sample rates issue

[noisewreck]

I must admit, although I don't find the sight of quadruple burgers that appealing, I like a nice cheeseburger with bacon and pastrami

Damn you, I just ate, and I am feeling hungry again

WOMAN!!! Get me some food

Wall-Eeeeeeee!

 

[miroslav]

So tonight I read through the chapter on sample rates in Bob Katz’ book on Mastering and came away with a slightly different take on why higher sampling rates can be perceived as yielding better audio quality.

There’s no argument about the Nyquist theorem and sampling rate as it relates to frequency range.
And…he too points out that the differences people hear are most likely the result of the filtering being employed and not so much the actual sampling rate…however, he also makes the comment that while it is possible to design exceptional filters for all sampling rates, he also points out (as I read it) that lower sampling rate converters require “more” filtering (maybe that’s not the best word?)… while higher sampling rates allow the converter design to “cut back” on the filtering…
…and then there was something about higher rates allowing the “noise” to be moved to a different area of the much higher frequency range.
(I only read through it once, so I may not be paraphrasing as best as I could…but I can get the book and quote if needed).
And I guess it’s also a cost thing about the filter designs and amount need for a given rate…?

OK… that doesn’t really prove that *higher sampling rates* are better…but I’m wondering if discussing sampling rates alone is even valid…and that it may be out of context….???
Kinda like arguing which car engine will win the race, and then making the excuse that the other parts of the car are holding back an engine from top performance.
Well…you need the whole car…you really can’t race just the engine, and likewise you can’t build a converter with just the *sampling rate*…the other components are part of the converter.
So it may be irrelevant to “excuse” the sampling rate because of the filters…?

Now all that may be stating the obvious…but I think it helps to somewhat justify the notion that some folks have about higher sampling rate *converters* sounding better.
If a lower sampling rate converter sounds worse than a high sampling rate converter because of the differences in filter design…well, taken as a whole…yeah, it can be stated that the higher sampling rate converter DOES sound better.
You can only come to a conclusion based on the converters that are currently available. So whatever design flaws they may have…people can’t judge them against some theoretical “perfect” converter that doesn’t exist yet.

Ok…enough rambling….it’s late…

 

[Seafroggys]

I like those nurses

 

[SonicAlbert]

Okay, this has been an interesting and lengthy discussion, but can we get back to reality here?

The original poster is converting his audio to *mp3* files, and his computer is choking on the processing of 96k.

In my opinion, here is what to do:

To more than double your computer's processing power, record your audio at 24/44.1. That in effect doubles your computer's processing power because you are more than halving the data it needs to chew on.

As far as sample rate, 44.1k is the number where you should set your hardware and software. 48k is for video only, don't bother with it unless you are doing a music for picture project. If it's music only, go with 44.1k.

I do think 24 bit sounds better than 16 bit, so keep using the higher bit rate.

That's it. I honestly think you won't hear any difference between 44.1 and 96 once the audio has been converted to mp3.

 

[noisewreck]

So tonight I read through the chapter on sample rates in Bob Katz’ book on Mastering and came away with a slightly different take on why higher sampling rates can be perceived as yielding better audio quality.... filtering....

Yes, Katz makes valid points in his book about the fact that you can use less steep filters at higher sampling rates, which of course will mean less issues in the passband (i.e. the band that does not get filtered). In general, the steeper a filter, the more unwanted issues it will have such as ringing, so if you can get away with a less severe
filter, the better.

That's the theory. In practice though you have to take the entire ADA conversion process together in any given converter product/design.

Also, take into account where Bob Katz is coming from. It is highly unlikely that he had an M-Audio USB interface in mind when he was writing his book

There are just way too many components, stages and variables involved in making an actual product to discuss a single component and then base the overall quality of a product on that one single component. Furthermore, some products in order to save money use the same filter in both AD and DA stages, although this is likely to compromise the DA process, as in the DA process it is preferable to use an integrator that's specifically designed to smooth out the steps in a waveform rather than a convetional LP filter that's used to filter out high frequencies in the AD process.

Higher sampling rates will benefit from the usage of shallower filters, however, they are more susceptible to other issues, such as jitter. In fact, one of the most expensive components in any ADA converter is the clock. So you can almost guarantee that most prosumer level audio interfaces will be lacking in this regard.

