia V Collection, many others MIDI Controllers: M-Audio Axiom Pro 61, Keystation 88es Settings: 24-Bit, Sample Rate 48k, ASIO Buffer Size 128, Total Round Trip Latency 9.7 ms
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 22:17:10
(permalink)
Wow... between the NTTP link and Bit's quotes, this is some cross-generational flashback thread! Oh, and there's some interesting discussions too.
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 22:24:12
(permalink)
Where, where?
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 22:29:00
(permalink)
C'mon, John, you don't find quantum based sampling rates interesting? 
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 22:43:34
(permalink)
|
stevec
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 11546
- Joined: 2003/11/04 15:05:54
- Location: Parkesburg, PA
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 22:56:07
(permalink)
Of course, the results of inter-sample distortion at the quantum level are completely unknown, but suffice to say that the fermions are likely to argue with the bosons on this very forum at all hours of the night. Just sayin. 
SteveC https://soundcloud.com/steve-cocchi http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=39163 SONAR Platinum x64, Intel Q9300 (2.5Ghz), Asus P5N-D, Win7 x64 SP1, 8GB RAM, 1TB internal + ESATA + USB Backup HDDs, ATI Radeon HD5450 1GB RAM + dual ViewSonic VA2431wm Monitors; Focusrite 18i6 (ASIO); Komplete 9, Melodyne Studio 4, Ozone 7 Advanced, Rapture Pro, GPO5, Valhalla Plate, MJUC comp, MDynamic EQ, lots of other freebie VST plugins, synths and Kontakt libraries
|
John T
Max Output Level: -7.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 6783
- Joined: 2006/06/12 10:24:39
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/22 23:00:07
(permalink)
QUANTUM DISTORTION. It's a whole new thing to pointlessly fret and argue about.
Look man, I know it nulls, but I've got quantum ears, and I'm telling you, Bitwig has warmer quanta than Sonar. Sonar has really frosty quanta.
http://johntatlockaudio.com/Self-build PC // 16GB RAM // i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz // Nofan 0dB cooler // ASUS P8-Z77 V Pro motherboard // Intel x-25m SSD System Drive // Seagate RAID Array Audio Drive // Windows 10 64 bit // Sonar Platinum (64 bit) // Sonar VS-700 // M-Audio Keystation Pro 88 // KRK RP-6 Monitors // and a bunch of other stuff
|
mudgel
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 12010
- Joined: 2004/08/13 00:56:05
- Location: Linton Victoria (Near Ballarat)
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/23 00:16:52
(permalink)
All I can say about this whole thread is;
"Here I am, brain as big as a planet....."
Mike V. (MUDGEL) STUDIO: Win 10 Pro x64, SPlat & CbB x64, PC: ASUS Z370-A, INTEL i7 8700k, 32GIG DDR4 2400, OC 4.7Ghz. Storage: 7 TB SATA III, 750GiG SSD & Samsung 500 Gig 960 EVO NVMe M.2. Monitors: Adam A7X, JBL 10” Sub. Audio I/O & DSP Server: DIGIGRID IOS & IOX. Screen: Raven MTi + 43" HD 4K TV Monitor. Keyboard Controller: Native Instruments Komplete Kontrol S88.
|
jb101
Max Output Level: -46 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2946
- Joined: 2011/12/04 05:26:10
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/23 04:20:26
(permalink)
I want Quantum Ears, like John T..
Or pointy ears, like Spock.
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/23 06:12:00
(permalink)
mudgel
All I can say about this whole thread is;
"Here I am, brain as big as a planet....."
 ???
|
Beepster
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18001
- Joined: 2012/05/11 19:11:24
- Status: offline
Re: The science of sample rates
2014/01/23 06:18:08
(permalink)
Ah... getting poisoned by sci fi cross referencing itself... Old School... New school (which was butchered IMO)... /nerd
|