I am sick of 44khz vs 96 khz argument from amatuers!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rado
  • Start date Start date
If the "theory" hasn't been proved wrong in 114 posts, then I don't suppose I should even bother posting, but I'll humor you:

Recording at 96k isn't nessesary, and at many times it's over kill. You're probably thinking "crisp" sound, but it's definitly not a rule.

Read up on the Nyquist theory then hopefully it'll give you an idea why.
 
Oh man searching this guys posts is hilarious ( looks like True-eurT has already done this )

So is this (post #5)
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1384864#post1384864

I'm pretty far from pro but I've definitely heard of a e609. Funny thing is this zaragemca character was the one arguing with me for a whole page that unbalanced cables sound better because balanced cables filtered the signal to reduce noise. Where do these guys come from :rolleyes:

Here's a post of him recommending the e9xx on Mar 16
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=150039

Here's a post of hime asking about the e9xx the day before :D :rolleyes: :eek:
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=149953

Regarding monitoring on Cubase SX3 and MOTU 828mkII...
I don't own either, but this doesn't sound right

Rado said:
you should use direct Asio monitoring.
DO not use the SX outputs because the latency is huge for some performers.
I own a RME fireface and it works perfect.
I dunno Motu.
Click to expand...


https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1405491#post1405491
The bit about having to have 2 mics in the jungle and swap every 20 minutes is priceless.

What's with the "I have X, I like it. Any inputs?"
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=151735
https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=152442

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=152772
Rado said:
recording doesn't include MICS ONLY.
Click to expand...
Thanks jackass, he wasn't asking about 192kHz convertors though....

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?p=1417257#post1417257
I think someone already posted this, but it's worth another laugh


You guys know the rest...:D
 
so i was RIGHT when i said he's like a little school kid showing off to the rest of his classmates what he learned in class....or even what his parents said.
"96kHz is the ONLY sample rate to record at....my daddy said so"
 
"REad aboout digital clocking when AD convert.
44 is not real 44 it is actually ..something like 39 cause the clock takes 4-5khz."

My personal fave, along with


"48db is not arguable!"
 
Rado said:
It is very important in the jungle to have at least 2 MICS!!!!
Sometimes humidity will make condesers sound like shit or just not work at all.
Switch every maybe 20 mins.Or just Test how long is gonna take for the mic to sound like shit.
Click to expand...

:D
My personal fav, damn near burst out laughing at the office today when I saw that.
 
PHILANDDON said:
okay,

so he could barely speak english, and he was rude, and ignorant about something he claimed to know something about, but wasn't he inadvertantly right about one thing?.........if our machines allow us, shouldn't we record at 24bit/96k or higher because one day the cd will no longer be the preferred medium and if we dither/sample-rate-convert to produce a cd the sonic cost is relatively low?
Click to expand...
There is no way I am going to buy yet another version of "Sgt. Peppers" or "Dark Side of the Moon." No Way. I don't care how much better you make it sound. I won't do it I tells ya! :D :D :D
 
bennychico11 said:
so i was RIGHT when i said he's like a little school kid showing off to the rest of his classmates what he learned in class....or even what his parents said.
"96kHz is the ONLY sample rate to record at....my daddy said so"
Click to expand...
Yeah, it sounds to me like he's reading shit off the 'net and spouting it off after misunderstanding what he is reading. I am not going to lie, I will do that sometimes when someone asks a question and I want to find out the answer for myself. And I will tell them up front that I researched it, and not have any personal experience to back it up. But I will be damned if I misinterpret it and inject my own misinformed opinion in there too! :mad:

I think he's just a misguided youth. Too bad that too many times his ignorance is taken at face value.

Recommending a mic after asking about it the day before was priceless. I think we all should do that.

Who knows anything about Tech21 Bass DI's? I have been wanting one for weeks, and I am on the fence about getting one right now. I promise to tell someone it's the bomb tomorrow...
 
I just wanted to say I had fun reading this thread. Not as crazy as the "Does the Earth add noise" one, but it's right up there. :) Maybe next time I'm recording socks in the dryer I'll do it at 24/96. :D
 
Not to add more fuel to the fire, but I've heard the defense of higher sampling rates as sort of an explanation of why analog sounds better than digital.

That we can actually hear beyond the range of 20hz-20khz and that harmonics that are way out at frequencies beyond our hearing still act upon the harmonics and frequencies that we can hear.

