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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rado
  • Start date Start date
Wow. Finally finished reading all of this. I can't believe everyone actually kept this going for so long. Was the scent of troll actually that faint? :D ;)
 
Rado said:
I am out.Every time the same CRAP. I say my opinion and bunch of people attack me with no reason.
Click to expand...
Um, maybe there *is* a reason? A sane, rational engineer would soon come to the realization that there just might quite possibly be causality at play here :eek:
Here is my last words.
Click to expand...
Obviously no such luck :(
 
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?
 
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...
Well, as far as I am concerned, that was not what he was suggesting. Actually he didn't suggest anything, he flat out stated that we are all a bunch of amatuers who won't get anywhere because the "industry" won't accept anything below 96khz. So he's an ass and we all have things better to do....
 
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...

If you can produce at 96kHz with no resource issues, sure. But not higher! I realize that it wasn't the topic of this thread, but Rado posted the comment on another thread that 192 kHz and even 384 kHz were sonically superior to 96kHz, which is in fact false; it results in trading accuracy in the audible range for frequency response far, far outside the audible range.

Funny thing is I just got my first converters capable of 96kHz, they are from RME. Would Rado be proud?

Nah, I'm still using 44.1kHz.
 
I have DSD (2.822MHz) and I still track at 44.1kHz...
 
So you are a dick...

who wants to grow..... hmmmmmmmmmm. And you do sound angry...... hmmmmmm very interesting. I enjoy this board, but not this thread.
 
Rokket said:
4GB would definitely do it! :eek:

Just make sure that it is a dedicated DAW, and you do nothing else to it. I would recommend XP Home, and I'll try to find that website that shows you how to maximize it for recording audio and post it for you. XP Pro has too many things running in the background (Office comes with Pro, and it's 130MB by itself and has a ton of background apps). And make sure you have 2 harddrives, one just for your audio files. Some recommend that you install the OS on both harddrives, so that they are running independent of each other, but an IT friend of mine says that it doesn't make much difference, so YMMV, take it FWIW, etc, etc...
Good luck with it, whichever way you go!
Click to expand...

If he's looking at dual processors, you need to have XP pro to take advantage of that. Windows XP Pro can pretty much the same number of background processes running, and does not come with Office at all.
 
wasnt the title of this thread " I am sick of 44khz vs 96 khz argument from amatuers!"


why are you still arguing............even if you are a pro.
 
Rokket said:
No need. There will undoubtedly be another baffoon coming along to spout off out of his ass and replace this guy anyhow...
Click to expand...
Hey Rokket....shouldn't that be recorded at 96KHZ..??? ;)
 
mshilarious said:
That is funny.

the 1 bit thing was an attempt at a DSD joke that I guess didn't work out too well :o
Click to expand...
I guess it was a bit funny.






sorry.
 
enferno said:
the studio i work in doesn't even have 96khz capability. our max is 48. we have a protools system, and it was top of the line a year and a half ago. we are the biggest studio in nor cal.

are you really that thick skulled?
Click to expand...


To what studio do you refer? *edit* Ahhh.. Mr. Wheat's shop. Nice. I've not been there. I've been in Velvetone and the new Pus Cavern, though.
 
Last edited:
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...
Your industry pumps out steaming piles of shit....in 24/96!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top