KVR Audio

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:39 am

If you'd like to continue to discuss absolute typical "audiophile" nonsense, provide audio examples. You won't, and if you will, everyone will see how nonsensical your witchcraft theories are.

I don't need to do this because anyone can follow the steps I've listed, and come to their own conclusion.

You have already come to your conclusion, so what's the big deal?

dw

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:39 am

Ooh, getting a little heated here..Shy, it seems to be the consensus here that you'll hear something - if you want to hear samples, why don't you try this and see what happens?

I'm in the middle of mixing a song right now, but I just discovered (remembered) that my EMU1212m tops out at 96khz. Should I bother converting to 192khz with Audiomove, or just test the mastering thing with the 96k mix?

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:42 am

dusted william, and you can believe your witchcraft if you want too, I don't care either.
You will not provide samples because you have nothing real to demonstrate but nonsensical understanding of basic audio processing and theories.
If you don't want to provide a sample, that's just fine, but I thought people here care more about listening to sound than believing in it.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:44 am

bduffy wrote:Ooh, getting a little heated here..Shy, it seems to be the consensus here that you'll hear something - if you want to hear samples, why don't you try this and see what happens?

Because I'm not stupid enough to do something I already know is nonsense.
It might stay the consensus that you'll hear something, but it will also stay the consensus that there will be no samples demonstrating anything.

Shane Sanders · Post by **Shane Sanders** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:46 am

Wasn't there a great rambling post one time where xoxos comments on the phenomenon of his ballsack expanding and contracting to the universal waves or something? It was voodoo I tell ya!

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:53 am

Shy wrote:Because I'm not stupid enough to do something I already know is nonsense.

Same to you pal!

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:53 am

I'm in the middle of mixing a song right now, but I just discovered (remembered) that my EMU1212m tops out at 96khz. Should I bother converting to 192khz with Audiomove, or just test the mastering thing with the 96k mix?

My soundcard tops out at 96 khz too.

If you have software that will play 192 waves then I would do it. You're card will resample the wave before it hit's the speakers, but the "maths" on the actual wave will be of higher a precision when you master.

that being said the difference from 44.1 to 96, is not a big as the one from 96 -> 192 at least to my ears.

If I am just making a rough mix I never go through these steps, but when I have a finished songs I usually do.

dw

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:55 am

Shane Sanders wrote:Wasn't there a great rambling post one time where xoxos comments on the phenomenon of his ballsack expanding and contracting to the universal waves or something? It was voodoo I tell ya!

I swear mine have been to doing the same thing as I re-visit this thread.

dw

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:00 am

dusted william wrote:You're card will resample the wave before it hit's the speakers, but the "maths" on the actual wave will be of higher a precision when you master.

lol
The "maths" you are talking about are of higher "precision" because the sample rate is higher. The actual audio data within the higher sample rate file is not magically turned into "higher precision higher quality" stuff.
OK, too much placebo "audiophile" nonsense for me for one day, I'll move to threads that haven't been ruined yet.

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:03 am

1212m does do 192khz....

audiophile nonsense? At least with synths it is proven that they sound better at higher sampling rates... would be nice to hear some glaring examples of it tho

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:12 am

Shy wrote:
dusted william wrote:You're card will resample the wave before it hit's the speakers, but the "maths" on the actual wave will be of higher a precision when you master.
lol
The "maths" you are talking about are of higher "precision" because the sample rate is higher. The actual audio data within the higher sample rate file is not magically turned into "higher precision higher quality" stuff.
OK, too much placebo "audiophile" nonsense for me for one day, I'll move to threads that haven't been ruined yet.

Yes, I did word this badly. The maths are probably the same, but the data is more "dense". The algo's have more to work with, hence a better sound.

dw

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:18 am

dusted william: The "data is more dense"? Sorry, but you're even more clueless than I thought.

Marduchk: In the case of synthesizers working at a higher sample rate, it would still be of no significance at all for the mixdown of the audio. In that case, the higher frequencies (which humans don't hear nor do normal speakers even produce) are cut by the resampling process.

Marduchk · Post by **Marduchk** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:20 am

Shy: look up "aliasing" and "oversampling"

it may help

dusted william · Post by **dusted william** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:21 am

dusted william: The "data is more dense"? Sorry, but you're even more clueless than I thought.

rofl

dw

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:26 am

Marduchk wrote:Shy: look up "aliasing" and "oversampling"

it may help

No thanks, I already know about those. Do you care to say why you think I should look them up?

Which reverb can rival/test Waves trueverb??