The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 20:17:01
(permalink)
I primarily prefer working in 30P because we still rely on 60i monitors for trustworthy color decisions. We use LCD monitors for convienience and easy framing confirmation etc but leave color decisions to the production monitors we have trusted for years.
24P monitoring previews from many video cameras have weird issues during recording... the Varicam for example has an enhanced strobiscopic effect when panning... it's not 60i and it's not 24P... it's Varicam monitoring.
Also many of these 24P cameras have noticable latency on the audio monitoring... and thats on the EE setting not the playback head (which always has some latency while tracking). It's no fun monitoring with that latency all day long :-(.
all the best,
mike
|
prog_head
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 411
- Joined: 2003/11/07 01:36:14
- Location: Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 20:47:23
(permalink)
Well, I am here, as usual, to say that recording at 88.2kHz (I use this most) or 96kHz is TOTALLY worth it. 192kHz? I have tried in the past but my system was never too happy with more than a few tracks recorded at a time. Since I record 32 tracks at a time that is a problem. I have found 88.2 to be completely worth the processing overhead. The clarity and depth that you gain comes out in the end. There will be many people that will argue with me (there always are) but there is a difference and it is audible even on lesser gear. Now, the quality of converter you use makes as much difference. I use a Lynx Aurora and an Apogee Rosetta 800. They also make all the difference in the world. Light years beyond MOTU, Presonus, Tascam, etc... RME? I have not tried them so I cannot comment.
Enjoy the HD experience... I won't ever go back.
|
Kir
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18
- Joined: 2006/01/19 14:15:49
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 21:18:47
(permalink)
Now, the quality of converter you use makes as much difference. I use a Lynx Aurora and an Apogee Rosetta 800. They also make all the difference in the world. Light years beyond MOTU, Presonus, Tascam, etc... RME? I have not tried them so I cannot comment. Prog-Head........ man that is expensive gear......about $2500 or so I think...... both those are 192hz capable but you still use 88 or 96......very cool....thanks man.....thats what I was looking for....someone who has the gear and is using it..........I'll pay the high price if i have to...to get the sound I want.........anything else?...........what else is in your chain?
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 21:28:21
(permalink)
Kir, Most of the people here have the gear to record at 192KHz and choose not to. That's what they've been trying to tell you all along. Recording at 192KHz is like making music for aliens or something. As you know, the human ear can only go as high as ~20KHz (and that's a young and well preserved ear by the way). When you record at 192KHz you are capturing sounds at up to 96KHz--Do you see what we mean now? On top of this, you'll end up burning your songs to CD which has a 44.1KHz/16bit quality or worse to MP3. It's like recording in HD quality to end up in Youtube quality. Now does it make sense?  If you're doing acoustic material then 96KHz is way more than you or anyone for that matter needs. Take care!
post edited by Jose7822 - 2007/08/24 21:37:29
|
CJaysMusic
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 30423
- Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
- Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 21:31:03
(permalink)
Thats was put beautifuly and its very true..
Cj
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 21:31:58
(permalink)
"It's like recording in HD quality to end up in Youtube quality"
Darn Jose, you just described the Television industry. :-)
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 22:02:11
(permalink)
Thanks guys! Well, hopefully he can relate to that. We'll see.
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/24 22:18:12
(permalink)
there is a difference and it is audible even on lesser gear Actually, it is MOST audible on lesser gear. That's exactly the point: if you can hear a difference, it's a reflection of the poor quality of your converter, not an inherent advantage to higher sample rates.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
prog_head
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 411
- Joined: 2003/11/07 01:36:14
- Location: Colorado
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 01:39:04
(permalink)
Kir,
Be careful to take everyone's opinion, I guess even including my own. Listen for yourself. There are many people that say that 88.1/96 can't even make a difference. To me, that is like saying that there is no difference between a cassette 1/8 inch tape at 1-7/8 ips recording and 2 inch tape at 15ips as long as the end result is casette... well, we can be thankful that no one ever thought that in the past or all music recorded in the 80's would be worthless. Is 192k too detailed and worthless because it eats memory so fast? is 30ips no good because it eats tape too fast? We all have to make a choice.