So, given a converter with filters that are exceptionally linear phase, have minimal ripples and ringing in the passband, integrators that are properly designed to deal with the reconstruction of waveforms at all sample rates, rock solid clocks, perfectly neutral analog I/O stages, then yes, higher sampling frequencies will likely be beneficial. However, the converters that are built to this kind of standards are not built to a specific price-point, but to a specific target quality, which means that you are most likely to encounter them only in mastering studios, and almost invariably these converters only deal with two channels of audio, instead of being incorporated into multichannel audio interfaces.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So tonight I read through the chapter on sample rates in Bob Katz’ book on Mastering and came away with a slightly different take on why higher sampling rates can be perceived as yielding better audio quality.

I think one of the most powerful and telling phenomenon having to do with the continued support for higher sample rates is the part of human nature that simply does not want to change it's mind or belief, even in the face of contrary evidence.

There's an evolutionary tendency in humans to want to stick with the intuitive ideas, and just can't let them go sometimes. The problem is, some of our science and technology have advanced to the point where the intuitive answers are no longer the correct ones. Relativity and quantum mechanics are extremely counterintuitive, yet they agree with nature because at those levels nature does indeed act counterintuitively. It's like that with sample rates, it's hard to let go of the idea that more is better.

The most interesting question to me at this point, is why you find a need to now find yet another, alternate explanation that will give creedence to the belief that higher sample rates sound better (for whatever reason). There is such a strong intuitive belief in the basic precept that you're now searching for and grasping at whatever straw can be offered as evidence to support the belief. It's human nature, I'm not blaming you. But I think if you recognize that primordal drive for what it is, you might find it easier.

As far as the higher sample rates allowing for a more forgiving filtering environment, a la Katz, that true, sure. But what it really means is that it's easier for sloppy design and engineering to negatively affect lower sample rates. When done well and properly, there should be no reason why a 44.1 sampler should have more problems than an 88.2. If a converter has problems of this type at 44.1, it's because it a crappy converter.

So maybe - *maybe* - one may be occasionally able to say that higher sample rates sound better because the manufacturers are dumping crap on the unsuspecting public and getting away with it because they can hide under the umbrella excuse of more is better. But again it's not the manufacturer's fault that the public is so hungry for these toys that it totally ignores the fact that there's an entire magnitude of difference in price between a relatively crappy mAudio converter and a fairly decent Apogee converter *for a reason*.

G.

 

[miroslav]

The most interesting question to me at this point, is why you find a need to now find yet another, alternate explanation that will give creedence to the belief that higher sample rates sound better (for whatever reason).

..........

So maybe - *maybe* - one may be occasionally able to say that higher sample rates sound better because the manufacturers are dumping crap on the unsuspecting public and getting away with it because they can hide under the umbrella excuse of more is better.

Again....I'm not arguing against the science (or your comments)...but like you also pointed out above, I'm just acknowledging why we might hear people say that a higher sample rate *converter* sounds better to them. All I've been doing is trying to better understand where & why the myths come from.

Most people take the "box"...the *converter*... as a whole, and they don't analyze what is inside or how it was designed (well or badly)...they just judge what comes out of the box.
So yeah...there are reasons why some people can come to the conclusion that using a higher sampling rate converter sounds better, even if higher sampling rates alone do not = better sound quality. (That's me agreeing with you. )

As far as what is theoretically possible with a perfect converter design...I don't think that's relative to the discussion about the source of myths.
IOW...when everyone is using (or can afford) the perfect converter (when/if it becomes available)...then the myths will fall away naturally, but in the mean time, as long as there are all kinds of different converter designs, there will still be cases when people come to the wrong conclusions about higher sampling rates ...because of the overall build quality of their converters.
So I'm sure the debates will keep coming back around until those perfect converters/filters become available to everyone...don't you agree?

I think Bob Katz says in the book that it's all possible now...and he is miffed as to why manufacturers don't build 'em...but then he also acknowledges that $$$, as in profits from endless design revisions, may be the real driving force, and the root cause of the myths.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Again....I'm not arguing against the science (or your comments)...but like you also pointed out above, I'm just acknowledging why we might hear people say that a higher sample rate *converter* sounds better to them. All I've been doing is trying to better understand where & why the myths come from.

