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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rado
  • Start date Start date
bennychico11 said:
HDTV is not yet a standard in the television market. It's still brand new...and shooting in HD is pretty expensive for many smaller studios How many HDTVs do you have at home?

1 sony for $3000 and It does what it needs to do. I see very often people from news station shooting during the day with the sam .They use to shoot with the first JVC 2 years ago in HD.
O ..and in EUROPE HD is a standerd already.And not just cable.Broadcast as well.

DVD is not the final medium for any TV commercials. all local TV or cable stations request Betas.
as far as Final Cut: http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/specs.html
go look there under audio. 48kHz.

You are maybe right.I don't care that much for Final Cut Pro.If it wasn't for Macromedia Apple would never comeup with a good softwere.

Avid Media Composer Adrenalin: http://avid.com/products/datasheets/composer_adrenaline.pdf
under audio specs, the software supports 48kHz. Only the hardware supports up to 96 right now....for future expansion that is not yet supported).

So they do! o and for SDI you do not need more then 48 but you are talking TV.


I don't mix audio in video software. I do it all in Pro Tools. Trust me, I know how to use Pro Tools.
And if you understand that licensed music is at 48kHz maximum....then why are you saying "studios refuse anything less than 96?"

I was talking about not studios but Music LABELS.And I am not argueing.If you don't care and want safe a few $$ on an extra storage and some Ram.Ok Do it 44.1khz.I'd recomend 48 at least.But do not tell me that doesn't metter if the cd is recorded in 96 and then converted to 44khz.


face it dude, you're wrong. if 99% of the people here on the forum say you're wrong, just think what 99% of engineers around the country would say.

I am glad you know them all.And what country???US of A???
No one is disputing the fact that 96kHz is better. the math has been proven. but saying that 96kHz is the only thing that studios will accept is ludicrous.

I set MUSIC LABELS

a client is a client....and if he brings you something at 44.1kHz, 16bit...then be sure to point him my way after you tell him "I don't do anything lower than 96kHz." I'd be glad for the extra work :cool:
Click to expand...

If you did read the whole tread you'd know that I do not exept oter tracking for mixing very oten. So next time read the whole tread before you speak.
 
boingoman said:
Does this thread have a point besides "Rado is a dickhead"?

If not, we can close it. The point has been made. This guy would be great in the Berhinger debates. :)
Click to expand...

I always like people who have no statement at all. Not to mention a point
I was trying to make a point the whole time.Had facts that supported it.
I never tried to attack anybody.
You have nothing else to say then Upgrading from 44khz to 96 khz is a standard procedure and I am a dickhead.
Do you have something else useful to say so I can write it down???
 
little correction:
You asked How many HDTV do I have...
None
Just a 2 21 inch CTR viewsonics at 1920

I meant the camcorder that I have is $3000.
I know you'd say CTR with the same resolution is not the same as HDM or HDTV TV and I agree.
But CTR does the job for me
 
And Buy the way boingoman
The word engineer doesn't mean that you can click the record button with a mouse and understand the interface of your software.
Please make your self a favore and read something about Analog to Digital Convertion.Dithering. Do not just relay on the forum,cause I can see how far you got talking about people upgrading from 44 to 96 for SACD.That is just funny.Or maybe SAD.

I am out.Every time the same CRAP. I say my opinion and bunch of people attack me with no reason.

Here is my last words.
Send your demo to the recording company or label. Write with a marker your email adress on it.Leave greasy fingers on the cd as well.And then wait for a response.
I AM OUT
 
Rado said:

If you did read the whole tread you'd know that I do not exept oter tracking for mixing very oten. So next time read the whole tread before you speak.
Click to expand...

oh good god...just stop talking already.
you say one thing, and then when someone refutes it, you say "oh...well...i never liked that software program anyway." Yeah, you may not...but other people use it in what they do every day....professionals at that!

So they do! o and for SDI you do not need more then 48 but you are talking TV.
Click to expand...

yes, i am talking TV. you brought up post production facilities, and most of the work that goes in and out of post facilities is TV work.

so what big studio or record label do you work for Rado? I'm sure all of us are dying to know.
 
bennychico11 said:
oh good god...just stop talking already.
you say one thing, and then when someone refutes it, you say "oh...well...i never liked that software program anyway." Yeah, you may not...but other people use it in what they do every day....professionals at that!
Why should we talk about that again.....
You already set you do soundtrack on protools.
Have you done 5.1 DVD ot HD mix master????
No???
yes, i am talking TV. you brought up post production facilities, and most of the work that goes in and out of post facilities is TV work.
]http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp#[/COLOR]

http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp#

http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp#

http://www.nab.org/newsroom/issues/digitaltv/dtvstations.asp#

What kind of tv station are you working for??
Even PBS has HD broadcasts.

so what big studio or record label do you work for Rado? I'm sure all of us are dying to know.
Click to expand...

