ORIGINAL: SteveD

And you have speakers that can reproduce the "energy" >20k?

Hmm.. dunno 'bout if there is energy but still looked the specs;

Speakers (KEF): 37Hz-20kHz ±2.5dB ... -10dB at 29Hz and 30kHz

Headphones (AKG): 16Hz - 28kHz

Headphones (Sony): 10Hz - 25kHz


Junski

ORIGINAL: Junski

ORIGINAL: SteveD

And you have speakers that can reproduce the "energy" >20k?

Hmm.. dunno 'bout if there is energy but still looked the specs;

Speakers (KEF): 37Hz-20kHz ±2.5dB ... -10dB at 29Hz and 30kHz

Headphones (AKG): 16Hz - 28kHz

Headphones (Sony): 10Hz - 25kHz


Junski

Good for you. Now if only my ears could hear that!

My 19 yr old son is a Satriani protegee and has fantastic ears... and can hear up into 19k. That is really up there.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

Thankyou Steve,
Ok I already understood most of that the way you put it. BUT...

Another question though: So if you own "cheap" converters you would technically gain by tracking at higher samples rates but if you coughed up a wad for real expensive converters it's not going to make enough of a difference to matter in a real world sense to compensate for the added grief of trackin/converting and the work that goes into taking the extra steps. I am sure we all agree there are MANY times when the extra steps taken in ANY process are what separates the novice from the pro.

And since you obviously have a good grasp on this I'd like to ask you blunty. Do you think the converters in the E-mu 1820m (they are supposed to be the same ones that digidesign uses in their protools, the real pro tools for pros) are good ones where I should put my time into other things rather then take the extra work it takes to track higher and SRC?

Not sure I understand the extra steps you're referring to in the first part of your post, but let me say that when I used a MOTU 24i/o, I was pleased at 96/88.2k, but not at 44.1k. I bought the Apogee converters and and a Lynx AES16 digital interface to get 16 channels in and out of the DAW and was instantly happy at 44.1k. Further, the difference between tracking at 44.1k and 96/88.2k was drastically reduced. Projects sound almost the same at any sample rate with the Apogee converters.

Now let me say two things here. First, the MOTU HD192 units have really good converters, so it's not all MOTU gear that doesn't measure up. Second, I have had some STUNNING mixes hit my desk that were tracked through the very popular MOTU 2408 at 44.1khz. Basically the same converters I disliked in my MOTU 24i/o. The point here is the one I was making earlier. Gear does not get in the way of a great mix in the hands of an experienced engineer. I've seen it over and over.

Would I give up my Apogees? Not on your life. Does it contribute to the sound of my mixes? Definitely... right along with every other upgrade and improvement I've made, and I average about one addition or upgrade a month. But what's most important is really knowing each piece of kit, every plugin, gain staging, desirable harmonic distortion, phase correlation, depth of field, stereo image, acoustic treatment, mic-ing techniques, mic choices, RMS and peak levels, etc, etc, etc,..... THAT STUFF goes a long way to creating stellar mixes and is much more responsible for great mixes than converters or sample rate selection. I've been humbled many many times by guys that know what they're doing and don't have any exotic gear to speak of, and they track and mix happily at 44.1khz. They just know what they're doing.

I believe what you have stated regarding the converters in the E-mu 1820m is true. Don't know if they are the same converters as the ones used in the highly acclaimed Pro Tools 192 converters (they go up to 192k, but most engineers don't use 'em that way ), but they should be doing a very good job for you... even at 44.1khz.

Hope this helps.

I have tested my hearing lately and as expected, bacause of the effect of ageing (47), I can hear max ~18.7kHz so, I can't enjoy of those higher harmonies anymore .

BTW, here you can download the "keys.wav" data I mentioned earlier (and linked some graph for) .
If someone like to try to do the test mentioned by SteveD.

Junski

ORIGINAL: SteveD

I believe what you have stated regarding the converters in the E-mu 1820m is true. Don't know if they are the same converters as the ones used in the highly acclaimed Pro Tools 192 converters (they go up to 192k, but most engineers don't use 'em that way ), but they should be doing a very good job for you... even at 44.1khz.

Hope this helps.

Yea, I talked to E-mu and they said they are the only other company other then pro tools that has the "rights" to use them. $500 and I got em... it was that or take out a loan for the pro tools and give up sonar.. I decided it wasn't worth it and bought some other new stuff. Like NI komplete 4, ANOTHER les paul but a new studio one. It has a newer tone I really wanted. A really nice tube mic from ADK, among a few other things. I hope my recordings start showing a massive improvment. I was at about excelent demo quality close to broadcast depending on the song and from the sound of my new stuff I should be able to hit some film/tv soon!!! Wish me luck, or pray or whatever it is you do hehe.

Hey I clicked on your link... I am interested in your multi-track mastering. Do you take plain audio tracks and then mix them? I have noticed at times I lose alot of zest for a song before I complete it from listening to it over and over again... then there are times I let the mix get away from me.. if you know what I mean. I'd like to hear some work if possible. Don't worry if the musicians suck. I can tell the good mix when I hear it, even if the music blows.

Hmm.. dunno 'bout if there is energy but still looked the specs;

Speakers (KEF): 37Hz-20kHz ±2.5dB ... -10dB at 29Hz and 30kHz

Headphones (AKG): 16Hz - 28kHz

Headphones (Sony): 10Hz - 25kHz

I have a pair of Sony MDR-V900HD headphones which have a frequency response of 5Hz - 80,000Hz. They sound good but I doubt it's because if it's range. I guess I bought into the hype from the guitar center salesperson . But, either way, I'm happy with them. Thanks a lot for all the info guys, it has been very educational.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

I was at about excelent demo quality close to broadcast depending on the song and from the sound of my new stuff I should be able to hit some film/tv soon!!! Wish me luck, or pray or whatever it is you do hehe.

