FastBikerBoy

 I'll go for some... Do do you want Coke or Sprite my friend? 

UnderTow

rabeach


"if the sampling rate exceeds 2B samples" are you really not able to comprehend that.

I do comprehend but you clearly don't. It means you need a sampling rate that is at least twice the highest frequency you want to sample. So if you want to record frequencies up to 20Khz, you need a sampling rate of at least 40Khz.

What did you think it meant?

UnderTow

It doesn't mean that at all. And clearly you don't comprehend. It means the sampling rate must exceed twice the highest frequency you want to sample.

SvenArne

Freddie H


Make one more chip to the game.. what about DI box... anyone here can hear the difference?

Sure, I heard the difference in my DI box last evening. It was night and day!
 
Sven

Cool...
 
1. Make two recordings in the same time...
2. Make TWO recording simulationsly---> one without DI box and the same capture with a DI BoX plugin in.
3. Noll Phase the two tracks...
4. Do you hear anything difference?
 
non...? silence? right....
 

jyeager11

John

Notice though I am talking about BIT DEPTH not sample rate. So don't think I am agreeing with you.

Do you even know what my argument is at this point, John?

I made no distinction between bit depth and sample rates. I'm stating that Loptec's metaphor is a good one for understanding why higher resolutions during production is always a better idea than working strictly in what the final output will be. I did not go more in-depth than that. It's people's blanket objection to the metaphor that I have a problem with.

More levels between two points is the very definition of resolution, and it's a wonderful analogy for anyone who doesn't understand why he should be recording and mixing in anything except 16 bits / 44.1 kHz because that is what the listener will be listening to.

This is the problem. You should make a distinction between them to understand them.  I know how film works and I also know how digital imaging works. Although it seems that digital audio and digital imaging have a lot of things in common they really don't. There is no equivalent to sample rate what so ever in digital imaging. You should know that.

The other problem is your misunderstanding about "More levels between two points is the very definition of resolution" This only applies to bit depth not sample rate. Getting that understood will get you on the road to clarity.

By confusing the two you are not understanding what they really are. I know it doesn't seem that is the way it is but it is.

What, you mean simultaneously recording into a HI-Z input on my interface and going through a DI box? That would mean going via the DI box' parallell output jack into the interface?

I've got a very noisy Behringer DI that's definitely different from my interface inputs...

By the way, it's impossible to "null" two separate analogue recordings. Nulling only makes sense in the digital domain.

Freddie H

Correct! True in theory... He also saying there are benefits using more then 44.1 kHz.

Actually the theorem doesn't. It is a mathematical theorem and as such is always theoretical. The 44.1Khz is an engineering decision based purely on the equipment available at the time. (U-Matic video recorders. You can read all about it here: http://www.exp-math.uni-e...mink/pdf/beethoven.htm )

24bit infact 48kHz or higher are need of capture overtones and oversampling...example EQ filters and so on...1976 there were nothing like CD:s or MP3 what ever...

Actually EQs and filters don't need any oversampling. Non-linear processing like compression can benefit from oversampling. As for overtones, they are only needed if they can be heard.

  Remember Nyqvist died 1976 so what he had to say about all this today would be probably a lot different...
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nyquist

He would be kicking and screaming at all the advertisement ****! But you know that this sampling theorem is used in all sorts of fields? Telecommunications, radar, sonar (the ones on boats and submarines I mean ;-), video etc etc etc. They all follow the same principles set out by Shanon and Nyquist many years ago. It is ONLY in audio that we have these ridiculous products that offer things like 384 Khz sampling.

The reason for these ridiculous products is because of a lack of understanding and the effect of placebo and expectation bias. It is easy to fool people with this. (Everyone has experienced tweaking an EQ so that it sounds just right to then discover it was in bypass all the time...) The people that are most sure about what they hear are the easiest to fool because they are ego driven and don't have a healthy amount of self-doubt.

UnderTow

UnderTow



The reason for these ridiculous products is because of a lack of understanding and the effect of placebo and expectation bias. It is easy to fool people with this. (Everyone has experienced tweaking an EQ so that it sounds just right to then discover it was in bypass all the time...) The people that are most sure about what they hear are the easiest to fool because they are ego driven and don't have a healthy amount of self-doubt.

UnderTow

True my friend! I couldn't agree with you more...many things is just placebo FX. Example if you change the skin on SONAR I bet you will hear the song mixed in a huge difference...As long we all know its our mind making a trick...we all can cool with that.

Freddie H

FastBikerBoy

 I'll go for some... Do do you want Coke or Sprite my friend? 

Sprite for me please. I've got to pop out for a while. I'm sure this'll be up to 7 pages by the time I get back.

My dog likes to listen to my music so I always record at 96kHz. He says it really makes a difference.

Now, if he would just let me record something other than "This Old Man"...

UndertowYou only need two points to fully define a circle. (The centre and any point on the diameter). Adding more points does not in anyway define the circle better. The same thing goes for sampling.

 
Hmmm... sounds familiar:
 
http://forum.cakewalk.com/fb.ashx?m=1865385