A/D Converter High Res No high pass

The reason I keep going in circles is because you guys keep missing the point of the audio with 384,000 samples in one second being more clear than the audio with 96,000 samples in one second. I have posted my evidence and not knowing that the tape speed was in metric versus imperial has absolutly nothing to do with whaT we are talking about. And here I am being accused of being a troll. But a few of you have added in usefull information, but mostly half the posts on this thread are juat distractions against the topic on hands and hostile digs on me.

For some reason people refuse to beleive the limitations of digital sound design here.

As far as out of tune and distortiong goes???? Some people pay big money for that stuff.


Anyway that scratchy sound from the mic input is abnocshis to me. Maybe its an error and the mobo manufacturer needs to fix it. I have tape in an out on my mixer for this and when playing back audio through it so I can record stuff on beat is absolutly brutal.
 
Last edited:
The reason I keep goingbin circles is because you guys keep missing the point of the audio with 384,000 samples in one second being more clear than the audio with 96,000 samples in one second. I have posted my evidence and not knowing that the tape speed was in metric versus imperial has absolutly nothing to do with whT we are talking about. And here I am neing accused of being a troll. But a few of yoh have added in gavt usefull information, but mostly half the posts on this thread aee juat distractions against the topic on hands and hostile digs on me.

For some reason people refuse to beleive the limitations of digital sound desivn here.

As far as out of tune and distortiong goes???? Some people pay big money for that stuff.


Anyway that scratchy sound from the mic input is abnocshis to me. Maybe its an error and the mobo manufacturer needs to fix it. I have tape in an out on my mixer for this and when playing back audio through it so I can record stuff on beat is absolutly brutal.

If you only had a glimpse of ability to listen to anyone... Maybe even an attempt to spell correctly would be a good start...

Sorry, but this is stupid...
 
Not sure if this is the same Ryan Murphy or not, but I found this elsewhere on the net. The picture looks like the same guy.

Ryan Murphy said:
Scenario 1:

Your studio has been robbed, all you are left with are:

- 3 SM 57's

- 1 USB microphone

- Your desktop computer and monitor.

- 2 headphones and a small headphone amp.

- an old 4 mic pre interface that you stuffed away in your closet hoping to never see it again, yet reminded you of your younger days as an "aspiring engineer".

- 2 Auratone reference monitors

- 2 Yamaha NS 10's

- Your iLok 2 dongle with Waves Gold Bundle and a Valley People Dynamite Limiter to boot.

- Pro Tools I-don't-know-what-version-it-is-now.

Subsequently, a Lounge Metal band shows up at your front door (and without going into any deep semantics), you decide to take on the clientele.

Clientele are equipped with:

- 1 Epiphone 6-string guitar with a Line 6 Spider 30 amp

- 1 B.C rich Warlock Bass Guitar with Hartke 500W amp.

- A Yamaha drumset. Kick, snare, 3 Tom's, two cymbals, hi-hat, a cowbell and a ride.

- A guy who has strikingly similar vocal tonality to Frank Sinatra.

One other caveat:

The band wants to do live tracking.

For saving grace, because these robbers couldn't hope to rip off your impeccable acoustic treatment from the walls, your awesome rooms are still perfectly intact.

You also have a few other resources lying around such as duct tape, blankets and one handmade gobo.

How would you proceed to tackle this band, Mr. Engineer / Producer? From the recording process, to mixing and mastering.

RULES:

1. You cannot deny the glory of Lounge Metal, and you will see this project through to the end.

Actually, that's the only rule.

And... Let the comments begin.
 
The reason I keep goingbin circles is because you guys keep missing the point of the audio with 384,000 samples in one second being more clear than the audio with 96,000 samples in one second.

