ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine
I recorded some tracks at 192 on down to 44.1 last year and I heard a BIG difference.

Well I don't know enough to even begin to debate it. Obviously there are many technical factors that would make arguments go on forever.

But if say you can hear a big difference I wouldn't doubt it. But hearing is believing and true technical documentaion may not be able to capture real life results.

Any scientist will concure that experimentaion is solely based on known approaches meaning if your looking for frequency response you can build a device to measure that.
However if your not really sure how to accurately measure something such as human perception. The best you can do is make an educational guess with the only instruments you have to work with.

For Example. Bose has developed the L1 cylindrical sound system. And through one of their theories the human can detect as if it has a 3db increase in sound by metally focussing your attention towards a sound. The example they use is that in a crowded room of people talking you can litterally look at somebody speaking in that room and it would seem as though their volume has gone up of the rest has gone down by about 3db.

Their system is based on sound separation by location to give the perception of lowder volume.

Now I realize this may be seemingly be a sidetrack but the point is there really is no instrument that can detect HOW we listen as opposed to what is actually present and measureable.

I would like nothing more than to hear an A/B comparission of your recording samples that lead you to hear that big difference. I'm seriuos, I'm really curious.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

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.

No one is disputing that you hear a difference. We are discussing why people hear a difference. The answer isn't about extended frequency range or more "accuracy".

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.

I'm a freelancer and work in many studios. No one is using 192Khz...

This reminded of my peers and how they use to laugh about "digital recording" and how it will never replace tape...

Actually, none of the tape emulations I've heard can accurately emulate tape saturations yet but thats a differet story. Anyway, using tape isn't about getting the most accurate reproduction. It has a sound and people like that sound.

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?

Again, sample rate is not about accuracy.

Reconstruction... are you kidding me? There is a reason why cheap sound cards have cheap AD converters. Cause they replicate/reconstruct like crap.

Indeed. And again, quality converters will sound better at 44.1Khz than cheap converters at 192Khz. Would you prefer to use a soundblaster at 192Khz (assuming it provides that) or Lavry Gold's at 44.1Khz?

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...

Maybe you should break out those text books.

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.

You are not helping anyone by playing into the hand of the marketeers... Maybe you should get those Mytek converters that do 384Khz sampling

My contention is that converter chip and converter manufacturers should spend their time and energy on improving the analogue stages and the decimation filters etc of converters rather than just stupidly upping the sample rates. Everyone would benefit from that.

UnderTow

Nicely done UnderTow. There's always a guy in every one of these threads that pops in with "Look dudes, I know what I hear, and couldn't care less about Nyquist or Shannon or what your stupid tests prove".

RnRmaChine... did you try the null test I posted (or even read it)? Can you explain why an 88.2k file exported at 44.1k and reimported back into the same 88.2k project produces silence when it's phase is reversed? Meters bouncing with tons of ultra-sonic activity, but in the audible range... silence?

Perhaps you hear something. Some do. Now export that difference to 44/16 as if you were going to produce a CD. No more boucing meters. Still hear something? Hmmm.

FWIW... I get projects from tricked-out high-end commercial studios. The sound they get is outstanding... mostly from gear, experience, and room acoustics. ALL of them are using Pro Tools, but NONE of them are using 192k, and every mastering engineer I know, besides those working for Mytek , are trying to convince the industry that Dan Lavry is correct and it's a waste of money. The pursuit of excellence gets lost in the land of diminishing returns.

I know... you hear what you hear. That's great. I can't argue with that. But I wonder how you'd rationalize what your ears would tell you if you were to try the null test.

Jeez, is this thread still alive?

Undertow: give RnRmaChine some credit. He probably has a set of those Ultra Tweeters and therefore can hear things you and I cannot. (After all, I'm just some "some old half deaf guy".)

Maybe we'll get lucky and spheris will weigh in and settle the matter once and for all.

Hi BF!

How's the ticker?

Said a prayer for you.

I would like nothing more than to hear an A/B comparission of your recording samples that lead you to hear that big difference. I'm seriuos, I'm really curious.

I'm curious too. I wonder which soundcard he uses .

Hi BF!

How's the ticker?

Said a prayer for you.

Thanks, Steve. I don't know if your prayers were a factor, but I am doing fine. Back on my exercise program and rode my bicycle again yesterday. But I am still using "recuperation" as an excuse to avoid real work and stay in my studio instead!

Thanks, Steve. I don't know if your prayers were a factor, but I am doing fine. Back on my exercise program and rode my bicycle again yesterday.

Nice to hear that Bitflipper. I'm glad you're feeling better.

But I am still using "recuperation" as an excuse to avoid real work and stay in my studio instead!

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Hi BF!

How's the ticker?

Said a prayer for you.

Thanks, Steve. I don't know if your prayers were a factor, but I am doing fine. Back on my exercise program and rode my bicycle again yesterday. But I am still using "recuperation" as an excuse to avoid real work and stay in my studio instead!

Perfect!