One thing that I do know. SACD and DVD-A are far superior to CDs. They don't have the brittleness that CDs do. The depth is back. The detail is back. For people who choose to argue or dispute this, that is fine. Keep recording on your 'cassette recorders'... :) -- I even have one I could sell you!
I apologize if this sounds arrogant. I just get tired of the argument.
|
Mirrodin
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2007/08/22 00:34:35
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 02:27:43
(permalink)
Time2go, your advice mentioned way up towards the top with a couple others is definitely right on the ball. I'm not going to tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, but the recording industry has fallen prey to a lot of ideals both educated and not. Nowadays people who can afford it go for it, sometimes it's for flash or glamor or simply sometimes bragging rights. Granted companies that make the products always boast what they can do with their products, but that's how they get their products to sell. I'd say when it comes to digital stuff and sampling, follow the Nyquist theory. If we stay true to our ears, to the furthest extent the range of human hearing is in the ball park range of 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz or 20 kHz. Most musical content is usually limited to the frequencies below 10 kHz, so really by using a sampling frequency of 44.1 that's over double the frequency of human hearing, we are able to capture all the sonic elements the human ears can perceive. The rest of those frequencies are out of the range of human hearing, and while some claim they can hear differences between sampling rates, it's most likely to do from the dither noise used in AD conversion affecting the harmonic frequency content in the audible range, and psychoacoustics, not to mention most speakers can't actually reproduce 20 kHz.
|
Mirrodin
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2007/08/22 00:34:35
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 02:31:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: prog_head
Kir,
Be careful to take everyone's opinion, I guess even including my own. Listen for yourself. There are many people that say that 88.1/96 can't even make a difference. To me, that is like saying that there is no difference between a cassette 1/8 inch tape at 1-7/8 ips recording and 2 inch tape at 15ips as long as the end result is casette... well, we can be thankful that no one ever thought that in the past or all music recorded in the 80's would be worthless. Is 192k too detailed and worthless because it eats memory so fast? is 30ips no good because it eats tape too fast? We all have to make a choice.
One thing that I do know. SACD and DVD-A are far superior to CDs. They don't have the brittleness that CDs do. The depth is back. The detail is back. For people who choose to argue or dispute this, that is fine. Keep recording on your 'cassette recorders'... :) -- I even have one I could sell you!
I apologize if this sounds arrogant. I just get tired of the argument.
Thank Dolby for Dolby SR noise reduction! Bet you won't find that anywhere on any market! If any studio has that it's likely they won't be recording at 30 ips! Oh and you also didn't mention +3 + 6 or +9 etc... all these different factors to decide on with or without Dolby SR.
post edited by Mirrodin - 2007/08/25 02:41:10
|
Kir
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18
- Joined: 2006/01/19 14:15:49
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 02:32:02
(permalink)
Prog......yes I know what you mean....and yes what I actually hear is how I make my decision. I never bought the straight sound physics data anyway. I said iIm a little more esoteric here. But I'm not trying to be off the wall, I was trained to here harmonics above the average. I spent 10 years in ashram and monastic life...and chanted specific sounds for 2 hours a day...I still do this practice today...some 15 years latter. You even went on special diets to get excess mucus out of your head. I learned to hear higher harmonics...and make them with my voice....I'm just looking for the equipment to reproduce what i hear. I know this is a way out there rap...but it doesn't matter if everyone else can only hear 20 hz......we do have sensory apparatus to "feel" and sense much more. What packets of information that I intend...up in the higher frequencies...will have the intended effect...weather someone can consciously hear it or not. I have seen this many times. Many chants used for healing are created in that way. Two sounds are created just slightly off frequency to each other...the ear will hear the difference and create a third frequency only heard inside the listeners head. Some of the chants have 20 ...30 sounds playing off each other. Where the sound nodes meet...they open other demensions of experience...and I guess people would say "subliminal" information is passed through....."intended" information...then there is the whole rythmn thing between the sounds...man its a vast Universe.......so I guess you could say...yes I am making music for neophyte aliens ............whoaaa pass that joint............LOL no I'm not kidding...I've been doing this stuff for years...............I'm just looking for equipment that can maybe help extend the listeners sensory experience..............
|
Mirrodin
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 21
- Joined: 2007/08/22 00:34:35
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 02:37:12
(permalink)
Sounds interesting, I'd love to hear and experience this in person!