It's not clearer, it just theoretically could capture sound three octaves higher than you could possibly hear while using eight times more hard drive space than is necessary. But since you're the expert, why don't you go solve your own problem? Why would you need our help?
 
i do listen, but is physivally impossinle for a computer to recreate a saw or square wave. I here it everytime I turn my analog synth on. It is physically impossible. In real life the sound is infinatly close to each other from +1v to -1v with no time in between the space. But with computers this is physically impossible. You have to go one pixel or sample forward to get this.


i haveistened to everything that has been posted and only abkut 20 percent of what has been posted here is accual information. And if you listen to this accual information it backs up whT Is am saying. Not all music can be recreated as samples translated into varying sign waves. A lot of music is more complex. I have posted enough evidence to disprove this 384k digital audio is only for revording 384000hz sound samples nonsense because digital audio can not duplicate all audio with just +1 +50 -11 +34.... Thats all digital is. In real life there are infinate possibilities. That is why 768k audio is the future because it will enable the musician to be twice as creative than with 384k audio.


Digital cant even do triangle. I just played a triangle key on a dsi prophet rev2 and I have never heard anything from a computer sounding that sharp. it comes to such a perfect sharp tria gle point that computers just dont do.


It seems you guys focused so hard on spelling things correctly and making everything perfect ylu forgot what good music accualy sounds like.
 
Last edited:
Audio does not have infinite possibilities. It can't. Any "detail" that would exist between samples would be above the frequency that you could hear.

Also, speakers can't reproduce perfect square waves... It takes time for the cone to travel from full forward to full backward. The slew rate of the speaker is a much bigger problem for a square wave than any digital reconstruction issue.
 
Not sure if this is the same Ryan Murphy or not, but I found this elsewhere on the net. The picture looks like the same guy.

Naa...the guy you found can spell and construct coherent sentences. :D


As far as out of tune and distortiong goes???? Some people pay big money for that stuff.

:laughings:

Well then...judging by your music samples...you're going to be a rich man any day now...soon...no really, the check is in the mail.

That is why 768k audio is the future because it will enable the musician to be twice as creative than with 384k audio.

How..???...because 768 is twice 384?

:facepalm:
 
I vote for banning this idiot and deleting this thread. It doesn't matter if he's a troll or a moron, the damage this thread does to the integrity of the forum is the same.
 
Well my point is I hear stuff on those 384k 4 track tape recordings that I dont hear on the 96k ones. So the argument of we dont need 192k audio because we can't hear past 88.3khz is just wrong to me.

That is why I have to drive this over simplified point across of 384 being greater than 96. Because mathmatically it is. Also in digital auidio it is.

I play a 192khz audio file over a 96khz orb48khz resolution adc, I will hear less than through a 192khz adc.... Similarily if I compress a 192khz to say 48khz it will usually distort (not always in a bad way) the music.
 
I vote for banning this idiot and deleting this thread. It doesn't matter if he's a troll or a moron, the damage this thread does to the integrity of the forum is the same.

I don't disagree....but I'm leaning with Jimmy...this could be fun...maybe let it run until it turns into a dumpster fire. :p
 
I vote for banning this idiot and deleting this thread. It doesn't matter if he's a troll or a moron, the damage this thread does to the integrity of the forum is the same.


so now you are so closed minded you have failed to understand and resort to getting thread locked? How inmature. It is so hard getting through to dumb dumbs.


i have been yammering with peoplenlikebthis for years. Its always the same pig headed rwmarks and I have been doing this for 30 years or I have this huge degree and talk talk talk talk, bur never ever listen.

Do you understand what itnis I am telling you people here. I am not just rambling BS, but stating facts. There is a serious regression going on music industry and I am sick of listenimg to all these crap songs from the radio.
 
It is so hard getting through to dumb dumbs.

Yeah...that's what the other 20 people posting in this thread think.

I'm curious about one thing...why are you transferring 384kHz and 192kHz digital audio...to a dinky cassette tape deck...and THEN comparing the tracks...???
 
I mixed the audio straight onto the dinky cassete tape deck live and moved it into digital for long term storage and ease of copy and paste.

the 192khz tard song was never on tape and recored live via digital on Ardour and mixed digitally.

Life in peril 48khz audio was mix and recorded digitally all on a cell phone.

