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?

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.

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.

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

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.
 
 

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.

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!}
 
 

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

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!
 
:-)

Wait - I thought THESE were the good old days.  Carly Simon said so.
 
Bob Bone