|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Feb 20, 2018 7:29:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by dror520 on Feb 20, 2018 8:02:22 GMT -6
I tried the files with my Audient iD22 and I can definitely hear the artifacts when using my monitors. With the headphones I can't really hear them though.. Does that mean I shouldn't be using 96khz with my interface?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Feb 20, 2018 8:16:29 GMT -6
on many ADDA, yes
x2 and x4 sample rates can sound worse. Power supply design, filtering, clock timing, and last, but certainly not least...S/N of analog section
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 9:05:42 GMT -6
It depends on so many things, there's no black and white answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 9:56:11 GMT -6
I don't think you need to pay much attention to this. The video, as sincere as the maker may be, features someone who's only mixed in headphones with a marginal setup. He's heard of intermodulation distortion, doesn't know what it is other than it must be bad. Trust people who really do this for a living with high quality gear and you're simply not going to hear complaints about high sample rates. The video author is conflating high sample rates with his own gear issues and has mistakenly created a general rule. I'm guessing this guy--with a few years experience--will quietly delete the video.
|
|
|
|
Post by popmann on Feb 20, 2018 10:12:14 GMT -6
I'm betting it's shared by the same legions of people who shared Monty the Theoretical's video a few years ago....I bet that 470 views becomes 470k in a couple weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 20, 2018 10:26:54 GMT -6
I’m pretty much agnostic about this, but there is that Dan Lavry white paper. I think the upshot is that he doesn’t think 192k is a great idea. Been discussed to death on many forums.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,986 
|
Post by ericn on Feb 20, 2018 11:57:14 GMT -6
on many ADDA, yes x2 and x4 sample rates can sound worse. Power supply design, filtering, clock timing, and last, but certainly not least...S/N of analog section Nailed it ! |
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Feb 20, 2018 13:58:04 GMT -6
I don't think you need to pay much attention to this. The video, as sincere as the maker may be, features someone who's only mixed in headphones with a marginal setup. He's heard of intermodulation distortion, doesn't know what it is other than it must be bad. Trust people who really do this for a living with high quality gear and you're simply not going to hear complaints about high sample rates. The video author is conflating high sample rates with his own gear issues and has mistakenly created a general rule. I'm guessing this guy--with a few years experience--will quietly delete the video. Just to clarify, my understanding is he is a professional engineer. He’s done a lot of various videos featuring the studios he works at as an engineer. Some of the videos are cool, some not. I’m not really sure how much experience he really has, but it’s what he does. He’s only referring to his new home setup, which he hasn’t had for a while. He would take work home and just mix on cans, then back to the studio he works at to fine tune. I watch his vids, so I’m more aware of that fact. He had complained about not having a home set up in several vids and having to mix on cans if he needed to bring work home, but that she not clear in this video. As for the information, I was just curious to get the perspectives from the guys on here about this topic, as I hadn’t really heard this and appreciate the opinions I hear on this forum. I had read about the arguments for and against HD recording, but not that some converters really don’t do it well even though they are specked to. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Feb 20, 2018 16:48:18 GMT -6
I had read about the arguments for and against HD recording, but not that some converters really don’t do it well even though they are specked to. I feel like this is the #1 thing I get out of everything I've ever read about this. At least that every converter should be evaluated on it's own merits at each rate. Which is another way of saying you'd be crazy not to compare all with a new converter. |
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Feb 20, 2018 18:04:02 GMT -6
That's just testing DA right? How would you test AD? With (what you have tested to be) a clean DA supplying a clean signal for input?
|
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Feb 20, 2018 20:36:20 GMT -6
That's just testing DA right? How would you test AD? With (what you have tested to be) a clean DA supplying a clean signal for input? I would think that you'd use a high quality analog signal generator. Of course artificial test signals are not the same as the complex waveform of a real audio signal... Why would you use a DA to provide your test signal? Audio is analog. |
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Feb 20, 2018 20:48:48 GMT -6
Don't get me started...when I upgrade my converters I'll test it again.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Feb 20, 2018 22:10:39 GMT -6
That's just testing DA right? How would you test AD? With (what you have tested to be) a clean DA supplying a clean signal for input? print mixes? do a lot of different tracking sessions at different rates, and look for the apples/apples comparisons, on top of being aware of what your 'standard' sonic quality is, as benchmark. |
|
|
|
Post by c0rtland on Feb 21, 2018 0:06:53 GMT -6
88.2% of what I do is rock/indie at 44.1. If it's for video 48. If I was doing jazz/classical it would be 96. That's all the brain power I lend to this black hole.
