Can we hear until 22Khz in Steinberg interface working in 44.1?

E

Edde

New member
I own the Roland Quad Capture is about a year. Only after the purchase was that I found that it has 20 -20K frequency response in audio monitoring working in 44.1 .
I read in the specifications of the UR line as UR 242, 44 they have frequency response monitoring 20 -22K working at 44.1; I really need to listen until the 22kHz. I really miss it in Roland Quad Capture. Could someone tell me if the Steinberg really shows the 22kHz? Are we can listen it on Steinberg interface? Or is it just technical information and practice do not hear it and becomes equal to the Roland Quad Capture.

Thank you so much
 
You're lucky if you can hear past 17kHz. Passband is half the sampling rate. 44.1 = 22.5 kHz.
 
Track Rat said:
You're lucky if you can hear past 17kHz. Passband is half the sampling rate. 44.1 = 22.5 kHz.
Click to expand...

Bealieave me; I can hear. I had and old audio card that reproduce until 22khz. ANd I can hear the very high frequencies of high hats, sibilance, bright area of strings sounds and etc... When in the same computer I conect the ROland QUad Capture I cant hear these very high frenquencies.

SO, I would like to know if I can hear it in the Steinberg audio UR interfaces.
 
the point of the question is:

I dont know what happend with Roland QUad Capture ( if you read the manual, they croped frenquecies higher than 20K) the frequence reponse is from 20.000 to 20Khz working in 44.1.

I would like to know if the Steinberg really works in 20.000 to 22Khz working in 44.1 ? Thank you

I can't hear crystal clear high frenquecies in Roland QUad Capture, I would like if I can hear crystal clear in Steinbeard UR series.
 
Last edited:
You most likely can't hear above 18K, more around 16K-17K. You're chasing something that 99.9% of humans can't hear. As stated by others, if you can hear it with other sound devices, that is because the other sound devices are manipulating the sound to bring within human range.

Do the test I referenced and at least see where you can hear. Steinberg works to the range of the interface. No more no less.
 
It's extremely unlikely you can hear 20kHz.

Having audio above 20kHz in the signal is detrimental, not beneficial. Modern oversampling converters give you the benefits of high sample rate without the negative effects.
 
Why don't you simply record at 48k? That brings nyquist to 24 kHz, so it will more likely still have 22khz present in the signal.

But I do.agree with everyone else. The chances of you actually hearing 22khz are very slim. Unless you are 10 years old and have been living in an anechoic chamber your entire life.

The amount of energy that exists that high up is very small.to begin with. You would have to be using some pretty decent microphones to capture it.

Since, most likely, everyone listening to your music will be doing so on an mp3 player, nothing above 12 kHz will be there in the finished product. (And no one will notice the difference, since most adults can't hear past 17khz)

If you want gear that will capture dog whistles or the sounds that bats make, you will need to look a little higher up on the interface food chain. The cheaper, pro-sumer stuff probably won't do it.
 
Thank you for all replies, I will try to explain better my case with details.

1st - I am talking about the output, the audio that is reproduced on the monitor, ok? have this in mind and forget the inputs ( this is not the case I am talking about it ).

Let's go...
One of my computers is a very old one ( about 10 yeard old) and I use on it the M-Audio Audiophile 2496 .Reading the manual on internet it says the AUDIOPHILE 2496 works until 22Khz.
It sounds crystal clean to me, Maybe it is because very flat to my hears.
.
When I use this computer to listen audio, mastering, editing I can head very high frequencies.
Example: can clearly hear the sound of the reed on guitar strings, esses and sibilances, the harmonics and harpsichord noise, the mechanical part of a piano when you press a key, the super high frequency treble of percussion and drums, I can hear super high frequencies of electronic bass instrument in the resonator. I understand that this is unnecessary, as has been said here. And I agree with you. But the fact is I got used to hear it when I am mixing. This makes sure I am making a perfect mixing. because I'm sure there is not anything left over or missing.

Since I bought the Roland Quad Capture , it works from 20.000 to 20K. please, read the specifications. Roland - QUAD-CAPTURE | USB 2.0 Audio Interface

Well... I hear a not crystal clean sound as I used to listen in my m-audio.

Do you think this 2Khz more that M-audio have makes difference? Or the Roland is not so Flat as the M -Audio? Or the M-audio 2496 with DELTA converters have gain of high frequencies ?

Now talking about the Steinberg interface.
I was thinking in buy the UR 44 or UR 242 because I read on specifications it works from 20.000 to 22Khz . DO you think It will sounds similar to AUdiophile 2496? A little better than the Roland one?

Somebody here had a chance to listen an Roland one and Steinberg one to compares?

SInce I have no place in my city to test and listen these devices. I need information from you, read experiences from you. I really need help about it. thank you so much
 
So, in resume. Why I can't hear crystal clear high frequencies in Roland Quad Capture as I can hear in an old M-Audio Audiophile 2496 ?
All I wanted is hear the high frequencies on Roland or Steinberg as I used to head on the Audiophile .

See here the frequence response of the Rolad QUad Capture:
steinberg comparing.pngaudiophine 2496.pngquad capture.png
 
The things that you're describing being able to hear on the Audiophile vs the Roland don't really seem to be dependent upon super high frequency information in the signal. It seems more like you've got the Roland set to a lower sample rate and/or bit depth. Or maybe it just doesn't have as good of converters as the M-Audio does. However, I have serious doubts that any information between 20 kHz and 22 kHz will have any major impact on the final result.

I say plug them both in, load up a project that you're familiar with, and do some serious A/B side-by-side testing with each of them. Set your DAW to use the Roland, listen to your project a few times. Then set it to use the M-Audio and listen a few more times. Maybe even export the results to a short .wav file and attach it here.
 