Are you crazy asking for my clients?
 
OK I AGREE.
I AM A DICKHEAD and CRAZY.
There are no HD channels in the world so far.
Mixing mastering is not better in 96khz even if it is for a CD.
Maybe I just fly in the future.Or maybe you sleep in the past.Or just don't care.
 
a TV station that delivers in digital has nothing to do with HDTV. TV stations have been delivering in digital for a long time. Hence digital cable. and DELIVERING in Digital doesn't mean it wasn't originally in analog form.


like i said before, no one is disputing that 96 is better than 48. however, people here have proved you wrong in that LABELS or post production facilities ONLY work with 96.

and as a side note. I've read, heard, and talked with other engineers....any many people agree that bumping up your bit resolution to 24 will give you far better results than 96k will.
 
I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to Dan Lavry's whitepaper. If you are too lazy to read it (there is a lot of math), then I shall summarize:

There is no theoretical reason to use a sample rate higher than 60kHz. 48kHz should be more than adequate; 60kHz gives a bit of insurance. Therefore there is no technical reason to use a higher sample rate than 88.2 kHz. 96kHz isn't harmful, but it isn't necessary.

Higher sample rates, however, such as 192 kHz, are not only unnecessarily consumptive of resources, they are mathematically less precise than lower sample rates. Since there is no benefit to higher sample rates, use of them may degrade audio quality.

In the other thread you stated, quite forcefully:

44 is not real 44 it is actually ..something like 39 cause the clock takes 4-5khz. That is why 48khz was a big dial in the past cause it left space for the clock.
Click to expand...

Provide a technical document supporting that assertion. If you care to look, you might note that there is some benefit to 48kHz over 44.1 kHz because it shifts the slight high-frequency attenuation caused by the anti-aliasing filter out of the audible range. This, however, has nothing to do with the clock.


Not to mention better frequan response and twice as much resolution.
Click to expand...

That's the same thing, and frequency response beyond the capability of human hearing and analog reproduction systems is irrelevant.


If recording 192 khz or 384-whatever- you can capture "REAL"tape sound resolution.
Click to expand...

I quote Dan Lavry:

Dan Lavry said:
How can we explain the need for 192 kHz sampling? Some tried to present it as a benefit due to narrower impulse response: implying either "better ability to locate a sonic impulse in space" or {emphasis added}"a more analog like behavior." Such claims show a complete lack of understanding of signal theory fundamentals.
Click to expand...


Can provide more details but you better research like everybody else.
Click to expand...

Such claims show a complete lack of understanding of signal theory fundamentals.
 
bennychico11 said:
a TV station that delivers in digital has nothing to do with HDTV. TV stations have been delivering in digital for a long time. Hence digital cable. and DELIVERING in Digital doesn't mean it wasn't originally in analog form.

Well think about that statement.
Still most of the station in the list have HD broadcast. Most major networks broadcast part of their primetime and special event shows and movies in HDTV. Every major electronic store carries HDTV sets. HDTV sets are a part the stores' normal inventory now.
I did work on a stupid documentary for *PB and it was HD.


like i said before, no one is disputing that 96 is better than 48. however, people here have proved you wrong in that LABELS or post production facilities ONLY work with 96.

Cammon man why are you chnging my words.I set labels and post production for DVD and HD.

and as a side note. I've read, heard, and talked with other engineers....any many people agree that bumping up your bit resolution to 24 will give you far better results than 96k will.
Click to expand...

O I am not even going there.This is something I;d never want to argue.
48 extra DB is not arguble hahahaha
 
mshilarious said:
I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to Dan Lavry's whitepaper. If you are too lazy to read it (there is a lot of math), then I shall summarize:

There is no theoretical reason to use a sample rate higher than 60kHz. 48kHz should be more than adequate; 60kHz gives a bit of insurance. Therefore there is no technical reason to use a higher sample rate than 88.2 kHz. 96kHz isn't harmful, but it isn't necessary.

Higher sample rates, however, such as 192 kHz, are not only unnecessarily consumptive of resources, they are mathematically less precise than lower sample rates. Since there is no benefit to higher sample rates, use of them may degrade audio quality.

In the other thread you stated, quite forcefully:



Provide a technical document supporting that assertion. If you care to look, you might note that there is some benefit to 48kHz over 44.1 kHz because it shifts the slight high-frequency attenuation caused by the anti-aliasing filter out of the audible range. This, however, has nothing to do with the clock.




