Sample Rate ? w/ audiophile

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rags
  • Start date Start date
R

Rags

New member
I gotta audiophile so i set my sample rate in cool edit to 96k, instead of 41 or 44k prior to me upgrading my soundcard....

Now when i have it set at 96k, it resamples all my instrumentals and all my vocal files before saving and it takes like 20 minutes just for all the sampling crap alone, is their anyway to prevent having to go through the sampling, will another program be better to use?
 
Why not just turn down the sampling rate for the old stuff? Resampling it won't help it at all if it was recorded at 44.1 or 48 kHz, so why even bother?
 
dsf

because i record multitrack on cool edit, and when the sampling rate is 96000, the recorded vocals are louder, and better quality
 
Increasing the sampling rate has absolutely nothing to do with making a track louder..........
 
it makes the vocals louder when i record each time i raise the sampling rate so apparently it does
 
Rags said:
it makes the vocals louder when i record each time i raise the sampling rate so apparently it does
Click to expand...
Sorry, friend... apparently you need lesson in digital audio.... it doesn't work the way you think it does..... but you don't have to take my word on it, I've only been doing this professionally for a number of years, so what do I know.... :rolleyes:


The sampling rate is simply the number of times per second a signal is sliced into increments for digital storage. It has NOTHING to do with affecting the actual level of the incoming signal. An incoming signal reading -15dBFS is going to be -15dBFS whether the sampling rate is 44.1KHz or it's 96Khz....... period.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Sorry, friend... apparently you need lesson in digital audio.... it doesn't work the way you think it does..... but you don't have to take my word on it, I've only been doing this professionally for a number of years, so what do I know.... :rolleyes:


The sampling rate is simply the number of times per second a signal is sliced into increments for digital storage. It has NOTHING to do with affecting the actual level of the incoming signal. An incoming signal reading -15dBFS is going to be -15dBFS whether the sampling rate is 44.1KHz or it's 96Khz....... period.
Click to expand...

Sorry Rags.... Gonna have to agree with Bruce on this one 100%! As you begin to learn about digital audio, you'll soon realize how silly it was to make an association between sampling rate and volume. I think perhaps you are experiencing a "placebo effect".........

ls
 
i don't care what either of you know and i'm sure you've studied plenty, but when i was recording i purposely recorded the same thing one with the 44k, and one at 96k, and the 96k was much louder....

I'll believe my eyes and experience from less then 24 hours ago over anything else
 
Rags said:
i don't care what either of you know and i'm sure you've studied plenty, but when i was recording i purposely recorded the same thing one with the 44k, and one at 96k, and the 96k was much louder....

I'll believe my eyes and experience from less then 24 hours ago over anything else
Click to expand...
Well... a rich fantasy life can also be rewarding.... good luck with it...

:rolleyes:
 
Rags, there must be another reason for the loudness increase.

As to your reason for converting old projects to 96KHz files, it seems pointless since the stuff previously recorded will not be improved in any way. The differences in quality of recording your vocals at 96kHz is so minute that no one will be able to tell unless you have a pristine signal chain and first-class mics and mic pres, which nobody in a home studio does unless they're Sting or Gordon Getty. Unless your voice is full of unnaturally high overtones, there's nothing for such equipment to even capture that would warrant the higher sampling rate.
 
I'll believe my eyes and experience from less then 24 hours ago over anything else
Click to expand...

I tend to use my ears over my eyes where music is involved but I know exactly what you mean..

96K is the spinal tap of recording. It's like one louder than 10.


:rolleyes:
 
i just recorded again, it's even visually louder in the levels area by a easily noticeable increase

you don't need any engineering degree in audio to realize what is louder and what is more quite!

It's nothing aside from the cool edit sampling rate, because i recorded one at 44k, then i hit new and recorded the same thing of me just talking and 96k and IT WAS LOUDER

is it that difficult to believe, i think i know how to judge how loud something is :rolleyes:

So theres NO other reason other then the sampling rate because that's the ONLY thing i changed..god damn
 
Rags said:
is it that difficult to believe
Click to expand...
It's not a question of belief, the reason you put forward for the level change is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE........ sampling rate DOES NOT affect signal level. Period.


Rags said:
i think i know how to judge how loud something is :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not.... there may be a level change, but it is DEFINITELY NOT due to sample rate change. Period.


Rags said:
So theres NO other reason other then the sampling rate because that's the ONLY thing i changed..god damn
Click to expand...
Apparently there IS another reason because once again, get it through your thick head that SAMPLING RATE DOES NOT AFFECT INCOMING SIGNAL LEVEL.
 
christiaan said:
On a scale from 1 to 11, how much louder? 1?
Click to expand...

2-4


and blue bear sound....it's louder, i recorded it was obviously louder, only thing that changed was sampling rate, so theres no other possible cause...it's the sampling rate
 
And he didn't get my lame Spinal Tap joke either.

Rags, Blue Bear is right. Obviously there MUST be another parameter that's changed.
 
i think you all are clueless...ive tested it HANDS ON, one after the other...blah fuck it...im not gonna sit here and argue with you anymore...i know i'm right, i'll trust my ears and eyes anyday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top