My comment "some old half deaf and young punk guy" was NOT aimed at anyone and if it is taken that way then that is YOUR problem not mine LOL I was speaking in a proverbial sense 100%. I am also aware that alot of studios record live at 88.2 then SRC to 44.1 or 96/48. For most applications they feel it is good enough. I also agree that the reason pro studios sound so good is gear talent and the rooms in which they record. BUT anyone that tries to tell me they record at 44.1 I am just gonna laugh at you. Maybe they USE too back in the stone age of digital when it was replacing a lot of wonderful tapemachines. A lot of studios do not record at 192 but they aren't world class either although they do a lot of proffessional work and that is DEFINATELY worth taking into account. It assures us as home studio people we don't need world class to do things with recording. Heck if a studio bought it's DAW gear 5-10 years ago a lot of professional and exceptional sounding interfaces couldn't do over 96 then so how could they even do it at 192. It wouldn't be choice it would be lack of options HAHA

As far as hearing my recordings where I hear the difference? HAHA couldn't just come right out and accuse me of lying could ya. Just incase I actually can... do your own recordings. If you can't hear a difference there you won't in mine either LOL. BUT if you do not have the capability and you are really asking me to post it then I suppose I should if I really want to be helpful and not just full of hot air. I will go dig them up... It was vocal recordings so no one better give me crap on how much I suck when I am just trying to be helpful and put my 2 cents in... even it it's not worth a 1/10 of a cent HAHA

I did read most of the posts in this thread but I was not here as each was written so I admit I skimmed through some... I really thought I read all the "technical" ones because I LOVE to learn or to be proven wrong. New things I can use... It means I am not going to f++k it up anymore and when I have a misunderstanding of something I want to know it!!!! unlike some people who just blabber on cause they just love to argue just for the sake of arguing. NO I do not own those overpriced drive my dog nuts set of tweeters... I never even clicked on the link but I guess I'll go look at them now since I supposedly own a pair... cause someone just wants to take a nasty shot at me an try to make fun of me like I am a nobody and I should take my place accordingly. Trying to get a laugh out of other members at my expense? What kind of human being are you? Funny the BALLS people have when they aren't in your face but separated by computer screens and miles of cable. I truly doubt you would have dared to say that to my face in that manner and if you would dare to talk to me like that person to person then you are a rotten person. But I guarentee, if you knew me personally you wouldn't have dared. I wouldn't dare treat rotten or degrade another person. That is just wrong. NOW that was aimed at a particular person!!!

AS far as the comment, a cheap card at 192 compared to a good one at 44.1... umm did I not say that? You are just repeating me now and you think that I am gonna be impressed by your knowledge when you repeat me. It wasn't word for word but close enough, my statement obviously made you think of your statement. You didn't impress me at all with your brilliant twist of a comment I had already made.

I do find some of your posts VERY intriguing. Some of you TRULY know or have a good grasp on what the heck you are talking about and for sharing that I thankyou. I am wiser because of this thread and I will use the things I learned in here. But none of it has convinced me to drop to recording at 44.1. I have however gone into extensive investigation in the subject of ...what do we record at, what do we mix at? I wasn't born knowing this crap and neither where you. So we dig, we investigate, we argue and then we come to our own conclusions.

My conclusion from ALL learned was this plain and simple... record live at the best rate I can then SRC and work in an environment my equipment can handle. I was told by MANY that if I am going to mix at 48 then record at 96, or if mixing at 44.1 then record at 88.2 because of the mathmatical calculations of the conversion. AND the most important thing is the ADCs. If they are good you will do well. I am NOT wealthy enough to own a world class studio so I bought an E-mu 1820m because MANY of the pro's that I know told me that these converters are for real, they are no joke and I would have to spend A LOT MORE money to get anything even close and it works great with sonar. I am more then happy with this unit and when I record at different rates I hear a BIG difference. The thickness and texture is totally apparent. I am a true believer in use what ya got. If all you have is an interface from an older time in the "technology world" that can't go over 48kHz that is fine.. you still have something a hell of a lot better then a casstette porta studio!!! and you shouldn't be discouraged BUT if you can record at 96/88.2 why wouldn't you. If you can't hear a difference when you approach it that way I don't think you are cut out for engineering. Now maybe I am on the "overkill" side recording above those rates but I am finding my recordings are starting to love me for it. I could post some work and I might soon but definately will in the future, I really don't feel like getting trashed on my musical talent/tastes because someone has a vendetta against me because they just enjoy trashing people on forums. LOL

I am asking this for real... IF I record at 44.1 and then SRC to 88.2 the only thing in those new frequencies would be crap that has nothing to do with the music recorded... right? how can you get something from nothing? I understand there would be some measurable crap going on, why wouldn't there be!!!

I am an old tape machine user, I am only 38 so to some I am young, to some I am old, to some I am middle aged. BUT we ALWAYS started out at the best quality and worked/bounced our way down, till the two track reel to reel which was VERY important it had at least the quality of the worst thing you owned but liked enough to keep using. BUT since we knew our projects were only going to cassette should we just record with a cassette the whole way through? HECK NO.. what a joke that would be.

EDIT: obviously in the tape world there would be a degradation that is not in the digital world but even if it did not degrade it would still be just plain stupid.

Another EDIT hehe: I thought it would be funny and quite ironic how I am defending higher qualities and then post this as a devils advocate against what I am saying... to help show that I do understand that quality can be achieved at lower rates. This song was recorded on a soundblaster audigy2 platinum. The guitars were recorded on an M-audio USB fastrak NOT the pro and the guitar was my buddies kids guitar and a 60$ zoom pedal. I was showing him it might not be a les paul like my guitar but you can get a decent sound out of it.. The vocals where recorded with a CAD M179 on the E-mu 1820m. ALL at 16bit 44.1kHz. I am not saying I think this song is great but it is a good enough for demo purposes Give