Oh brick wall why .flac 96khz audio was mixed and recorded on tape transfrered digital via audavity 96khz sample rate and further rwcording and mixing was done digitally via web cam mic.

jam on 96khz .flac recorded to tape mixed into 96kz audacity

sure they try to piss me off and come off recorded to tape and mixed to audacity 384khz.

test project main out was recorded to audacity 384khz using mic input 1/8th stereo and mackie 1642 mixing console.


for those of you out there who ha en't used tape. I highly reccomend it. It is a solid way to record tracks and tape compresses your instruments in a way that sounds better and makes ot easier to encode to digital.
 
Last edited:
I mixed the audio straight onto the dinky cassete tape deck live and moved it into digital for long term storage and ease of copy and paste

OK...then what is the 384kHz and 192kHz part...?

Are you saying you recorded the audio to the cassette....and then transferred to digital at 384 and 192...and THAT is what you are comparing....?
Or....are you saying you recorded direct to digital at both 384 and 192...and then transferred that to the cassette at 384 and 192...and THAT is what you are comparing?

It's unclear how things are connected and what is the source recorded to...and how are these transfers happening to or from the cassette.
 
no I recorded the same bass guitar and intruments to a 4 track cassete and some I encoded to digital at 96khz and some at 384khz using the same everything.


And you are confused. I am only comparing the 4 travk tape stuff to each other.

the 192khz flac tard song i keep lamenting on. it sounds different depending on if you play it through 48khz, 96khz, or 192khz.... you dont get everything at 48khz. also if you try and compressn it to 48khz it distorts a lot of the music....


i have been saying this for 8 pages now. This what i mean when I say don't listen or dont understand.


i hope non of you guys are behind that song they have been playing on Cincinnat's Pure rock station
... Where the guy is singing about "I'm a little bit off today" That is horrible and so not rock, liars!
 
no I recorded the same bass guitar and intruments to a 4 track cassete and some I encoded to digital at 96khz and some at 384khz using the same everything.


And you are confused. I am only comparing the 4 travk tape stuff to each other.

the 192khz flac tard song i keep lamenting on. it sounds different depending on if you play it through 48khz, 96khz, or 192khz.... you dont get everything at 48khz. also if you try and compressn it to 48khz it distorts a lot of the music....


i have been saying this for 8 pages now. This what i mean when I say don't listen or dont understand.


i hope non of you guys are behind that song they have been playing on Cincinnat's Pure rock station
... Where the guy is singing about "I'm a little bit off today" That is horrible and so not rock, liars!

No...I'm not confused...you have a hard time explaining what you are doing so that it's clear to everyone.

I still don't know how you keep talking about the cassette and 384/96 kHz...as though they are all involved together...because you kept saying "the 384 and 96 coming off the tape"...???

You seem to be convinced that you are the only person here who is right...who knows what he is talking about...when in fact, it's totally the opposite.
Take your perspective over to a real pro audio site...where the big boys who you can't deny, know their shit...and I bet you will get maybe 2-3 courtesy posts where someone tries to set you straight...and after that, if you persist, they will just toss you off the site, because they simply don't want to waste time with people who are misguided and who refuse to believe what everyone else agrees on.

Around here...you're getting a lot more leeway with your misguided understanding of how digital works, and that twice the sampling rate doesn't make things twice as good...or that you can even hear a significant difference between 96k and 384...or that going to 768 will let you hear even more things.
It's not that kind of math.

Here, read this...maybe it will help you to not be so confused.

https://sonicscoop.com/2016/02/19/t...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/

Pay attention when you get to this:

"It turns out that in many cases, we can hear the sound of higher sample rates not because they are more transparent, but because they are less so. They can actually introduce unintended distortion in the audible spectrum, and this is something that can be heard in listening tests."

Also...it could be true that converter A might sound better at 192 kHz...while converter B sounds better at 96kHz...but that isn't because of the higher sampling rate...it's more to do with the converter design.

Anyway...the article has some quotes from Dan Lavry, who is considered one of the top digital converter designers...and even he explains why you don't need to go even as high as 96kHz...and certainly not higher.
I'm sure you will disagree with him too... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
the article has some quotes from Dan Lavry, who is considered one of the top digital converter designers..

Heh, my brother used to work for Lavry. He was the only employee not related by blood.

So now I'm subscribed to this train wreck. Where's that Unsubsribe button again?
 
Back
Top