Øyvind Skald Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Royal Yaksman said: They don't by default. But you can select it. What I am talking about is dry audio recording. I can't hear a difference there. Sure add some plugs that benefit from upsampling and that changes, but tracking dry audio? I'm not convinced. This is where confusion lies. People listen to 2 mixes, mixed at different resolutions and the mixes involve plugs. Of course they hear a difference. But what has that got to do with the dry audio? Exactly. I have the 96/24 official mixes of Dream Theaters selftitled album from 2013 and i canott hear a difference. I can se that they are in fact recorded in 96kHz by opeing them up in SoundForge and compair the wave forms to the 44.1 version of the songs. I must say that the 5.1 surround mixes is cooler... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, pwalpwal said: analog is a smooth curve, whereas digital is a stepped approximation to that Digital is not stepped. When your audio is in digital format it is basically a large number of samples, i.e this volume at this point in time, not this volume until the next sample. They are points on a graph, not blocks. When you play back your digital audio it is converted back to analogue, ie a smooth curve. If you input a pure sine wave into a computer's ADC and then output it through the DAC, you get a pure sine wave. No steps are anywhere to be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 That's exactly the false representation I was referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 There's a lot of interesting stuff on this site regarding bit depths and sample rates, mastering and so on: http://productionadvice.co.uk/blog/ Here's an interest bit on sample rates: http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-sample-rates-make-your-music-sound-worse/#more-5689 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, pwalpwal said: how is it false? (i'm talking about itb mixing, not the dac process) But what's ITB is also not stepped. There are no stairs in digital audio. http://productionadvice.co.uk/no-stair-steps-in-digital-audio/ Edited January 23, 2019 by Wibbles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) But anyway I stick to 24 bit/44.1kHz. My computer is feeble and I am the end user. If my computer were up to the task, I would work at 96kHz - everything I do is ITB. Edited January 23, 2019 by Wibbles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Also, I am not a bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 At this point, 6 out of 15 voters record at higher than 44.1kHz, but only 4 out of 15 think there's any point at recording at higher rate. I am one of those 4, so at least 3 of the voters recording at higher than 44.1kHz think there's no point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Flannagin Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 4 hours ago, pwalpwal said: yeah but they're listening to the the master encoded to mp3/whatever, so pre-encoding should be as hi-res as possible, and avoid transcoding... having said that, we've always listened to, for example, abbey road mastered stuff on our cheap hi-fi's, so what's the difference really? that's why we check the final version on multiple systems Yep, I agree. It's funny though, I spend a lot of time getting my stuff tracked so that it's the highest quality I can produce. I check and double check through my AKG Studio grade headphones. Next I tweak while listening on the BX5a monitors, listen on my Kenwood home studio for a bit and export the file. Then I listen to the results through my cheap earbuds playing while attached to my cellphone, and through the stereo in my funky OLD pickup truck. If the mix can't pass the cheap headphone and funky old pickup truck test, it's back to the drawing board. I realize that somewhere in the world, someone will actually listen to my music under ideal conditions, so it's that possibility that makes me take the time to try and get everything else right I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 All I'm talking about is representing digital audio as a staircase. But let's move on. Forgive me my pedantry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSteven Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Then we top our efforts at achieving pristine quality in the final product by adding saturation and aggressive compression / limiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synkrotron Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 recording/mixing/mastering my "music" is not going to help it at all... Of course that's just me being negative so that you all go check out my shit and make a purchase. have a nice day 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Øyvind Skald Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Wibbles said: At this point, 6 out of 15 voters record at higher than 44.1kHz, but only 4 out of 15 think there's any point at recording at higher rate. I am one of those 4, so at least 3 of the voters recording at higher than 44.1kHz think there's no point. I did put the 44.1/48 kHz up there because YouTube only uses 48 kHz audio. So for making music/sounds to YouTube i guess using 48 kHz is best. I cant hear any loss in sound when resampling from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz. But i do record in it when making something specific for YouTube/video, just just to get the same sound trough to the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Belled Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Here we go again. It can be argued that the math show exactly that there's nothing to be gained within the spectrum of audio that humans can actually perceive by going higher than 44.1. My buddy who is a speaker designer, worked for Gibson, JBL now Samsung and does TONS of measurements AND is a musician too agrees. Old me? I have recorded in many, many places, from Capitol Studios and Ocean Way to a closet; have used endless amounts of gear, from $5000 preamps to $2 ones. Have engineered., mixed, mastered for myself and others. Recorded a track or two for "Modern Art" for which we were nominated for a Grammy at home through a ART DPS2, a $150 preamp into my 2408 and everybody thought the sound killed. I've experimented with higher sample rates and have come to the conclusion that there is no difference, other than some synths or programs that simply behave differently when running at 96K; for the audio itself there is NO discernible difference in my opinion. R 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Anderwald Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 22 hours ago, pwalpwal said: jut to be clear, i'm not talking about recording audio at higher res, nor playback at higher resolutions, i'm talking about in the box mixing/summing of 1s and 0s, dither be damned It doesn't matter. The stair-steps are one way to interpret a series of values on a graph. But the lines between the points are imaginary and don't exist in reality. We are talking about pulses with a certain amplitude, taken at a constant time interval. Think a series of lollipops with equal distance to each other, where only the length of the stick varies. This has implications, because it means that as long as a signal contains for example no frequencies above 20 kHz, it doesn't matter if it's captured at a pulse rate of 44.1 kHz, or 192 kHz. The reconstructed signal looks identical. There are no stairs that get smaller at higher sample rates. It has nothing to do with dither, which would only be relevant to the lengths of the lollipop sticks, not the (imaginary) information between them. The zero-order-hold (stair stepped) representation of digital voltage sampling is maybe one of the biggest reasons why people think analog is somehow intrinsically more clean/continuous than digital audio, when in reality even the cheapest AD/DA chipsets beat practically any analog recording medium in terms of noise and lack of distortion. This is why when you right-click a WAV or AIFF file in Windows, you'll be told that the file contains PCM data, where PCM stand for Puls-Code-Modulation. By the way, I voted 96 kHz because I made a few tests and came to the conclusion that I can substantially mitigate aliasing artifacts when using heavy distortion. As the final delivery medium I'm completely content with properly band-passed 44.1 kHz. Edited January 24, 2019 by Michael Anderwald Typo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Øyvind Skald Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 I have to take back what I did say about the DT album versions being the same. I did put it in SoundForge now and you can clearly see the 96/24 has less loudness in the mastering. But the mix is the same I think. 96/24: Wav grab from the CD: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Øyvind Skald Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 This is the loudest album I found in my collection. I don’t think I have any hotter. It is Crimson Moonlight - Divine Darkness - The Suffering. Hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wibbles Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 21 hours ago, synkrotron said: recording/mixing/mastering my "music" is not going to help it at all... Of course that's just me being negative so that you all go check out my shit and make a purchase. have a nice day I already have, thanks. Great stuff. Wibbles loves a drone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Øyvind Skald Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 Yeah great stuff. By the way, YouTube dampen the mix of that Chrimson Moonlight song so it isnt hot at all. Lol. Here you see the waveforms at least: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Øyvind Skald Posted January 24, 2019 Author Share Posted January 24, 2019 21 hours ago, synkrotron said: recording/mixing/mastering my "music" is not going to help it at all... Of course that's just me being negative so that you all go check out my shit and make a purchase. have a nice day I dont know if you have any Inspiration from Christopher Franke, but I can hear something there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now