I understand where you're coming from, miro. But here again, the question is just where you get the perception that most folks *do* say they hear something better at higher rates. That has not been my experience on the 'net or in real life. Sure some do, but as a percentage of the total, most of the pros I have talked to or dealt with rarely go above 44.1 for audio or 48 for video, which are the target mastering rates. I can't give you exact numbers, but I'd take an edumacated guess that it's probably somewhere around 7 in 10, and certainly more than 50%.

So, the question is; where is the perception that so many pros recommend or use higher rates coming from? Maybe in your experience, there has been a preponderance of those on the pro side. If so, I believe that that would be a statistical fluke. But I think there's another possible explanation, again rooted in basic human behavior...

You know the stories: "I was taking a nap and I dreamt that grandma had died. Then I was woken up by a phone call telling me that grandma HAD died! How miraculous is that?" But what people don't talk about or don't remember is the three thousand times that they were woken up by phone call that had absolutely nothing to do with what they were just dreaming about, and that in that context, the grandma incident would be simple coincidence, and perhaps even predictable since grandma was 90 years old and already on hospice and her imminent death was on everyone's mind.

Dick Feynman had a favorite story he used to use on his class. He'd come in to class first thing and be all excited and bursting to tell the class: "Guess what!? I was driving on the way in this morning and the guy in front of me had the license plate AGW 554! What are the chances of that?" His class would be puzzled, and ask him what the sigifigance of that plate number was. "I have no idea, it means nothing to me," he'd respond. "But just imagine what the chances are that that specific sequence of letters and number would come up!"

We humans tend to look for connections and significances in the randomness of the world around us. Now, you have a converter that sounds better at 88.1. That's cool. But, like that call about grandma supporting the dream, you'll naturally have a tendency to make note of and remember those who agree with or provide support for your personal experience, even if they are not in the majority.

People *want* to believe the "more is better" concept because it resonates with human nature, and it's also human nature that will cause than to remember or give more import to the data that supports that belief over the data that doesn't. Then add in that people that *want* the higher rates to sound better will tend to think they *do* sound better, and you have a double whammy going.

The funny thing is, those that agree with it will tend to find this post as reinforcing proof, and those that don't will dismiss it as poppycock and won't remember it a week from now. It's neither proof nor poppycock. It's just an educated theory, which falls somewhere in-between.

I think Bob Katz says in the book that it's all possible now...and he is miffed as to why manufacturers don't build 'em...but then he also acknowledges that $$$, as in profits from endless design revisions, may be the real driving force

I agree with that. At the same time, though, assuming that as the root cause assumes that the crap converters perform better at higher rates. Some do. Many don't Many crap converter designs are just as crappy at 128k as they are at 44.1k because either their design or the component construct is just lame.

I can't prove this, I don't have numbers, but my gut impression is that there is enough of a spread amongst converter performance categories to wash out any perceived trend towards better sounding converters at higher rates based upon actual converter performance, especially when you consider the balance of converter quality in the overall market tends towards the cheapo crap stuff (there's far more mudAudio Fastraks out there than there are Apogees with Antelope clocking .)

G.

 

[miroslav]

...most of the pros I have talked to or dealt with rarely go above 44.1 for audio or 48 for video, which are the target mastering rates. I can't give you exact numbers, but I'd take an edumacated guess that it's probably somewhere around 7 in 10, and certainly more than 50%.

So, the question is; where is the perception that so many pros recommend or use higher rates coming from?


..................


I can't prove this, I don't have numbers, but my gut impression is that there is enough of a spread amongst converter performance categories to wash out any perceived trend towards better sounding converters at higher rates based upon actual converter performance, especially when you consider the balance of converter quality in the overall market tends towards the cheapo crap stuff (there's far more mudAudio Fastraks out there than there are Apogees with Antelope clocking .)

I don't move around from studio to studio enough to talk directly to lots of different pro engineers...and I haven't spent lots of time considering this issue over the last 10 years. Heck, this is the first time I’ve gotten into a discussion about rates/converters in like 5-6 years.
Like I mentioned...when the initial debates were raging several years back, in the early 2000’s...I picked the 88.2 rate and kinda' stuck with that. I will reconsider my choices again if/when I change out my rig and go for different converters…and thanks to this this discussion, I will probably reexamine my existing converters and sample rate choice before I start a new project.

