.

Hi, guys. Sorry I walked away from this excellent thread, I just got bored after the first 5 pages and it started to become repetitive. I've just read the whole thing now and I gotta say: what a great thread! Wish I had more to add, but I don't.
 
Except for one thing...
 

That, and what appeared to be a condescending comment about whether there would be any "real" engineers on the panel, did not sit well.

 
Craig, I did not realize that you'd taken offense to my query about whether there'd be any "real" engineers on the panel. You have misunderstood me, and that is my fault. I should have explained what I meant. I'll attempt to do that now, at the risk of diverting the thread along yet another point of contention: the definition of "engineer".
 
I do not consider people who make records "engineers". Whether or not they are professionals is not the criterion.
 
If you can drive a car, even very well and even professionally and even win the Indy 500, that doesn't make you an automotive engineer. Being a stunt pilot, even if you're a Blue Angel does not make you an aeronautical engineer. No matter how many times a day you cross the Brooklyn Bridge you're not a structural engineer. The guy who picks up your garbage, despite what his HR department says, is not a sanitation engineer. And creating a Grammy-winning mix doesn't make you an audio engineer.
 
It's simply a problem I have with the dilution of the title. If you call everybody who's a competent user of technology an engineer, then you're left with nothing to call a "real" engineer. Rupert Neve is a real engineer. Dave Pensado is not. Noel Borthwick is a real engineer. Alan Parsons is not. No disrespect to any of them!
 
I hope I've made it clear that I meant no condescension. I have a tremendous respect for you, Craig. Few others have contributed more to the subject of home recording and music-making than you, through decades of writing helpful articles to make it more broadly accessible. Heck, I was a charter subscriber to Polyphony! I bought Cakewalk 1.0 for DOS on your recommendation!
 
 

mike_mccue
The inclusion of the final opinion that "hi-def" recordings sound better than CD releases seems like a distraction especially in light of the fact that the testing made no effort to compare that distinction. That was merely offered as an off hand opinion.
 

I suspect it was intended to fend off criticisms from all the people who had mistakenly compared 2 different masterings (CD vs. SACD) and would thus vehemently claim that the SACD sounded both different and "better" because of the format itself.
 
Comparing different masterings on different formats cannot tell you much of anything meaningful about any real or supposed technical limitations of the formats (unless you still can't hear any difference).
 
It's the same with MP3's - you can't just download one and do an ABX with a lossless version and assume the sources were identical; you need to compress the lossless yourself and then compare the results with the original.

.

Thanks for an interesting thread. I don't understand the theory or science but I understand what was done and can hear the result. I don't hear more highs but the result sounds like it has more depth and clarity, maybe a bigger soundstage, not sure how else to put it but it does make a difference.
 
Thanks!
 
J

I don't agree that just because a plugin sounds better at 96K it is poorly designed.  Many of the plugins I am talking about are very well designed.  The higher rate is just offering them something different to work with. They are behaving differently at the higher sample rate.
 
For years we have always recorded in audio systems that were at higher resolutions than the playback medium. What has changed is the quality of the technology more readily available has improved and a lot of people can make great recordings in their home studios now.
 
We are now mainly recording at a very similar resolution to the playback medium.  (only the bit depth is better, is it enough! 48K is NOT substantially better)  Producing at close to the playback medium resolution should not sound as good as recording at 96K right through to the mastering stage and converting down to the playback medium right at the last minute. Like we used to. But something basic still remains and that is in more professional situations, working at a higher resolutions still stands. The great thing is now we can have the higher production resolutions in our home studios just the same as they are in the pro studios. Not so much is different.
 
You just have to admit that 96K 24 bit is a higher resolution and mostly better sounding than 44.1K 16 bit. It is still more expensive to implement in a home studio but well worth it I would imagine.  An interesting test would be a live session with all the individual input signals split to two systems.  One running at 96K and the other at 44.1K.  That way you get identical performances into both systems. If you use K system setup for both and include alignment tones then it would be possible to produce two identical mixes as well.  A direct 96K playback to 44.1K playback would be interesting to hear as well as the 96K downsampled to 44.1 compared to the straight in 44.1 session.
 
For those of us who like working in the synth VST mode more often, then working at 96K is a bonus.  I can certainly hear it and loud and clear.  I think it sounds very smooth and nice and quite transient as well.
 
One thing I might try is another 'Prism' test except put a steep LPF set for 15Khz over the output before it is rendered.  Then do the two versions of the render at 96K and then downsample it to 44.1K compared to the straight 44.1K version.  It would be interesting to hear if the 44.1K version is still brighter.

You know, Jeff, it occurs to me when you mention the K-System that the meters at 96 will take into account amplitude that cannot be heard. I wonder if this will impact the levels you set on the various tracks.
 
To tell the truth, I have never been able to use the K-System for leveling as more than a guide. I always have tons of bleed between the tracks. If I set everything the same, then the lead guitar which was screamingly loud in the show will be too loud in the mix too b/c it's coming in every mic.

.

.

"You just have to admit that 96K 24 bit is a higher resolution and mostly better sounding"
NO! YOU have made that statement, this was not the premise that Craig is/was pursuing.
Stay on topic.
Craig has stated that Amplitube in Hi res does not benefit working at 96k, and IIRC IK states its not as efficient.
And, was it Z3ta2, when NOT oversampling, sounds better at 96k; BFD!
If YOU hear a difference, then by all means run at 96k.
For 99% of the work done is Sonar I'm pretty sure we're "safe" at 44.1.
ESPECIALLY if the user is going to "master" (small m) his/her own material and convert to mp3.
And I'm pretty sure that 48/24 is WAY better than the best tape machine, especially after about 50 passes.
But I don't have to admit nutin'.
Nobody saw me do it...
 
T