|
|
|
|
Post by jampa on Feb 21, 2018 2:53:23 GMT -6
I think what this video has done to me is suggest that there is like a digital converter 'demon' to worry about. I've used 44.1 / 48 / 88.2 / 96, well... it's still music on the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Feb 21, 2018 8:07:04 GMT -6
I've owned converters that made cymbals sound like indistinct trash can lids at 44K1, and fine at 88K2+. I don't hear that sort of difference with my current setup.
I've found several times that the debater shouting loudest about 44K1 being fine for everything was only using virtual instruments and samples for everything they did, and had zero experience working with audio they'd captured themselves. They usually also were 100% ITB, no analog paths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 21, 2018 9:10:50 GMT -6
I remember the skinny was that plug-ins can sound better at 96k. I did one session at 96k but didn't notice any difference, (I wasn't looking for it). I did notice that when bouncing on my iMac, it automatically changed the sample rate to 48k. Is that normal and necessary? Also, can I keep it at 96k if I wanted to release a "high fidelity" recording?
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 21, 2018 9:18:20 GMT -6
I remember the skinny was that plug-ins can sound better at 96k. I did one session at 96k but didn't notice any difference, (I wasn't looking for it). I did notice that when bouncing on my iMac, it automatically changed the sample rate to 48k. Is that normal and necessary? Also, can I keep it at 96k if I wanted to release a "high fidelity" recording? Yes, it’s probably just a default setting. Every pro DAW should be able to export at the sessions native resolution. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Feb 21, 2018 9:34:26 GMT -6
Yeah you can bounce at whatever parameters you want.
I’ve been at 88.2 for years but I’m switching to 48k.
I’m in school for EE and CS. I can’t wait till I get to really learn about this shit. Lots of math and physics to get through first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 21, 2018 10:07:33 GMT -6
In my findings... 48K and 96K both work and sound great with the Avid HD converters and Pro Tools. 44.1 and 88.2 . . . no so much a good time.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Feb 21, 2018 10:53:22 GMT -6
As others have indicated, it all depends on the particular system - the converter, computer, connection type, etc etc. Methinks the title of the video is an over-simplification. Perhaps it can be said that the Mackie Blackbird - an older $600 product - doesn't do 96K very well, but that's it. You really can't generalize from a single test, even on the same hardware. There's just too many variables. Swap out the cable and try again, maybe? Conclusion jumping is a dangerous business. However, I would hope that newer/higher-end hardware functions better at 96K and up. In general. When used as designed/configured correctly with quality cabling and such. YMMV.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,986
|
Post by ericn on Feb 21, 2018 11:09:31 GMT -6
In my findings... 48K and 96K both work and sound great with the Avid HD converters and Pro Tools. 44.1 and 88.2 . . . no so much a good time. When I had the Panasonic / Ramsa converters I found the same thing, but when I used something else as the master clock not so much. The lavry DA10 was fine at any sample rate, a couple of high end consumer converters that have passed through performed differently at different sample rates so I’m the first to say it’s all about what box your using to do conversion at both ends ! Part of the problem I have with those who promote a particular sample rate is that I usually find that they don’t seem to understand how sample theory applies to using only one set of converters! |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 21, 2018 11:23:29 GMT -6
I’m in school for EE and CS. I can’t wait till I get to really learn about this shit. Lots of math and physics to get through first. Maniac.  |
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Feb 21, 2018 16:40:08 GMT -6
After much discussion of this with Andy from Cytomic, I believed it was objectively provable to say most plugins benefit from being run at 88/96. Particularly eqs so they won't cramp and analog-modeled plugins so they won't alias. I remember he wasn't particularly fond of Pro Q2's Natural phase mode thinking it was too big a compromise to avoid the cramping at 44/48. The latency was quite high, for one. Pure digital plugins work the same at either rate, I think. Not sure if any eq has come up with a better solution than natural phase mode when being run at 44/48.
|
|