But to answer your question…where I HAVE seen the higher rates almost always promoted, is in just about every audio magazine…in articles/interviews and certainly in manufacturer ads!
I mean...I don't recall any articles/interviews/ads saying point-blank that higher rates will yield *better sound*, but they all seem to point out the higher-rate capability of their converter, which sorta indirectly promotes the higher rates as better, and that fuels the myths.
”Model XYZ now has 192kHz capability”…or... “We used the new XYZ converters which sound absolutely pristine!” Of course, in the ads, XYZ manufacture touts their new 192kHz capability, and so people just connect the dots!
Not to mention, there HAVE been “pros” who for awhile there were openly swearing they heard sound improvements with higher sampling rates.
I dunno…maybe these days many of those “pros” have stepped back from their previous views…but the ads/articles in most audio magazines still point out the higher rates as a key selling point.
I mean…I really can’t recall any ads/articles/interviews where higher rates were actually labeled as unnecessary…though yeah, there have been debates on both sides of that coin on the forums, so this is not the first time I’ve heard the arguments about there being no need to go above 44.1…though almost all of them will qualify that statement by adding “with properly designed filters/converters” after they say “44.1”.
And maybe it has someting to do with...don't do like I do...do like the ads/gear I'm endorsing...!!!

So while I am not looking to continue to “give credence” to higher rate beliefs …I am pointing out that taking into account the variety of converters that are out there…there may(?) be those that actually DO sound better when they are switched to 88.2/96 because their design/build just makes it work out that way.
Don’t you agree?

What also makes it hard (and fuels more myths) is the fact that these days, the majority of “recordists” that have some form of converter box in their studio, probably leans heavily into the non-pro studio arena…which means the odds are good they ain’t using any $5000 converter.
So yeah, for them, the more realistic answer may be to just TRY both the higher and lower sampling rates on THEIR converter box to see which one sounds better (due to the design/build of their particular unit). OK…that MAY seem like it’s again rubbing against the known science…but I just see that as “in-the-trenches” reality.
While we can read about Bob Katz and others who have the high-end, esoteric toys, where theory and science meets reality…the majority of “recordists” may not, so for them the reality is to try it a few ways and go with what they think sounds better.
IWO…you can’t just go on faith that 88.2 doesn’t sound better and/or is not needed…if in fact for a given converter box it does.
Can you…???

You know…we ARE in total agreement on the fundamentals… I’m just suggesting that there is no obvious answer when you consider the many converter designs that are in use. Who knows which “target sample rate” was in the blueprints for the overall design of a particular converter?

 

[mshilarious]

You know…we ARE in total agreement on the fundamentals… I’m just suggesting that there is no obvious answer when you consider the many converter designs that are in use. Who knows which “target sample rate” was in the blueprints for the overall design of a particular converter?

That isn't the way most audio converters are designed. They operate at a much higher sample rate; this thread is about the "data rate", which is constructed from the true sample rate by an internal algorithm that scales according to the required data rate. The sample rate is set by the A/D's master clock (or PLL). For some converters, this has to be a fixed rate (say 12mHz); other clocks the sample rate is set by the oscillator and can be anything within a certain range. So a particular converter might be able to operate at 44.1, 48, 50, 52, etc. depending on the clock frequency. Obviously the interim rates aren't terribly useful when you have to interface with other audio gear, but the specification for those rates will be the same. When you go to double speed (88.2, 96) or quad speed, the specification might change.

Thus there should be little to no difference in performance of a particular converter at 44.1 vs 48 unless one was a "native" rate and the other required SRC. There will be attenuation in the audible band for a 44.1 converter; that is an amplitude distortion as previously mentioned. It is mostly gone by 48 and certainly gone by 88.1. There is no appreciable phase distortion in the audible range other than that attenuation.

Those are the characteristics of a modern properly designed converter; most ICs used in even semi-serious gear should qualify. Therefore, any audible difference between sample rates of the same converter is mostly likely due to passband attenuation or ultrasonic content (insert debate here).

 

[miroslav]

Therefore, any audible difference between sample rates of the same converter is mostly likely due to passband attenuation or ultrasonic content (insert debate here).

OK...were back to the filtering again.
But that still says that there MAY be differences between sample rates in a given converter design (becuase of whatever), and that's all I'm pointing out...and that has nothing to do with what the actual science would prove in a perfect world.

That's like debating that it would be a sunny day...IF there wasn't any cloud cover!
Yeah...OK...no argument there...BUT, if there is some cloud cover, then it IS possible for different people to have different perspectives and make claims about it.

