TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Who actually writes in 192kHz?
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Ridiculous debate. Do you not all realise that your tunes are getting encoded to MP3 @ 320 anyway? If you can hear a difference between 320 and Wav then good on you. If you can hear a difference between 44.1 and 192 then good on you. But very few people can, and the trend is towards less quality not more, so don't go getting excited.

Yeah, true.

I'll stfu now.









(mp3 vs wav.......I can by the way ).

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN (mp3 vs wav.......I can by the way ).

Are you sure?

If you think you can tell, I've composed a challenge for you:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...6062&forumid=48

I give up on this endless debate. I'd rather make music than study signal processing. Fun stuff vs. Boring shit I choose the fun stuff. If I design a cool sound at 44.1khz I'm not gonna bother about going up,
You guys keep showing off to each other on who knows better than the other one, I'm off to make music, you guys keep talking about it.

The French have always been good at knowing when to pull out of wars!

quote:

Originally posted by ponsshin I give up on this endless debate. I'd rather make music than study signal processing. Fun stuff vs. Boring shit I choose the fun stuff. If I design a cool sound at 44.1khz I'm not gonna bother about going up, You guys keep showing off to each other on who knows better than the other one, I'm off to make music, you guys keep talking about it.

Well, it is important not to spread misinformation, such as "the 20Khz waveform sounds better if it is sampled ten times rather than twice". Yes, it makes sense if you think in picture terms, or if you compare it to animation, but sound doesn't work that way - if you raise the samplerate (or "keep adding slices") it'll allow you to produce higher and higher frequencies, but won't make the lower frequencies sound better because they're represented in "higher definition".

Look, I'll admit I don't know why this is, because it does seem counter-intuitive. The problem with audio is that we use written words and diagrams to try and represent it - waveforms the way they're drawn on paper are just representations, they're totally not indicative of how the sound waves behave in reality. There's no up-down to sound, just the speaker cone pushing and pulling air.

But yes, I agree, the vast majority of us would be much better served working on our music than worrying about 192kHz samplerates.

quote:

Originally posted by derail Well, it is important not to spread misinformation, such as "the 20Khz waveform sounds better if it is sampled ten times rather than twice". Yes, it makes sense if you think in picture terms, or if you compare it to animation, but sound doesn't work that way - if you raise the samplerate (or "keep adding slices") it'll allow you to produce higher and higher frequencies, but won't make the lower frequencies sound better because they're represented in "higher definition". Look, I'll admit I don't know why this is, because it does seem counter-intuitive. The problem with audio is that we use written words and diagrams to try and represent it - waveforms the way they're drawn on paper are just representations, they're totally not indicative of how the sound waves behave in reality. There's no up-down to sound, just the speaker cone pushing and pulling air. But yes, I agree, the vast majority of us would be much better served working on our music than worrying about 192kHz samplerates.

What are you talking about? A waveform is a perfectly good way of representing audio. The 'up-down' you speak of is the pressure variations experienced in the air and thus such a diagram is a direct representation of the sound's physical form.

Yeah, compression refraction. It represents the vibrations in the air we call sound pretty well.

The undeniable fact that nobody can hear the difference between a 44.1 khz file and the same file at 192 khz on a blindfold test begs the question why do most cheap ompamp codex digi gear made in china or their more expensive counterparts bother with such ridiculous sample rates? At that point the concepts of 'the frequency range of the human ear' and 'audio wisdom' take the back seat to 'prowess apperancy of x brand' and 'marketing zeal'... the former presumably driven by their hardwon advancements in the development of this technology.... and the later hopefully propelled by their pride in those accomplishments and their desire to share it with others for fun and profit.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you record (say a vocal or violin) with a great mic (i.e. u49), a pristine signal path in to class A converters, at 192k, then playback through excellent studio monitors in a pro environment I guarantee you need your ears checked if you don't hear the perceived improvement in quality over the exact same setup but done at 44.1.

''Class a converters'' reminds me of ''grade a milk.''
No there is no improvement in sound quality and you couldn't tell the difference on a blindfold test if your life depended on it so stop lying to yourself and others.

when rendering in reason at 44.1kHz it recomends me to "dither". The option falls away when rendering at 48kHz. Does it mean 48kHz is the native working frequency in the code of the synths etc?

edit: lol it was wrong. its when selecting 24bit the dither option goes away. now i dont know what dither is anymore....

quote:

Originally posted by palm now i dont know what dither is anymore....

Taken straight from the Ableton Live manual

quote:

Dither Options: If you are rendering at a bit depth lower than 32-bit, choose one of the dither modes. Dithering adds a small amount of noise to rendered audio, but minimizes artifacts when reducing the bit depth. By default, Triangular is selected, which is the "safest" mode to use if there is any possibility of doing additional processing on your file. Rectangular mode introduces an even smaller amount of dither noise, but at the expense of additional quantization error. The three Pow-r modes offer successively higher amounts of dithering, but with the noise pushed above the audible range. Note that dithering is a procedure that should only be applied once to any given audio file. If you plan to do further rocessing on your rendered file, it�s best to render to 32-bit to avoid the need for dithering at this stage. In particular, the Pow-r modes should never be used for any material that will be sent on to a further mastering stage - these are for fnal output only

quote:

Whenever rendering audio to a lower bit depth, it is a good idea to apply dithering in order to minimize artifacts. Dithering (a kind of very low-level noise) is inherently a non-neutral procedure, but it is a necessary evil when lowering the bit resolution. Please note that Live�s internal signal processing is all 32-bit, so applying even a single gain change makes the resulting audio 32-bit as well - even if the original audio is 16- or 24-bit. Dither should never be applied more than once to any given audio file, so unless you are mastering and finalizing in Live, it is best to always render at 32-bit and avoid dithering altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated What are you talking about? A waveform is a perfectly good way of representing audio. The 'up-down' you speak of is the pressure variations experienced in the air and thus such a diagram is a direct representation of the sound's physical form.

Yes, it is a good representation, but it's not the way the sound actually moves through air - a sine wave doesn't look like an image of a sine wave if you could actually see it. Instead of up-down it's more in-out. Kinda like a slinky.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN If you record (say a vocal or violin) with a great mic (i.e. u49), a pristine signal path in to class A converters, at 192k, then playback through excellent studio monitors in a pro environment I guarantee you need your ears checked if you don't hear the perceived improvement in quality over the exact same setup but done at 44.1.

Did you perform a double-blind test? I wonder just how much you're willing to put behind that guarantee.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.