Tadpui, thank you for your reply.

The problem I described is the audio output. Maybe the M-Audio have a better conversors than Roland.
Or maybe the output of the Roland Device has a worse quality than the audio output from M-audio .

But there is a difference, I use both in the same monitor, the same Yamaha Amplifier. I also tested using the same amplifier Yamaha audio input. Well, the Audiophile 2496 sounds more crystal clear than the ROland Quad Capture.
And why only the OCTA CAPture goes to 22Khz? My QUad Capture goes only to 20Khz working in 44.1 .

Well, people have good experiences with Steinberg UR 44 ??
I think I am going to get one of this. I am hating the sound of this Roland machine, Thank you
 
OK, ok. I understand well what people said here.
So here my question again:

1) WHY the very old m-Audio soundcard audiophile 2496 sounds much better crystal clear in high frequencies than the Roland Quad Capture ?
2) The steinberg UR 44 or UR 242 it will sound as good as the old m-audio I have?

steinberg comparing.pngaudiophine 2496.pngquad capture.png
 
Some hardware just sounds better, or at least different, than other hardware. Specs won't tell you that. Short of hearing them for yourself I don't know what you can do, maybe read reviews.
 
Hmm, what im getting is that you just don't like the sound of your interface.

You're saying you can hear those higher freq. What do you have for monitors?Can they even reproduce up to, or past 22khz provided your ears can even hear that freq???

Buy the best interface you can afford, then make sure your monitors are up to the job along with your room.

But, I'm thinking it's simply a case of not liking this interface, and you're going all anal about specs.
:D

Besides, how does not hearing those frequencies get in the way of making good music? I mean if you got a good song, people are going to like it even on mp3 with earbuds.
 
Just because devices specify a range of 20hz to 20khz (or 22khz) doesn't mean that the material they are reproducing possesses those frequencies.

I accept that you may not be getting the apparent frequency in the Roland that you got with the 2496. There are many possible reasons for this, but the most unlikely one is the difference in specifications.

What you would need to do is pass the same material through both devices using the same machine and peripherals to detemine that one interface is actually duller than the other. Have you removed other possibilities? For example, what speakers are you listening to the material on? Have you got blown tweeters? Or are you using a different set of headphones? Or are you playing a low quality MP3 instead of a WAV?
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Some hardware just sounds better, or at least different, than other hardware. Specs won't tell you that. Short of hearing them for yourself I don't know what you can do, maybe read reviews.
Click to expand...

I think this is the reason. I am listening the Old M-audio audiophile 2496 and the new Roland QUad Capture using the same amplifier ( Yamaha) and the same Monitors ( ALesis).
 
RFR said:
Hmm, what im getting is that you just don't like the sound of your interface.

You're saying you can hear those higher freq. What do you have for monitors?Can they even reproduce up to, or past 22khz provided your ears can even hear that freq???

Buy the best interface you can afford, then make sure your monitors are up to the job along with your room.

But, I'm thinking it's simply a case of not liking this interface, and you're going all anal about specs.
:D

Besides, how does not hearing those frequencies get in the way of making good music? I mean if you got a good song, people are going to like it even on mp3 with earbuds.
Click to expand...

the room has acoustic treatment . I am musician professional. I had studio in past. I have more than 19 years of experience in small studio recording. Don't think I am a newbie. :)
When I compare both ones I am listening the Old M-audio audiophile 2496 and the new Roland QUad Capture using the same amplifier ( Yamaha) and the same Monitors ( ALesis). I also tryed an old Sony 7506 to listen to the audio. ( WAVE audio, MP3 audio) . and I can assure you most certainly, is not an impression. the M-audio interface The sound is much clearer in High frequencies than the Roland in any audio format. And the curiosity is the frequence response of both ones. M-audio is 22.000 to 22Khz and Roland is 20;000 - 20Khz working in 44.1 .

If I buy a Steinberg one, UR series, it will sounds better than Roland? I want one as clear as the M-audio one. Thank you
 
gecko zzed said:
Just because devices specify a range of 20hz to 20khz (or 22khz) doesn't mean that the material they are reproducing possesses those frequencies.

I accept that you may not be getting the apparent frequency in the Roland that you got with the 2496. There are many possible reasons for this, but the most unlikely one is the difference in specifications.

What you would need to do is pass the same material through both devices using the same machine and peripherals to detemine that one interface is actually duller than the other. Have you removed other possibilities? For example, what speakers are you listening to the material on? Have you got blown tweeters? Or are you using a different set of headphones? Or are you playing a low quality MP3 instead of a WAV?
Click to expand...

Hello, I did it, I connected the both output of the both audio interfaces in the same Yamaha amplifier input , with the same Alesis monitor. wel...
PLease, read this text.
the room has acoustic treatment . I am musician professional. I had studio in past. I have more than 19 years of experience in small studio recording. Don't think I am a newbie. :)
When I compare both ones I am listening the Old M-audio audiophile 2496 and the new Roland QUad Capture using the same amplifier ( Yamaha) and the same Monitors ( ALesis). I also tryed an old Sony 7506 to listen to the audio. ( WAVE audio, MP3 audio) . and I can assure you most certainly, is not an impression. the M-audio interface The sound is much clearer in High frequencies than the Roland in any audio format. And the curiosity is the frequence response of both ones. M-audio is 22.000 to 22Khz and Roland is 20;000 - 20Khz working in 44.1 .

If I buy a Steinberg one, UR series, it will sounds better than Roland? I want one as clear as the M-audio one. Thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top