Is it not?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I am pointing out that taking into account the variety of converters that are out there…there may(?) be those that actually DO sound better when they are switched to 88.2/96 because their design/build just makes it work out that way.
Don’t you agree?

Not only do I agree, but I have said that from the very beginning. But I have also coupled that yin with the yang that there are also some converters that do NOT necessarily perform better at higher rates. One cannot consider one side without considering the other, and when you take them both into account, combined with our knowledge of the IT science which sample rate technology implements, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that sample rate is no promise or guarantee of anything whatsoever. If one's converter sounds better at rate X than at rate Y (regardless of what actual numbers go in there), and that improvement survives any potential SRC or other bandwidth costs to make it worthwhile to use, than by all means use it. I have said this from the get-go as well.

And you're absolutely right that the trade rags are filled cover-to-cover with articles and ads touting the new technologies, and this has a MAJOR effect on the perception of the public. You're probably sick of me complaining about that fact when it comes to the whole BS arena of "mastering" software and how it's (I believe) causing the slow and painful death of the art and science of mixing. This is also true of easy-to-hype things like sample rate.

The leveling factor to consider there is the self-asked question: "When was the last time you ever read a negative review of any product whatsoever in a magazine like 'Recording' or 'EQ'"? These magazines should just change the names of their review sections to "It's All Good"

Let's revisit the auto analogy again for a minute. Except for the high end labels like Lexus or Mercedes or Volvo, when's the last time you ever saw a commercial selling a car based upon the quality of it's engineering? Oh, sure, this or that shitbox got a five-star safety rating because it has more airbags than the number of passengers it'll hold, but how often do you hear them say that you won't have to replace their injectors every 40k miles or the paint won't start peeling off the rear bumper after 15k miles because we actually care about that? OK, Volvo has made a career out of their reputation for safety and long-lived engineering, and Honda makes some noise out of low cost of ownership over time, but for the most part you'll see ads and commercials selling cars because they have more DVD players and cup holders and/or will make you look like your penis is bigger than it actually is, or simply, because NOW is the best time to buy a car because we've worked out yet another shell game of credit and payments to make it look like you're getting a better deal.

The sad news is that "quality" doesn't sell, except to a minority. Or at least that's what the twads in marketing will have us all believe.

you can’t just go on faith that 88.2 doesn’t sound better and/or is not needed…if in fact for a given converter box it does.
Can you…???

You CAN go on faith (actually more hard science than faith) that you can't make a choice based upon the numbers, and that it's wrong to assume that just because something is sampling at a higher rate that it's automatically better.Again, that flies both ways.

But regardless of design differences between the various makes models, the three basic core statements still remain true and untouched;

- that sample rate itself means nothing as a general guide.
- that you gotta use your ears and mind objectively and make your own choice about cost/benefit when selecting sample rate.
and
- that for the average Joe Recorder sample rate should be so far down the list of concerns as to hardly be worth even fretting over one way or the other.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

OK... I am going to muddy the waters

For me (as in with my setup and my purposes), there is one reason to go to the higher sampling rates, and occasionally I will when necessary.

Before I continue, I am going to say that this has absolutely NOTHING to do with converters and AD or DA process.

OK, now that I've got that out of the way, I am going to throw this into the picture:

Occasionally I will go to higher rates, when it is necessary for me to ensure there are no audible aliasing artefacts with soft synths and samplers, and when using such soft instruments that support higher sample rates.

Examples of this are Reaktor (especially Reaktor), Absynth, Kontakt, Albino and the like. These instruments exhibit almost no alisaing at 88.2 or 96kHz, which becomes important when using higher pitched sounds, or when I am doing extreme amounts of pitch-shifting of samples (say have a sample loaded into Kontakt and going up 3-4 octaves).

Due to the internal processing of these instruments, higher sample rates are quite beneficial in alleviating aliasing issues.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with AD or DA process, but it is a function of the internal DSP processes that are going on in those instruments.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, first George, I don't think anybody ever accused you of being the "average Joe Recorder" . Your needs are quite different from the headbanging garage band that comprises 98% of the HR market

But even so, I gotta ask just how much of that difference in sound survives not only the conversions to 44.1/16 or MP3, but the playback through even a quality home music system and into the ears of a human being?

When push comes to shove, is it a distinction without difference?

G.