In digital the highest frequency range is about half of the sampling rate, so for 44.1 the highest frequency would be about 22khz, whereas analog doesn't have this limitation, which is why it sounds better. So the higher the sampling rate in digital, theoretically the closer we would get to analog (I know it's not that simple and the differences between digital and analog are far more than just sampling rate and frequency response).

I have no idea if this has any technical merit, but it sounded like a plausible explanation when I heard it.

Crap or not?
 
EleKtriKaz said:
That we can actually hear beyond the range of 20hz-20khz and that harmonics that are way out at frequencies beyond our hearing still act upon the harmonics and frequencies that we can hear.
Click to expand...

Fourier is rolling over in his grave :D

Eh, I don't know. Analog (at least tape) does have it's bandwidth limits just like anything else. It does not go to infinity Hz.
IMO, the main argument for above 44.1kHz is that the brickwall lowpass filter needed to get rid of aliasing causes all sorts of havoc on phase and distortion at frequencies we CAN hear. By switching to a higher sampling rate, we can shift the filter's cutoff out further and use a gentler dB/octave.
It sounds good in theory, but most interfaces I know of don't run exclusively at higher sample rates, so your filter will still have to cater to the lowest common denominator.....44.1kHz (or implement seperate filters, but I'm not hearing any relays clicking in my 002R when I switch sample rates).

By the way, 20kHz is not a realistic upper limit for humans. It's very rare in adults (I believe the 20kHz came from experiments with young girls).
 
reshhp1 said:
It does not go to infinity Hz.
Click to expand...
True, but it does go pretty high. Bias frequency is, what, something like 500,000 Hz?

And just who are these perverts experimenting with young girls, anyway? :D :D :D
 
EleKtriKaz said:
Not to add more fuel to the fire, but I've heard the defense of higher sampling rates as sort of an explanation of why analog sounds better than digital.

That we can actually hear beyond the range of 20hz-20khz and that harmonics that are way out at frequencies beyond our hearing still act upon the harmonics and frequencies that we can hear.

In digital the highest frequency range is about half of the sampling rate, so for 44.1 the highest frequency would be about 22khz, whereas analog doesn't have this limitation, which is why it sounds better. So the higher the sampling rate in digital, theoretically the closer we would get to analog (I know it's not that simple and the differences between digital and analog are far more than just sampling rate and frequency response).

I have no idea if this has any technical merit, but it sounded like a plausible explanation when I heard it.

Crap or not?
Click to expand...
The argument against that theory is that a lot of analog equipment doesn't pass (or reproduce) all that much past 20k. So, using resorces to capture something that couldn't make the trip through the microphone and the mic pre is pretty silly.
Personally I don't know.
 
Farview said:
The argument against that theory is that a lot of analog equipment doesn't pass (or reproduce) all that much past 20k. So, using resorces to capture something that couldn't make the trip through the microphone and the mic pre is pretty silly.
Personally I don't know.
Click to expand...

i was JUST going to say that exact same thing.
most mics and speakers have an upper range of 20kHz...so are we losing anything above that anyway despite what sample rate we're at? or did companies just stop testing/reporting the frequencies above 20k?
 
I doesn't matter because we couldn't hear it anyway. Might annoy the dogs, though.
 
thats a good point about freq responce of speakers (and mics too)
simple enough but it just never occured to me
 
MadAudio said:
I doesn't matter because we couldn't hear it anyway. Might annoy the dogs, though.
Click to expand...

so then the Nyquist theory falls to shit after 44.1kHz sample rate?
 
not really because a higher sample rate would more accurately reflect the freq in that range.

for fun:

if you can generate a 20k (or even 18or so) record it into a daw and have a real close look at the wave.

trust me, that's not what it should look like
 
hey rado you are so full of shit. Professional mastering houses will accept submissions in all formats.

for example dipshit:

1.DAT: 44.1k or 48k @ 16 bits
2.Red Book Cdr
3. Data Cdr with .wav or .aiff files (16, 20, 24 bits at 44.1k, 48k, 88.2k or 96k).
4. 1/4" or 1/2" tape at 15 or 30 ips with Dolby A, SR or DBX noise reduction
5. Alesis Masterlink CD24 (16,20, 24 bits at 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96)

Any of these formats are industry standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top