That's the same thing, and frequency response beyond the capability of human hearing and analog reproduction systems is irrelevant.




I quote Dan Lavry:






Such claims show a complete lack of understanding of signal theory fundamentals.
Click to expand...




Who the fuck is DAN LAVREEEEEEEEEEEEE
And yes exacly more analog behaivior.
ANd I think I provided enough links.
And for the clock issue..Research yourself.


Everything I am getting from you is that everything over 48 is jyst an advertisment.
I quit that stupid forum.
I don;t even know why I came here.
 
I think we would still like to know exactly what studio you're working for, Mr. Pro.

BTW, do you even speak English as a first language?
 
okay, most TV stations have HD broadcast. that's cool. but i bet you the ratio of HD to beta/digibeta tapes is very slim at these stations.


Rado said:
I quit that stupid forum.
I don;t even know why I came here.
Click to expand...

best words out of your mouth all night.
 
I've read the paper.On teory he is correct.
BUT IT IS A FACT THAT HIGHER CONVERTERS HAVE BETTER SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO then lower ones.IF YOU CALl THAT a OVERKILL...

The outstanding signal to noise ratio of the Fireface's AD-converters can be verified even
without expensive test equipment, by using record level meters of various software. But when
activating the DS and QS mode, the displayed noise level will rise from -109 dB to -104 dB at
96 kHz, and –82 dB at 192 kHz. This is not a failure. The software measures the noise of the
whole frequency range, at 96 kHz from 0 Hz to 48 kHz (RMS unweighted), at 192 kHz from 0
Hz to 96 kHz.
When limiting the measurement's frequency range to 22 kHz (audio bandpass, weighted) the
value would be -110 dB again. This can be verified even with RME's Windows tool DIGICheck.
Although a dBA weighted value does not include such a strong bandwidth limitation as audio
bandpass does, the displayed value of –108 dB is nearly identical to the one at 48 kHz.
The reason for this behaviour is the noise shaping technology of the analog to digital converters.
They move all noise and distortion to the in-audible higher frequency range, above 24 kHz.
That’s how they achieve their outstanding performance and sonic clarity. Therefore the noise is
slightly increased in the ultrasound area. High-frequent noise has a high energy. Add the doubled
(quadrupled) bandwidth, and a wideband measurement will show a siginificant drop in
SNR, while the human ear will notice absolutely no change in the audible noise floor.




No english is not my first language and like I stated earlier already somebody will attck the fact that I do not speak english.
I do live in the states on working visa as a sound engineer.
I am sure you dont know that in order to hire a forigner in USA you have to make the immigration believe that your job can not be filled by an american.
 
Oh wise one we should all worship at your feet :rolleyes:

Please tell us more about how great the RME Fireface is because it has the "best converters" :D

I mean all the other pros here are just leading us to the desert instead of to the water; you are the real deal :D

I'll go as far as to say without even hearing any of your work that you're a better engineer than Kramer, Martin, & Massenberg put together :p

For you my friend are a mixing GOD :rolleyes: :D :D :D
 
Hertz

Rado said:
If you were a pro You'd know that since 2003 nobody will accept anything under 96kHz in the business!!!
Click to expand...

this is just another spam. don't you all get it???

this guy sells "hertz's" and he's trying (lamely) to get everyone
to upgrade to more hertz's....

of course he'll "just happen" to have some more hertz's for sale..

fhkng Hertz SPAMMERS!!!!
 
Rado said:
Your statement doesn't make any sense!!!!!!
(bumped up from 16/44 to 24/96/192)????????????
What are you talking about.
What is the F*CKIN POINT.up coverted??????
What is this a pre school?????
ARGGGGGGGGGG :mad:
Click to expand...

You mean to tell me that all those CD from the 80's were recorded at 24/192, wow now who doesn't have a clue.

Rado said:
I am out.Every time the same CRAP. I say my opinion and bunch of people attack me with no reason.

Here is my last words.
Send your demo to the recording company or label. Write with a marker your email adress on it.Leave greasy fingers on the cd as well.And then wait for a response.
I AM OUT
Click to expand...

Yes the whole worlds against you they will never see your point, oh well on to the next forum, bye bye now!!!
 
Last edited:
Rado said:

If you did read the whole tread you'd know that I do not exept oter tracking for mixing very oten. So next time read the whole tread before you speak.
Click to expand...
All of your sampling rate are belong to us.
 
Darn it! You just made me spit coffee all over my monitor :D
Hey Rado - Check out my site, I apparently don't have any vocal mics and I record at 44.1khz, so I must suck!

Track Rat said:
All of your sampling rate are belong to us.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top