|
Who actually writes in 192kHz? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| coroknight |
Ponsshin I can't believe you actually have to argue this. Nightshift where do you think the new data comes from?
Have you ever taken an image and resize it? It's the same thing, you can't magically add detail to the image just like you can't magically add detail to a sound file. When you upsample all you do is add data points in-between the original data points and then smooth that .
|
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
2048 latency. |
haha lol |
|
|
| dannib |
| quote: | | 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 |
Yes this is correct.
You said this:
| quote: | | that also means that he didn't use any outside samples as they're 16 bit and 44.1 kHz! LOL |
Why didn't he use any outside samples? why do you assume these so called samples are in 44.1 khz, 16-bit? I said of course he can use other samples, just upsample them so that you can use them without them changing pitch. Most sample libraries are at 24-bit as well anyway.
| quote: | | nobody writes music at such high sampling frequency |
Thats a false statement. Many people record at 192khz. Personally i do not. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
People, this has been done to death......
Yes, recording at high sample rates does increase perceived quality, even with the limitations of human hearing and the Nyquist theorum.
There are a lot of samples out the in 24bit 96k as well as a lot of data supporting the notion that there is a difference in perceived quality so I can see the benefit of higher sample rates and bit depths.
I work with one very well known score engineer that will only mix and track in 96k because he gets better results from it.
If all it costs you is processing power and disk space and you have more than enough of both then fine but above 96k you are getting unbeleiavbly small increases in perceived quality for masses more space and power.
192? not sure it's all worth it right now - maybe for recording vocals through a U47 / U49 / SM2 etc., but the rest of the project really needs to be at the same rate otherwise the point of it is diminished (you get in to down or up sampling issues made worse by multi system clocking and jitter introduction etc.).
Personally, if I was using predominantly 24bit 96k samples, and recording/tracking/overdubbing, then yes, go as high as your system and project can handle (even if the final product is ending up at 44.1k 16b), but otherwise it's a really waste of time.
Note that I'm only using the term PERCEIVED quality ;) |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Can the quality be "perceived" in a blind test? |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Can the quality be "perceived" in a blind test? |
To the trained and/or experienced ear, yes. I've seen it done, but probably to you or I, even as serious "home" producers, probably not.
In fact the guy I mentioned once was starting a mixing project in the studio and was complaining the the quality was lacking something even though it was setup to his standards. He wouldn't let it go as it kept bothering him and after an investigation we found out one of the bigbens (clock) had malfunctioned and had dropped down to 48k. The assistants couldn't hear it, but he could.
Bear in mind that I'm talking about this subject in professional studio environments, not a lynx soundcard, a pair of mackies in your spare room with a bit of auralex on the walls (good as it is for our EDM usage). |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
But what happens differently when the sound is recorded at a higher sample rate? Obviously higher frequencies will be recorded, but it's extremely doubtful whether anyone can hear above 20 kHz or so anyway, and practically nobody over the age of 25 will even be able to hear over 18 - 19 kHz.
So, other than capturing super-high frequencies more accurately for the enjoyment of your dog or cat, what is the benefit to recording at higher sample rates?
:p |
|
|
| palm |
| why do u want to make music for your cat? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by palm
why do u want to make music for your cat? |
It was a joke. |
|
|
| coroknight |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
So, other than capturing super-high frequencies more accurately for the enjoyment of your dog or cat, what is the benefit to recording at higher sample rates? |
If you sample a sine wave at a low enough frequency it will turn into a triangle wave because of the lack of resolution. This effect becomes increasingly bothersome as the frequency goes up so it's not like super high frequencies are the only ones being effected. |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
It was a joke. |
it wasnt meant at you spesific. problem with english is that it has too few variants of words so its easy to missunderstand. i meant you like all of you. |
|
|
|
|