I pray... and I got yer back.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine
Hey I clicked on your link... I am interested in your multi-track mastering. Do you take plain audio tracks and then mix them? I have noticed at times I lose alot of zest for a song before I complete it from listening to it over and over again... then there are times I let the mix get away from me.. if you know what I mean. I'd like to hear some work if possible. Don't worry if the musicians suck. I can tell the good mix when I hear it, even if the music blows.

Well I don't do multi-track mastering unless you'd like to send me stems. I do mixing and mastering. You can send your whole project for mixing and mastering, or you can send a stereo mixdown for mastering. Rates and audio examples are on the web site:

DAWPRO Studios Rates

DAWPRO Studios Audio Examples

I meant mixing the stems/tracks then master it hehe. Sometimes I can say something and think I said it the way I meant it then later realize I said it wrong. Sorry I thought I looked on your site for these things but did not see them. Obviously I didn't look hard enough. Do you have an Idea of how long it takes you to mix a bunch of tracks, for a typical 3 min 30 second song?

EDIT: I want to apologize to anyone I may have offended in any of my posts in this thread. Especially the comments about if you can't hear it blah blah blah. I get tired of being told I can't hear something when I know darn well I can and that translated into a quite rude way of saying on my part, again I aopologize. These forums can be so dang sterile and unbecoming that it is easy to offend someone without meaning to at all. Mainly because you can't see how it is being said, ya just get the sterile text and you have to guess the manner in which it is being said and such. In real life half the stuff I say I am speaking with a giggle in my voice showing that I am being a pleasent smartass. hehe Ya can't possibly see that on a forum.

EDIT: After going over my notes I did about the study I had extensively done on this subject and to my amazment. I was arguing this without being completely explicit in what I refering to. OMG I am embaressed [sm=rolleyes.gif] I put as my conclusion to myself that I should record at the best quality I can because I do not know what the future will bring. Because I definately hear a BIG difference AT those higher sample rates and will I regeret not doing so later so. Since I might regret I will record at the best quality I can. BUT I even wrote it in bold this final statement. ONCE I MIX DOWN/SRC THE 192KHz RECORDING TO 44.1/48 THERE REALLY IS NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE. So my memory of my own summations was incomplete and I forgot to clarify the manner in which I was refering. SO now I wonder if we weren't talking about the same things but with different stages in mind, meaning I can hear the difference when I play back the 192 AT 192 but once it is SRC/mixed down there is NO audbile difference to me, going by my own personal notes. So if you guys were refering to the no audible difference once SRC/MIXED then we are in complete agreement and I now feel I need to apologize for this as well. Jeez.. sorry for the misunderstanding IF some of you guys were refering to the differences the way I just stated.

I am still going to record at the higher rates, I felt it was important enough that I told myself to do so incase of future development. The audible difference when playing back at those higher rates was just plain obvious. NOW if you can't hear a difference at those higher rates when playing back at those rates THEN I am concerned about your hearing. Concerned in an honestly caring manner.

AGAIN, Sorry if I contributed to wasting time on an argument because of my lack of complete explaination of what I was refering to. Enough said... going to do some tracking.

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

ORIGINAL: SteveD

I believe what you have stated regarding the converters in the E-mu 1820m is true. Don't know if they are the same converters as the ones used in the highly acclaimed Pro Tools 192 converters (they go up to 192k, but most engineers don't use 'em that way ), but they should be doing a very good job for you... even at 44.1khz.

Hope this helps.

Yea, I talked to E-mu and they said they are the only other company other then pro tools that has the "rights" to use them. $500 and I got em... it was that or take out a loan for the pro tools and give up sonar.. I decided it wasn't worth it and bought some other new stuff. Like NI komplete 4, ANOTHER les paul but a new studio one. It has a newer tone I really wanted. A really nice tube mic from ADK, among a few other things. I hope my recordings start showing a massive improvment. I was at about excelent demo quality close to broadcast depending on the song and from the sound of my new stuff I should be able to hit some film/tv soon!!! Wish me luck, or pray or whatever it is you do hehe.

Hey I clicked on your link... I am interested in your multi-track mastering. Do you take plain audio tracks and then mix them? I have noticed at times I lose alot of zest for a song before I complete it from listening to it over and over again... then there are times I let the mix get away from me.. if you know what I mean. I'd like to hear some work if possible. Don't worry if the musicians suck. I can tell the good mix when I hear it, even if the music blows.

lynx use them iirc.

Kind regards

Dave Rich

ORIGINAL: RnRmaChine

ONCE I MIX DOWN/SRC THE 192KHz RECORDING TO 44.1/48 THERE REALLY IS NO AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE.

I can hear the difference when I play back the 192 AT 192 but once it is SRC/mixed down there is NO audbile difference to me, going by my own personal notes.

OK so now my question has been answered and is what I suspected.
I too can tell the difference at playback when played at those higher rates.
And I also can hear the difference in things like chorus on acoustic guitar at higher sample rates.

I don't know if chorus sounds better at high sample rates because the recording is at a high sample rate or the effect itself works better at that rate.

Either way that is another topic which probably will never be answered becasue for the most part I believe after mix down to finish rate 44k it's the whole mix and probably less distiguishable.