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 02:53:37
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: prog_head
Kir,
Be careful to take everyone's opinion, I guess even including my own. Listen for yourself. There are many people that say that 88.1/96 can't even make a difference. To me, that is like saying that there is no difference between a cassette 1/8 inch tape at 1-7/8 ips recording and 2 inch tape at 15ips as long as the end result is casette... well, we can be thankful that no one ever thought that in the past or all music recorded in the 80's would be worthless. Is 192k too detailed and worthless because it eats memory so fast? is 30ips no good because it eats tape too fast? We all have to make a choice.
One thing that I do know. SACD and DVD-A are far superior to CDs. They don't have the brittleness that CDs do. The depth is back. The detail is back. For people who choose to argue or dispute this, that is fine. Keep recording on your 'cassette recorders'... :) -- I even have one I could sell you!
I apologize if this sounds arrogant. I just get tired of the argument. Hehehe, I know. This just comes around time and time again. But I'm not sure you bring a good point here since you're talking analog and we're talking digital. Then again, I know nothing about tape cause I come from an 8 track digital recorder in a digital world. Also SACD and DVD-A sound better because they have a wider dynamic range than what CD has, which is not due to sampling rate but bit depth. Let's see if I can explain. Even though you're recording more samples at 192KHz than at 96KHz or even 48KHz the waveform is still being represented in it's entirety up to the Nyquist Frequency of that sampling rate (Nyquist Theorem). But, like it's been said before, we are not aliens or dogs for that matter to even hear frequencies higher than 22.05KHz, which is what you sample when recording at 44.1KHz. The only reason why you would want to record at higher sampling rates than 44.1KHz is due to the analog filters and because some plugins sound better. Even then, 96KHz is more than enough if you want to venture into HD audio. But anything past that is just a waste of space and processing power IMHO. P.S. I'm not good at getting into the math so if anyone is willing to do that then cool .
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 02:57:47
(permalink)
One thing that I do know. SACD and DVD-A are far superior to CDs. They don't have the brittleness that CDs do. The depth is back. The detail is back. For people who choose to argue or dispute this, that is fine. Keep recording on your 'cassette recorders'... :) -- I even have one I could sell you! You have to take into consideration though that SACD nad DVD-A products are sold to audiophiles and therefore much care will be taken in creating them. CDs are completely commodity products and may not get quite the same care. Obviously that doesn't account for all of the difference, but it probably isn't a tivial amount of it either. There are some great sounding CDs out there. But no one is going to take the time to create an uber-clean CD of pop music that people will mostly listen to on iPods or boom boxes or in the care. SACD and DVD-A tends towards a different type of music, and some (many?) of them I believe are lovingly re-done for those releases.
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 03:11:44
(permalink)
Ok Kir, here's another thought. You want others to exprience higher quality recordings right? But then, ask yourself these questions, what kind of equipment will they be using to listen to your material? Can their audio equipment faithfully represent the extra frequencies you're recording? Do YOU have good enough equipment to even capture these frequencies (as per Scott earlier)? It takes more than just the soundcard to be able to capture frequencies recorded at 192KHz (up to 96KHz which is the Nyquist Frequency or highest frequency recorded at 192KHz). Think about it. You need a microphone that's able to reach higher than 48KHz (which is what you would be capturing by recording at 96KHz). And that also goes for the whole chain (preamps, cables, etc). Dude! You must have lots of money . Take care man!
|
CJaysMusic
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 30423
- Joined: 2006/10/28 01:51:41
- Location: Miami - Fort Lauderdale - Davie
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 03:22:25
(permalink)
Jose is on to something there. Theres no reason to go over 96Khz, hell i record at 48khz because i dont hear any difference in the 2 and its all going to be at 44.1Khz when its all said and done.
