|
Who actually writes in 192kHz? (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Please, no more misinformation on this. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but any differences you're hearing working in 192 kHz are more likely than not due to aliasing distortion on the down-conversion and weird compatibility artifacts. |
Oh yeah, and that's EXACTLY why I used the term PERCEIVED quality (even with a ;) ).
But no, you're actually incorrect when it comes to recording as I mentioned.
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. There's no up down conversion going on, until you take it another destination format.
192k, for making schranz in your bedroom, it does nothing but fill up your hard drive nice and quick. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| 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 :toothless ). |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
(mp3 vs wav.......I can by the way :toothless ). |
Are you sure? ;) |
|
|
| ponsshin |
I give up on this endless debate. I'd rather make music than study signal processing. Fun stuff vs. Boring 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. |
|
|
| mfitterer1 |
| The French have always been good at knowing when to pull out of wars!:p |
|
|
| derail |
| 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 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. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| 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. |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| Yeah, compression refraction. It represents the vibrations in the air we call sound pretty well. |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| 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. ;) |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
