ORIGINAL: Junski

It's so easy to give that type statements ... it would be good to read some lines of arguments.

They have allready been given! Check out the graphs posted above for starters.

Also ... I didn't noticed the link for James Boyk's article you say been linked and commented already (I checked all sub links too before posting it) ... I noticed that this article was used as a resource (ref.) in that Ultrasonic article (written by Andrew Hon) which was linked in post #18 made by Roflcopter. Boyk's article is much deeper (since it's the original paper) than the summary made by Hon ... that's why the link given (though, it won't change the world but ...).

Oops my bad! I'll read the article later today.

UnderTow

ORIGINAL: Junski

ORIGINAL: UnderTow
Well whoever wrote that SAE article is wrong and does not understand sampling theory. And unfortunately so is Rupert Neve. The other article has allready been posted and commented on.

It's so easy to give that type statements ... it would be good to read some lines of arguments. Could you explapain what's wrong there in SAE article/conclusions (or in R. Neve's statements (are there sources available))? Not that I would know the thrut but, let us learn from others mistakes!

In a local AES chapter lecture given by Ruper Neve that I attended, he was asked some questions about digital audio. He freely admitted that he knew next to nothing about digital audio and signal processing. He's a self admitted analog guy. What he is doing is making the jump from the fact that he designed all his gear to be flat out to 70 kHz or so, and then figuring that we need a sampling rate to match that. (eg. 140kHz or more) It ignores the possibility that it wasn't the frequency response itself that made Neve's analog designs sound so good, it was the fact that they were so well engineered across the board.

In that lecture, Neve also repeated the story about Geoff Emerick being able to hear an anomaly at 50 kHz or so. What the story never goes into is that while the anomaly was measured at 50 kHz, nothing was ever done to determine if that is actually what Emerick was hearing.

Regarding the SAE article and the other linked-to spectrum graphs, I don't think anyone here is saying that higher bit depths or higher sample rates don't give a more accurate representation of the waveform. It is clearly demonstrated that higher sample rates and bit depths give higher resolution to the recordings and can capture higher frequencies. What the point of contention is, and related to the initial post of this thread is, whether or not it actually makes an audible difference.

What the point of contention is, and related to the initial post of this thread is, whether or not it actually makes an audible difference.

I hear them perfectly on my PsychoAkoustic Simulator II, even without putting on my handmade tinfoil hat. Oh, and I closed BOTH eyes, so it's a double-blind test.

[all the bats in my belfry nod in agreement]

I'm beginning to think it's a load of hype, and that any simple hearing test will get results awfully close to random chance.

ORIGINAL: tarsier

In that lecture, Neve also repeated the story about Geoff Emerick being able to hear an anomaly at 50 kHz or so. What the story never goes into is that while the anomaly was measured at 50 kHz, nothing was ever done to determine if that is actually what Emerick was hearing.

The explanation most often given is that the anomaly at 50Khz affected the phase of the signal in the audible range. Phase shifts are definately audible which brings us back to Neve designs: The extra bandwidth will often also give better phase reponse in the audible range.

UnderTow

Well I've c ertainly learned quite a bit (no punn intended) about this issue.
To summize my own thoughts. I'm coming out of this with the impression that although higher sample rates can capture more and certainly will sound better at playback. Will they maintain that extra zing if you will after it's all converted down to 44k.

I'm thinking that the quality of the equipment used regardless of how high it can sample. The conversion process or efficienecy seems to be the most critcal no matter what you are converting from 192/96/88/48.

As one person stated here. He claimed that he could hear the difference after recording the different sample rates but not after he converted those rates to the same rate of 44k. And I think that is what many here that record at the lower rates may have also realized.

Besides being up into my 40's I already know from testing it myself my hearing fluxuates between 16k and 18k tops. So I wouldn't even be able to hear the difference in frequencies higher than that.
So I don't know if that would unqualify me as an acuurate judge of good sounding music if how high a frequency it interprets is what defines it as a good dynamic recording.

Unlike my eyes I can put on glasses to see better. My hearing doesn't have that option unfortunately.

Thank you everybody for chimming in and adding so much information to my thread. well our thread. But I started it.

ORIGINAL: juicerocks

I'm thinking that the quality of the equipment used regardless of how high it can sample. The conversion process or efficienecy seems to be the most critcal no matter what you are converting from 192/96/88/48.

Purchasing high-end converters was worth every penny to me... because I wasn't happy with what I was hearing at 44/24 with pro-sumer quality converters... particularly in the cymbals. I was happy with what I was hearing at 96/24, but VERY unhappy with the loss of resources on my DAW. And did I mention I HATE waiting for bounces and exports?!?!? I think I did once or twice. Turned out it wasn't what I was hearing at 96/24 that I like so much... it was what I WASN'T hearing that was so pleasing. No aliasing in the audible range.

However...

I'd like to add this in response to your comment juicerocks. I've asked lots of well known and reputable mastering engineers as well as mix engineers and studio owners about using quality gear vs mixing and mastering techniques... and they ALL told me this:

They would take knowledge, technique, skill, and great ears over great gear any day of the week. I can testify to this myself along with these guys. Stuff coming out of my studio sounds much better now than ever before. Some of that is due to the improvements I've made to my studio and gear. But much more of it is due the improvements I've made between my ears.