Cj
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 10:21:32
(permalink)
Kir,
FWIW, I think you should try 192... I really can't see any reason not to. I know why I don't use it... I like to run larger pop music projects with my computer running very smoothly. I don't think your ears are the only part of your body that responds to sound. You may be curious to know that I've made an extensive collection of temple bowl meditations recorded at 24/96... I get what you're saying.
If you learned anything at that Ashram then you know how damn stupid it is to ask someone else to do your thinking for you. Take a deep breath... and take the plunge. Most of us will be very happy for you if you're pleased with your results.
best regards,
mike
PS I've always been curious about this: Do you think the term color timing has anything to do with a sensibility towards subtle frequency (hence time based) shifts as you described in your colorist work? I've long suspected that but never found anyone to confirm it. Everytime I've asked I was told... "that's what they call it". Do you have any insights about the origin of the term "color timing"?
|
UnderTow
Max Output Level: -37 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3848
- Joined: 2004/01/06 12:13:49
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 10:30:21
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Kir
Prog......yes I know what you mean....and yes what I actually hear is how I make my decision. I never bought the straight sound physics data anyway. I said iIm a little more esoteric here. But I'm not trying to be off the wall, I was trained to here harmonics above the average. I spent 10 years in ashram and monastic life...and chanted specific sounds for 2 hours a day...I still do this practice today...some 15 years latter. You even went on special diets to get excess mucus out of your head. I learned to hear higher harmonics...and make them with my voice....I'm just looking for the equipment to reproduce what i hear. I know this is a way out there rap...but it doesn't matter if everyone else can only hear 20 hz......we do have sensory apparatus to "feel" and sense much more. What packets of information that I intend...up in the higher frequencies...will have the intended effect...weather someone can consciously hear it or not. I have seen this many times. Many chants used for healing are created in that way. Two sounds are created just slightly off frequency to each other...the ear will hear the difference and create a third frequency only heard inside the listeners head. Some of the chants have 20 ...30 sounds playing off each other. Where the sound nodes meet...they open other demensions of experience...and I guess people would say "subliminal" information is passed through....."intended" information...then there is the whole rythmn thing between the sounds...man its a vast Universe.......so I guess you could say...yes I am making music for neophyte aliens ............whoaaa pass that joint............LOL no I'm not kidding...I've been doing this stuff for years...............I'm just looking for equipment that can maybe help extend the listeners sensory experience..............
I think one crucial point when considering high sampling rates are the laws of physics. Air itself works as a low-pass filter rolling off the high frequencies. A sampling rate of around 60Khz would allow an anti-aliasing filter with a roll off similar to the roll-off of air. As no one is complaining about the sound of air, I think it is pretty safe to say that a 60Khz sampling rate is enough to satisfy the most critical listeners, including any aliens with an extended frequency range hearing! After al, anything heard through the medium of air will inherently have such a high frequency roll-off. So 88.2Khz or 96Khz is already plenty of margin for error. So not even aliens make it worth recording at 192Khz.  UnderTow
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 11:43:31
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mike_mccue
Kir,
FWIW, I think you should try 192... I really can't see any reason not to. I know why I don't use it... I like to run larger pop music projects with my computer running very smoothly. I don't think your ears are the only part of your body that responds to sound. You may be curious to know that I've made an extensive collection of temple bowl meditations recorded at 24/96... I get what you're saying.
If you learned anything at that Ashram then you know how damn stupid it is to ask someone else to do your thinking for you. Take a deep breath... and take the plunge. Most of us will be very happy for you if you're pleased with your results.
best regards,
mike
PS I've always been curious about this: Do you think the term color timing has anything to do with a sensibility towards subtle frequency (hence time based) shifts as you described in your colorist work? I've long suspected that but never found anyone to confirm it. Everytime I've asked I was told... "that's what they call it". Do you have any insights about the origin of the term "color timing"? Hey Mike, I agree with you as I'm not, in any way, forcing him not to record at 192KHz. On the contrary, I'm trying to help him realize how meaningless it would be to do so. But if he still wants to do it after hearing all that's been said here than cool, as long as that makes him happy. Take care!
