Beepster
And I guess my answers may lie in this thread already. Probably should have read the whole thing before posting. Just wanted to type up my conclusions to help me remember.
 

Perhaps, but your answers skipped all the insults and pretentious knowledge posturing.

dubdisciple

Beepster
And I guess my answers may lie in this thread already. Probably should have read the whole thing before posting. Just wanted to type up my conclusions to help me remember.
 

Perhaps, but your answers skipped all the insults and pretentious knowledge posturing.

Ah... it was one of "those" threads, was it? Well perhaps I should have stayed in the shadows then. Got no dog in the fight. Just like to know what settings will work best for my needs and the answer seems to be exactly what I've been using all along.
 
The article does seem to confirm that but now I understand why a little better and know when and how I can or should break with my usually procedures.
 
It does make me curious where my Focusrite Scarlett falls on the "converter quality" spectrum though. If they are one of the ones good enough to negate any benefits of starting at higher sample rates as opposed to doing things at 44.1 or 48 then that would be cool for resource consumption and conservation of disk space. That seems unlikely though because as awesome as this thing is I'm assuming the interfaces that employ those type of immaculate converters are WAY out of my price range and mostly reside in top studios.
 
Then again the FR guys do seem to be quite passionate about what they do so maybe it is top notch in that regard. I however am not smart enough nor inclined enough to go through tedious tests to check it out and 96k works fine and I still have plenty of disk space at the moment.
 
Just rambling as I wait for some insight on my other thread but perhaps my n00bishness and pragmatism may bring such a heady subject back down to earth. The article really did seem to be trying to convey the practical uses of these theories to quasi-laymen such as myself and it was indeed appreciated. As I said... I'm a guitarist... not a physicist.
 
Hope you've been well, dub. ;-)

Given science is  usually not going to be followed. I record at 64000 Hz if I could, but Sonar will not. And I found out that at 96000Hz it to me sounds a bit better for some reason like for headroom a little more and that which I do not think I am imagining. I just do not like 88200Hz because it reminds me of being twice of 44100 Hz and I have recorded already at 48000Hz and Windows MP can play back at that speed. All 24bit, so although I have not tried 96000Hz yet, it was my next stop and going any higher just does not appeal to me.But the little I have recorded at 96000Hz did for some reason sound better to me.
??
I also am not in loudness wars of any kind. And that will be that also. Turn up the volume, because if you go anywhere and they play loud, it is tiring to me after awhile and I do not need to be pounded by sound to hear the beat or the music or anything else. I simply thing that some people have lost their hearing over the years, and nothing is going to really correct that.
Standing close (well for me) about 40 feet away at a concert and seeing the sky change to dark skies seem just to indicate that perhaps since it was really loud they might have had something to do with that. No where else was the sky starting to get dark except there in that area of the concert, the rest of the sky was brighter even if cloudy.
 
I decided then and there that I like my own volume and control of the output listening to music at anytime, and anything else was not going to influence me anymore.

 
Les Paul had echo and reverb and overdubs when he recorded, and even back then, it sounded louder than music had been before. I always laugh at the speaker in "Back to the Future" movie because that, that is funny when he blows it up.
 

Beepster
Ultra high sampling rates can lead to LESS accuracy because??? The current computers aren't fast enough??
 

 
Yes, that's the claim more or less, though the problem isn't computers per se, it's an issue for the analogue components in the converter too.

This is the one thing from the article that you could reasonably call contentious. It's Lavry's claim, and his reasoning is sound - faster sample rates potentially lead to less accuracy at each sample point, because the component voltages can't settle fast enough - but as far as I'm aware, nobody's actually blind tested this to see if it actually makes any difference, including Lavry.
 
The other side to this though, is that as in your summary of other points, there are no gains to ultra-high frequency, and that is tested and known.

John T

Beepster
Ultra high sampling rates can lead to LESS accuracy because??? The current computers aren't fast enough??
 

 
Yes, that's claim more or less, though the problem isn't computers per se, it's an issue for the analogue components in the converter too.

This is the one thing from the article that you could reasonably call contentious. It's Lavry's claim, and his reasoning is sound - faster sample rates potentially lead to less accuracy at each sample point, because the component voltages can't settle fast enough - but as far as I'm aware, nobody's actually blind tested this to see if it actually makes any difference, including Lavry.
 
The other side to this though, is that as in your summary of other points, there are no gains to ultra-high frequency, and that is tested and known.

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.
 
At least that's my peabrained understanding of such things from various documentaries I've watched and articles I've read that I can barely grasp. Such topics fascinate me but also make me feel very dumb and irrelevant in the grand scheme of the cosmos.
 
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.
 
Not saying it was aliens but...
 
just kidding

dubdisciple

Beepster
And I guess my answers may lie in this thread already. Probably should have read the whole thing before posting. Just wanted to type up my conclusions to help me remember.
 

Perhaps, but your answers skipped all the insults and pretentious knowledge posturing.

Insults? Would that be something like asking whether "douchey" is a word? Glass forums, friend...
 
And "pretentious knowledge posturing". Is that anything like a recording "engineer"  who facetiously entitles his blog "Trust Me I'm A Scientist" posting a "Science of Sampling..." article lacking any actual scientific discussion and drawing mainly upon dubious and debunked sources without scrutiny?
 
Ever wondered why railroad bridges aren't designed by train "engineers"?
 
Or wondered why Lavry decided to offer an ADC converting those harmful-to-quality 192kHz samples?
 
http://www.lavryengineering.com/products/pro-audio/da-n5.html

 
 

apples and oranges.  My insult was simply an insult and not hidden behind a lot of babble.  Inappropriate? Probably, but born out of frustration that your douchiness overshadowed anything useful you may have contributed the moment you started implying that anyone who did not agree with you was to be insulted. The article never claimed to be the pinnacle of scientific knowledge and is no doubt aimed at the layman.  Your throw the baby out with the bath approach is counterproductive at best. You chose to go on a bizarre pointless tirade, giving the article the white glove treatment.  Whenever anyone asked you to back up anything, you simply shifted the topic without directly answering the question.  It's rare when i read any tech article that does not have a fact or two that is in dispute.

The bottom line is he managed to sum up his statements without disrespecting those he disagreed with, which makes him a lot nicer than either of us.

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?

Well...
I have kept up with this whole thread. (Thanks Goddard for linking that old ProRec article! Brought back memories)
 
I read the article that Noel linked to before I went any further. To me, with my limited knowledge, it seemed like a advertisement. Like the author was a good friend of Lavry and trying to get on his good side! But the article did say something at the end that rings true with me, and most of us here: In the end I have other things to worry more about than higher Sample Rate. (I use 96 btw)
 
As for the thread, I thought it was a very good discussion! Sure some got a little heated, and some may have gotten miffed a bit, but that's the inevitable out come in a heated discussion!
 
And I'm very glad Noel dropped back in to clarify some things about Sonar itself