|
how much can e6600 take ? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
well..:D i sure want to use those east west quantum leap orchestra things some time.
don`t know exactly how high the samplerates are on the professional editions of that.
but i`m sure they will be over 44 :-P |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Right, now you're not even trying to make sense anymore. |
no, maybe because you don`t use high quality strings/saws often.
they`re sure not to find in your songs in your signature, i did listen to it and they were nice, but so standard.
bass sounded ok, with the kick.
but nice and ok ain`t the things what i`m looking for, sounds maybe
spoiled, but i just want the best.
but for money reasons i`m stuck at the same quality as you :-P
maybe sounds like i want to crack your songs down, but i just want to explain what i want.
i`m sure you want the same, but like me we have to do it with less and concentrate more on composing then sound quality. |
|
|
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by -_1_--Ben--_1_-
no, maybe because you don`t use high quality strings/saws often. |
I think it has more to do with the completely random sentence structures and page breaks. |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
I think it has more to do with the completely random sentence structures and page breaks. |
o, ok haha.
i see the page breaks, it looks like a song.
i will try to don`t do that anymore.
the random sentence thing i don`t understand what you mean by that.
i just say what i want to say
i get confused here, i don`t know really what a page break is, i thought you meant the space between my texts.
but ok
off topic hahaha |
|
|
| Eldritch |
There is definately NO difference in the bass frequencies from a 44.1kHz and a 192kHz recording. It's pretty obvious if you use your brain.
44.1kHz audio has a bandwidth of 0-22kHz.
192kHz audio has a bandwidth of 0-96kHz.
Bass reside in the 30-200Hz range. Enough said.
The only advantage 192kHz has over 44.1 kHz is that it can reproduce harmonics more accurately at high frequencies. Mixing in a sample rate higher than your target medium is pointless as the high frequency information will be filtered away at the mastering stage. |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
thank you, i tried the differences a fews time more and noticed
the volume get`s louder or something on 96 and 192.
which also made it sound even more better. (in my ears)
you`re right it sounds better on 192, but i keep it low budget i deciced.
so , no killer comp, but just one that`s necessary for me.
and learn more about the mixing while i keep saving for other things (maybe an korgms20 or something, to bad it doens`t have presets) |
|
|
| -_1_--Ben--_1_- |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_palm
ben ur not insulting me by assuming my ears are damaged by clubbing :D ur absolutely right. i was in loveparade in 2003, didnt hear afterwards. then i dj with mdr-v700 headfones for a while, got even more deaf. but now im watching more where I go and how the levels is to save whats left. |
ah, i believe you have enough hearing left to produce. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
The difference between 16 and 24 bits is barely perceptible. The difference between 44 kHz and 192 kHz is near-totally imperceptible.
The reason some professional studios use these rates is because signals are passing through 50 stages of gear, some analog, some digital. When the process is repeated over and over again (not once, as in recording a Nord Lead onto your PC), sample rates and bit depths start to become an issue.
I have never met any person, nor seen any study that has revealed a single person, who can consistently differentiate between 16/44 and 24/192 in a blind test. For the record, "consistently" means at a rate that's statistically more significant than chance - if they can guess 50-60% of the time, that proves very little.
Show me the tiniest shred of hard evidence and I'll pipe down, but until then, get your head out of your ass and use 16/44 or 16/48 like a sane person. Just because you think you can hear the difference doesn't mean you can. |
|
|
| derail |
If anyone wants to use XARC for their mastering, they want to receive their rendered files at 24 bit. They're the only mastering house I've used which have expressly required this, just letting you know. There may be others.
I'll have to check how problematic it is to change a project from 48 to 96 or 192 kHz once it has been created. Hopefully it's just a matter of opening the project up, changing the sample rate and converting all the current samples in the project to the new sample rate, then re-recording all the external synths at the higher sample rate. That'd be handy if 96 or 192 became the new standard. But with the way many people listen to music these days, through their computers or mp3 players, while they're concentrating on something else, I can't see any major interest on the consumer side in higher bit or sample rates...
Having said that, there is so much music out there which sounds incredible at 16 bits, 44.1 kHz. I'd say, get the basics of production, engineering etc, sorted out before worrying about 192 kHz. Once you're creating some of the world's best sounding CD quality music you'll be able to push for the higher sample rate thing. I've flipped over to 96 and 192 once or twice, and it does sound different, but there are much more fundamental things I can do to improve my sound than switching to the higher rate (and no, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a blind test - a lot of 44.1 kHz productions, or even 22 kHz productions, are going to sound a lot better than other productions running at 192 kHz. Depends on the engineer).
Also, running at 192 will slow your system down and make your file sizes massive. I just don't see the payoff in the end. |
|
|
| camsr |
DSP plugins that do not oversample sound many times better when using the 192 sample rate. Think of per-sample modulation that might be done inside a synth or effect, and you will realize at the 192 sample rate things become more fluid and continuous. And it STAYS that way even when it's downsampled to 48 or 44 or whatever. But sometimes the digital sound can add good character.
Anything Ben is hearing is either the result of aliasing or the result of an inconsistent A/D converter. It's probably both. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by camsr
DSP plugins that do not oversample sound many times better when using the 192 sample rate. Think of per-sample modulation that might be done inside a synth or effect, and you will realize at the 192 sample rate things become more fluid and continuous. And it STAYS that way even when it's downsampled to 48 or 44 or whatever. But sometimes the digital sound can add good character.
Anything Ben is hearing is either the result of aliasing or the result of an inconsistent A/D converter. It's probably both. |
If the modulation is synced to tempo it doesn't matter once the sound is bounced down to 44.1 kHz.
And if it's not synced to tempo - well, you're still taking snapshots of where the modulation happens to be at a particular point in time, so yes, it'll sound different once it's bounced down to 44.1 kHz, because there will be different snapshots taken at that point in time, but I wouldn't say it would necessarily be better.
I don't think anyone would be able to tell which is which when they're both bounced down to 44.1 kHz. And I definitely don't think it'll push a song which gets a hypothetical score of 95% up to a hypothetical score of 96%. The amount of difference that it would truly make is tiny. And not even necessarily better. |
|
|
| camsr |
| Well most good FM synths use oversampling now. But if you dont oversample or use the higher rate it will give a different aliased character. sometimes thats good or bad. But if you can work at a higher rate it gives that much more capability to make sound. |
|
|
|
|