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 12:02:42
(permalink)
I hear you Jose,
I record my pop music at 44.1
But as he says, he asked this same question last year. I'm just postulating why, at this juncture, he doesn't have a years experience at 192 to share with us?
best,
mike
|
Kir
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18
- Joined: 2006/01/19 14:15:49
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 12:21:08
(permalink)
Mike.....no I don't know where the term timing came from either...and i go way back with it...my father and older brother were timers at MGM Labs...in fact my father got the first screen credit for a timer for the Exorcist. But in the early days they didn't use it to create emotions through time. Movies took longer to shoot...the same scene could take days, and if it was shot outside the color of course would be different because the ligting every day is differnt. The job then was to just go through the whole thing and balance it all out so you didn't see a few minutes of green..then jump into red. You can see that in old Westerns still. So i don't know why they called it that.
Laws of Physics baaaaa reality is crutch man...... Earth..fire..water and AIR are contained in Space....aliens use Space as a medium of communication ...not air. LOL
I do apprecitate everyone's input.....I'll just get a good converter that can do up to 192..and then listen to the different sampling rates after they are recorded...That is the only way i can tell............But I'm always amazed how people by-pass what you say if it is not their experience.......So let me try this again. I used to do computer animation too. Had an amazing tool ...Alias maya. I took pictures of microscopic radiolara and splined them into Maya...I turned them into alien space ships or differnt creatures. The palate of colors and textures in Maya was endless...and once you choose what you wanted..then they had 20 tools to morph even that. So I started to ask "what do i want people looking at this to experience? Awe...fright...I want to run away but maybe i'll stay and see what happens...joy exctasy but scary??? The subtlty of emotions is also endless. So I just covered the splines with what ever I felt gave the emotion i wanted to project....the word here is "what I felt"..............then i would show my work to collegues and every time they would express to me exactly what i was trying to project...without me telling them first what i was doing. Point is.........it doesn't matter the quality of equipment that people are going to listen on.......if in the mixing "I" can hear the vortexes.....if "I" feel the subtlty of emotions......it will come across...........I'm not a techy...I'm a musician first......and sorry guys and gals...music is much more than the laws of physics........I'm talking about about helping people expand their range of feelings and emotions.........Its like the dictionary.....there are thousands of words...but the average person uses maybe 50 words through their life...........I'm looking for ways to expand peoples feelings and emotions...not just with the music...but the engineering of the sound too..........I would do it like I did it in Maya...just experiment.....listen........then if i can get it..I no others will...........I do have good mics and speakers though.........I just don't know much about the converters...and how people use them.........
But again...i listen to everyone in here.............
|
Kir
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 18
- Joined: 2006/01/19 14:15:49
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 13:09:04
(permalink)
Mike.......I'm pretty new at computer recording. Last year I was considering the Mackie 400f.....but then i heard about a lot of problems with it. So I just shined it all on.....thought i should learn a little more about computer recording in general before laying out any big money. I have more time now...and more money......well at least good credit.....
|
studio24
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 446
- Joined: 2007/03/16 21:59:37
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 13:11:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Kir
Howdie...I checked out this debate last year. Thought I would check again now. I'm running Tascam 1884 with my Sonar 5. I want to move up to a 192hz rig. Thinking of
Onyx 400f......whats the consensus......is there something better? Any big problems with running it with Sonar.............Any feedback is appreciated.........
