|
Who actually writes in 192kHz? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nightshift |
Its simple guys
Bit-depth is what controls a sound's space/headroom. The lower you go in bit depth the more white noise is added and less "airy" and more flat things begin to sound, especially with reverberation. This is why a 24 or 32 bit wave will always sound better than a 16-bit mp3.
Sampling rate on the other hand controls the definition of a sound and how sharp and how accurate the timbre and frequencies of sounds are represented. The lower you go in sample rate the less sharp and less realistic things begin to sound. This is highly noticeable in EQ and again reverberation and almost all effect plguins.
So yes 16-bit/44.1khz samples DO indeed get a benefit from being processed in higher bitrates and sample rates but only if they ARE NOT mp3 or some other compressed sound format. It must be lossless audio.
Most people don't see any reason to PLAYBACK at any higher than 16bit/44.1khz because thats what it's going to be in the end so they feel that if you can make it sound good at 16bit/44.1khz then you're good to go which makes them wonder what the point is in playback any higher than the standard.
However if you RECORD anything you should try and use the highest bitrate and sample rate provided that your CPU can handle smoothly, most choose 24bit/96khz & it is industry standard for recording.
This is obvious a joke of deadmau5's. It was obviously just rendered that way and not really created in that fashion because many people will render their final mixdown up that high so that things such as EQ's and compressors have more pristine and precise results when being mastered.
Silly deadmau5 trying to fool people |
|
|
| ponsshin |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Okay, then why bring up the fact that the 44.1 kHz standard might be questionable for representing 20 kHz frequencies? |
The 44.1 kHz standard is not questionable for representing 20 kHz because you can't hear it. It's questionable for representing anything below 20 kHz.
Do the experiment yourself, use a soft synth in Ableton (i believe you use ableton right?) record a random midi pattern and make one output a 44.1kHz and one output at 192 kHz.
Yes the difference is not huge most people couldn't tell the difference but you CAN hear the difference. The bass stays the same but the mid-section is clearer and the highs are sharper. It's subtle for sure, but it's there. |
|
|
| dannib |
| quote: | | that also means that he didn't use any outside samples as they're 16 bit and 44.1 kHz |
Dont know what you mean by that? Nearly every sequencer i have used will upsample your samples automatically if needed. If not, you can do it manually very easily.
I doubt you will hear any difference whatsover when working at 192khz in regards to dance music production. Mastering houses usually roll-off frequencies close to 20khz anyway and tracks are completely destroyed anyway by excessive mastering/limiting.
Nearly all hosts work in 32-bit float anyway. |
|
|
| ponsshin |
| quote: | Originally posted by dannib
Dont know what you mean by that? Nearly every sequencer i have used will upsample your samples automatically if needed. If not, you can do it manually very easily.
|
It will still be "fake". It's like taking an mp3, re-encoding it wave and labeling it as a wave file with 32 bit loat and that . |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by ponsshin
It will still be "fake". It's like taking an mp3, re-encoding it wave and labeling it as a wave file with 32 bit loat and that . |
It isn't "fake" if you are using true lossless WAV or AIFF files. |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
It isn't "fake" if you are using true lossless WAV or AIFF files. |
A sound made at 16bit 44.1khz, isn't gonna sound magically better when you convert it to 32bit 96khz. You would have to make the sample at that frequency range in order for it to be at that fidelity.
As far as Deadmau5 is concerned, you all assume that he is fibbing, but, he and his partner or whatever came out with Xfer sample cd, how do u know weather or not they made the samples at higher rates for themselves. I don't know if they did that, but, it sure could be a possibility. He does have some really good productions ---soundwise. |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lucidity
A sound made at 16bit 44.1khz, isn't gonna sound magically better when you convert it to 32bit 96khz. You would have to make the sample at that frequency range in order for it to be at that fidelity.
|
It might not sound better alone, but it will sound more defined in the stereo spectrum when in competition with other instruments, trust me. |
|
|
| ponsshin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
It might not sound better alone, but it will sound more defined in the stereo spectrum versus other instruments, trust me. |
WHAT THE !? Ok here's what really happens: even if you set up your DAW with 192 khz in/out sample rate, any audio sample you import into the DAW will remain at the original sample rate and resolution.
But in Ableton, if I choose to freeze and flatten the audio even though I haven't applied anything whatsoever on it, it will convert the audio file into the setting of Ableton (192 khz, 32 bit) but the quality of the sound will remain the same! |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by ponsshin
WHAT THE !? Ok here's what really happens: even if you set up your DAW with 192 khz in/out sample rate, any audio sample you import into the DAW will remain at the original sample rate and resolution.
But in Ableton, if I choose to freeze and flatten the audio even though I haven't applied anything whatsoever on it, it will convert the audio file into the setting of Ableton (192 khz, 32 bit) but the quality of the sound will remain the same! |
Apparently you havent heard of upsampling or oversampling.. |
|
|
| ponsshin |
This?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsampling
What a complete block of :stongue:
You're saying you can turn a 22 khz sample such as this one
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
And turn it into a 44 khz sample? Go ahead try, it's a lossless file.
By the way 44khz sounds like this
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
and 192 khz sounds like this
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Totally different. |
|
|
| Nightshift |
| quote: | Originally posted by ponsshin
This?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsampling
What a complete block of :stongue:
You're saying you can turn a 22 khz sample such as this one
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
And turn it into a 44 khz sample? Go ahead try, it's a lossless file.
By the way 44khz sounds like this
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
and 192 khz sounds like this
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
Totally different. |
I'm not even going to listen to that becasue its not worth my time since you enjoy being ignorant.
Well let me tell you something interesting. You know movies like star wars? You know when they digitally re-master audio from movies that were older and put them into crystal clear surround sound? What do u honestly think they are doing?
I'll tell you what they are doing. they are upsampling the video's original recorded audio then re-mixing the elements into a surround sound stereo space. they DO NOT re-record the movies audio. They Upsample it.
Obviously you cant read past the first line of Google to really see what Upsampling is, how real it is and what it actually does.
But ignorance is bliss right? |
|
|
| ponsshin |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nightshift
What do u honestly think they are doing? |
It was in the 70's, no sample rate on tape recorders you dummy. They took the tapes, made a digital copy and used mastering techniques to render beautiful sound.
No upsampling. |
|
|
|
|