 

[miroslav]

Not only do I agree, but I have said that from the very beginning. But I have also coupled that yin with the yang that there are also some converters that do NOT necessarily perform better at higher rates. One cannot consider one side without considering the other, and when you take them both into account, combined with our knowledge of the IT science which sample rate technology implements, the only logical conclusion one can reach is that sample rate is no promise or guarantee of anything whatsoever.

……………

You CAN go on faith (actually more hard science than faith) that you can't make a choice based upon the numbers, and that it's wrong to assume that just because something is sampling at a higher rate that it's automatically better. Again, that flies both ways.

Agreed.

Sometimes when asked about improving sound quality…we (I) can say in error “switch to a higher sampling rate”…when it should be more accurately said, “try the higher sampling rate, it may or may not be better with your particular converter, and if you can’t hear any difference………………..”

Anyway...I appreciate that you remained open-minded to my somewhat radical perspective....but like I said, I do agree with the science.
I've just not been actively focused on all the issues with converters of late, so I may fumble a bit getting my point across.
Last night I was reading Bob Katz's chapter on jitter...and my eyes kinda glazed over after 4 pages.
I'll have to read it again for the details to sink in.

OK... I am going to muddy the waters

Now I don't feel so bad.

Wasn't there a blues player by that name....?

 

[mshilarious]

OK...were back to the filtering again.
But that still says that there MAY be differences between sample rates in a given converter design (becuase of whatever), and that's all I'm pointing out...and that has nothing to do with what the actual science would prove in a perfect world.

In fact there WILL be differences between rates, but not for the reasons posited about favoring one rate vs. another.

I am not talking about perfect world, I am talking about real-world converter ICs. Read this datasheet, this happens to be one I'm working with at the moment, it will answer most of what you might wonder about the differences in filter behavior at various speeds--note that is the difference between single, double, and quad speeds, not two different speeds within those brackets (which given an equivalent quality clock, which is not necessarily a given, would spec the same with respect to their bandwidth, which is not necessarily the same as the audible spectrum):

http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/CS5351_F2.pdf

Note that the passband is 0.47Fs at single speed, 0.45Fs at double and 0.24 at quad (making this particular chip useless if you really did want 80kHz bandwidth). But 96kHz will have 43kHz bandwidth; the use of the more gentle passband filter is probably because they felt that 43kHz was far enough away from the audible band that they could relax the slope of the filter a bit. Of course, that means at 20kHz there will be zero attenuation at 96kHz vs. about 0.1dB at 44.1kHz. Lots more details in the graphs.

But that doesn't mean a design was "optimized" for a particular sample rate, again depending on oscillator design which is external to that particular IC. Let's say you are using two different fixed crystal oscillators; this chip is not "optimized" for 44.1 or 48. With respect to the higher sample rates, it's not like they would purposely sabotage one vs. the other because the only difference is the chip's DSP routine that outputs the data rate. Remember that whether set at single, double, or quad speed, the sample input into that DSP algorithm is the same.

 

[miroslav]

In fact there WILL be differences between rates, but not for the reasons posited about favoring one rate vs. another.

OK...I'll digest your paper when I have some time to read with a clear head.

From the Bob Katz book, I garnered that the differences were tried to the filter stages, and that they would be different for different sample rates.

Are you saying it's something else?
But even if my interpretation is off...there still seems to be "somthing" that does create differences...so what are they?

 

[mshilarious]

OK...I'll digest your paper when I have some time to read with a clear head.

From the Bob Katz book, I garnered that the differences were tried to the filter stages, and that they would be different for different sample rates.

Are you saying it's something else?
But even if my interpretation is off...there still seems to be "somthing" that does create differences...so what are they?

You ought to reread my post because I addressed both of those issues.

 

[noisewreck]

Well, first George, I don't think anybody ever accused you of being the "average Joe Recorder" . Your needs are quite different from the headbanging garage band that comprises 98% of the HR market

But even so, I gotta ask just how much of that difference in sound survives not only the conversions to 44.1/16 or MP3, but the playback through even a quality home music system and into the ears of a human being?

When push comes to shove, is it a distinction without difference?

G.

I hadn't posted a reply to this because I wanted to give audio examples of Reaktor output and let you be the judge. I will try to get them uploaded tonight and maybe start a new thread on it, maybe with a poll.

BTW, this wouldn't be just a "George needs" thing Anyone that uses softsynths that internally benefit from higher sampling rates would find this useful.

 

[noisewreck]

OK, I've posted a new thread/test/pole in this thread.