KVR Audio

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:58 am

bduffy wrote:
Shy wrote:bduffy, how about less talk, more samples?
Yeah, yeah...I'm just waiting forever for AAMS to analyze my mix. My ears are shot from mixing all day, and I ain't mastering my own shit.

Don't worry about it bduffy!

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:03 am

kylen wrote:
Shy wrote:I don't need to try it myself because I've tried every single retarded method people have thought of already in previous discussions years ago. Conclusion: you are suffering from placebo.
Then don't try it and start a different thread about something you're interested in. Who cares what your conclusions are or what you're suffering from. Provide samples disproving something, join the fun, we're all testing it out and reaching our own conclusions. Otherwise go out in play in traffic or something constructive!

I simply don't need to post samples that show no real difference, I'm leaving that to you guys. And thanks for your mature and constructive suggestions.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:05 am

kylen wrote:
bduffy wrote:
Shy wrote:bduffy, how about less talk, more samples?
Yeah, yeah...I'm just waiting forever for AAMS to analyze my mix. My ears are shot from mixing all day, and I ain't mastering my own shit.
Don't worry about it bduffy!

No worries; I actually would like to post something, just for the sake of everyone seeing if they can hear it. I'm not doing it at Shy's behest; I've actually been mixing, eating dinner and running a long mix through AAMS, so it's taken forever, plus I don't think I was doing it right before anyway.

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:08 am

I'll listen tomorrow, my ears are shot.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:08 am

And working at these sample rates sure is slow! I doubt my computer's going to be up to mixing at more than double the sample rate...

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:10 am

camsr wrote:I'll listen tomorrow, my ears are shot.

Yeah. Mine are toast too. Hopefully I'll still hear something tomorrow, or else I'll be Shy's bitch!

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:24 am

Shy wrote:I simply don't need to post samples that show no real difference, I'm leaving that to you guys. And thanks for your mature and constructive suggestions.

OK then let's have a mature contest you appear interested in that. Here we go - What do you do when there are a group of folks standing around discussing a particular topic?
1. Barge in and tell everyone they don't know anything.
2. Demand some type of tangible proof before allowing the discussion to progress.
3. Not offer any tagible proof yourself about things you believe to be false.
4. Just hang around being a nuisance even after you've insulted and provoked everyone.

Which one of those items is mature and constructive? You've got 3 or 4 minutes before I sign off for the night.

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:26 am

bduffy wrote:And working at these sample rates sure is slow! I doubt my computer's going to be up to mixing at more than double the sample rate...

I think I'll back Elephant down to 2x oversampling (@96KHz thats still 192KHz) that's probably good enough. I think I like MasterQ at Double-FAT though...More testing later.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:31 am

kylen wrote:
bduffy wrote:And working at these sample rates sure is slow! I doubt my computer's going to be up to mixing at more than double the sample rate...
I think I'll back Elephant down to 2x oversampling that's probably good enough. I think I like MasterQ at Double-FAT though...More testing later.

MasterQ destroys! Neon, schmeon.

Wait - MasterQ has double-FAT?? Did I miss an update?

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:33 am

bduffy wrote: Wait - MasterQ has double-FAT?? Did I miss an update?

No - if I upsample to 96KHz and then turn on FAT I'm thinking it's like running at 44.1KHz and having a double-FAT button!

kylen · Post by **kylen** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:34 am

Here kitty kitty...

Oh well, I gotta go...someone put the cat out OK?

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:35 am

kylen wrote:
bduffy wrote: Wait - MasterQ has double-FAT?? Did I miss an update?
No - if I upsample to 96KHz and then turn on FAT I'm thinking it's like running at 44.1KHz and having a double-FAT button!

Right, duh!

Night, night! Don't forget to turn off the kitchen lights.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:37 am

Kylen, the only ones who are really insulted here are me and anyone reading this who has the slightest understanding of audio processing. The ridiculous claims of people here who have gone on for hours claiming nonsense that contradicts numerous facts in combination with providing not a single proof for them almost directly insults me.

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:41 am

I don't know why that should be "insulting"...you disagree, no big deal.

I'm uploading some "proof" now, but I'm not confident I got the chain of events right, this being my first time and all.

On the cans right now, I can't hear a lick of difference...not that this is a Steely Dan record or anything...

Dayl · Post by **Dayl** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:42 am

Shy wrote:I simply don't need to post samples that show no real difference, I'm leaving that to you guys. And thanks for your mature and constructive suggestions.

Haha, Iceman

.

Maybe you would like to share some of your findings, seeing as you have tried them all.

I can understand that you would want to belive that we are all victims of the placebo effect after trying many of these solutions yourself and coming up short. Just because you were not capable of registering any difference could mean a number of things.

You obviously enjoy 'constructive' conversation, so lets get it rolling. If not, you will find yourself in risk of being a nocebo more than we would ne suffering from placebo.

I'll happily drop samples once I get this all put down in practise.

Cheers

The Upsampling Your Mix Thread