Great engineers get great results even on inferior equipment. You know it's true with musicians. Give a great guitarist a $200.00 guitar and he makes it sing like a $3,500.00 Les Paul. Great drummers have a great touch and feel for the drum... any drum... and can draw out the best the thing has to offer. Give a great drummer a drum key and a lousy set of drums and you'd still get a great sounding performance.

So what I'm saying is... It ALL matters. I'm addicted to great gear and hear each little improvement each upgrade has to offer. But it's possible to get great mixes out of merely adequate gear. I've heard many examples of this and each time they humbled me into going back to what matters most... honing my craft.

My .02 cents.

So true SteveD.

You can't can't hide a great performance with crappy equipment.

But you can hide crappy equipment with a great perfomance.

ORIGINAL: juicerocks

So true SteveD.

You can't can't hide a great performance with crappy equipment.

But you can hide crappy equipment with a great perfomance.

Good response Juice. But let me see if I can be sure my point is being made as it applies to the topic of this thread.

Most Mastering Engineers I've spoken to seemed disinterested and aloof when asked about what sample rate they prefer to receive from Mix Engineers. I would have thought that if anybody cared about the technical details behind the mix, it would be an M/E. To my surprise most were much more interested in whether the project was a good mix than they were in the sample rate. That's 'cause they know they can get great results at any sample rate as long as the project is well tracked and well mixed.

I'm kind of in the same boat. Years of doing drum tracks for clients at all sample rates, and the sample rate has never been the deciding factor of how good it sounds. Some guys send me projects at 96 or 88k and it's a just a job because of the experience level or skill factor. Other guys send me stuff at 44k that makes me swallow my gum. Just outstanding sound and a superb mix... and all they want is to replace the drums. That's more than a job... that's a pleasure... and proof that 44.1khz is plenty fast enough for capturing audio and producing excellent sounding recordings.

There... that's on topic.

In that lecture, Neve also repeated the story about Geoff Emerick being able to hear an anomaly at 50 kHz or so. What the story never goes into is that while the anomaly was measured at 50 kHz, nothing was ever done to determine if that is actually what Emerick was hearing.

I really feel the same way - consider a 12.5Khz problem that showed up as a 50Khz harmonic or the like.

-D

I started to work up a freakin' educational post here. I did alot of work then I decided F++K this I'm just gonna let you guys argue this till the cows come home and then cook myself a steak. But I will say this for that unknown person's sake looking for honest well meant hope to help the best way I can kind of advice,

I recorded some tracks at 192 on down to 44.1 last year and I heard a BIG difference. More then the difference of going from CD to mp3 and I can hear that plain as day. If you honestly can't hear the difference then I am sympathetic to your limitations and seriously, maybe you ought to go have your ears checked so you can learn your limitations. If anyone tries to argue this with me telling me I can't hear a difference then I put this to you, if you happen to know I can't hear a difference then I know for a FACT you can't and I feel sorry for you.

Anyone out there looking for help and ends up reading this thread please don't choose 44.1 because some old half deaf guy or some young punk who both think they know it all tells you it don't matter. Use what you have in every ounce you can. Pro's do and so should you. They have the advantage of Studios we'd cry for and they don't play argument games with quality and neither should you. Don't record at 44.1 and then upsample to 88.2. That would be as lame as converting a lossy MP3 back to wave and kidding yourself into believing you got that lost sound back? You recorded at 44.1 and went to 88.2... there's nothing there now. The original analog to digital conversion is paramount!!!! If a few years back you had a Tascam TSR-8 (8 track reel to reel) and a 488 mkII (8 track cassette) would you record on the 488 then bounce to the TSR-8 cause you know you will not lose anything? The logic escapes me other then, Ok you aren't gonna lose anything, that is for sure LOL (I know it isn't a 100% proper analogy but it's close enough)

You watch that 1bit 5.6448MHz, If it takes off then fine, if not I don't freakin' care either way, I use to record at 16-44.1 when I recorded on a SB live with Cakewalk express 8 cause I wanted to learn digital recording. HAHA Now I record at 24bit-192KHz cause I can!! And I don't play games when it comes to recording. And when the pro studios change to a new stanard I'll be right f++kin' there with them, stealing their business. This reminded of my peers and how they use to laugh about "digital recording" and how it will never replace tape...

Accuracy is everything in waveform replication, that is what we are talking about. Recording our sound as accuratly as possible aren't we? True waveform replication? Reconstruction... are you kidding me? There is a reason why cheap sound cards have cheap AD converters. Cause they replicate/reconstruct like crap.

I could nick pick peoples posts apart, break out my text books to make sure I get all technical, and not point out anything good they said. Just start picking out something and make it look bad too... but I am here to help people and get help when I need it. Not play immature games of BS. Again, if you can't hear a difference then I do feel sorry for you cause EVERYONE knows a good recording when they hear it.