I have recorded only one project in 192kHz .. and it was like driving the Titanic .. the biggest problem with Sonar at 192 is you can't split disks on projects .. which will force you in the direction of distributed parity systems such as a hardware controlled RAID 5 or 6. I was on an HD system and my client was "this sounds so great!!!" I had to split the session across two disks to get it to record all the channels simultaneously. I thought I smelled smoke a few times ;-) And then I started to mix it. I very quickly ran out of DSP applying my usual set of plugs ... so I down sampled it to 48kHz and didn't tell my client until we had a mix session or two. And he was still raving about 192khz. And then I told him he'd been listening to 48Khz for the last couple of sessions. I wish I had a camera for the look on his face, stunned. A lot of people ask for 192kHz because they think that's what the pros use. Very few track at anything above 96 (at least in my experience). Personally, I believe that if you have a really good DAC with an excellent FIR filter (as linear as you can find ... and these are expensive ... Digi 192, Lynx, Apogee, etc.) you will not hear an appreciable difference between 48, 96, and 192. It's the FIR filter that makes the difference. If it's doing it's job correctly, you will have very few aliasing artifacts in the signal. There is a lot of mythology about high sample rate tracking, and I am frequently want to point out that the equipment that is being used to track on the analog side typically tops out between 20 and 22kHz and you really don't have much above 24kHz with the typical microphone, pre-amp, compressor , etc. There is some gear that can go up pretty high . but it's the lowest response in the chain that dictates the overall program material's response. There is some argument that the DSP algorithms may introduce some elements above 48khz when operating at this sample rate that are shaved-off (hence why many mastering engineers up sample). But, I don't feel there's enough sonic justification at the tracking and mixing phases to warrant the expense of tooling for 192 and taxing of the DSP and compute resources. And, there are some who will argue vehemently against my opinion.
|
DaveClark
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 956
- Joined: 2006/10/21 17:02:58
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 13:21:41
(permalink)
Hi All,
Although I do often work at 96 KSamples/sec (for both numeric advantages and late freq rolloff reasons), if someone came along and wanted 192 KSamples/sec, I'd still work at a lower rate and upsample as late as possible in the flow.
Regards,
Dave Clark
|
jinga8
Max Output Level: -17 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5817
- Joined: 2004/02/14 21:45:01
- Location: Oceanside, CA
- Status: offline
|
Jose7822
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10031
- Joined: 2005/11/07 18:59:54
- Location: United States
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 13:37:17
(permalink)
Kir, I know you don't like the Laws of Physics but that's the reality we're confined to. As far as I know, they still hold true to this day. What I'm trying to say is that, if you want to learn how converters work then you have to accept these laws in the first place. I encourage you to find the truth for yourself as I think that would help you more in your quest than asking these questions here year after year. And one more thing, studio24 and bitflipper both brought up something very important and that is that some people will hear a difference between sampling rates. The reason for this is mostly due to bad FIR filters. But with good FIR filters, as he put it, "you will not hear an appreciable difference between 48, 96, and 192". Later!
post edited by Jose7822 - 2007/08/25 15:24:00
|
The Maillard Reaction
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 31918
- Joined: 2004/07/09 20:02:20
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 17:03:20
(permalink)
Kir, I live on both sides of the rail road tracks :-) I wonder if you caught the part about the temple bowl recordings I was speaking of. My friends that use these bowls are part of the Quantam Healing crowd. They place the bowls near the body's chakras and use the ringing tones as vibratory therapy. I don't have a strong opinion about it... except that I know I don't know... so who am I to judge. I purposely recorded their work at 96kHz in acknowledgement that there could be information that I am oblivious too. The subjects of the therapy enjoy the stimulus the sessions provide and get off the table glowing with pleasure. When I get a faster system I'll use 192kHz. Just wanted you to know there are some physics oriented people that still appreciate the idea that we really dion't know everything. Good luck with your endeavors, mke
post edited by mike_mccue - 2007/08/25 17:12:57
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 17:18:40
(permalink)
few heavy weight plugs at 192 and your computer would be taking you to court for DAW abuse. Yep mine did just the other day. It lost but my lawyer cost me a small fortune. I took out its audio card so it stood mute. I may counter sue. Best John
|
John
Forum Host
- Total Posts : 30467
- Joined: 2003/11/06 11:53:17
- Status: offline
RE: Wanting 192hz...what's best
2007/08/25 17:27:03
(permalink)
Come on guys! The man asked a simple question! Don't be such besserwissers, I'm sure he's got his reasons for wanting 192 KHz. I mean, some people buy speaker cables for $10 000 a foot only so they can sleep well at night knowing that they have the Rolls Royce of speaker cables! Sven Sure sign of early onset Alzheimer's! An idiot will buy anything. Hey just bought a monster! Best John
|