Any use of going beyond 44100?

[snooky]

And for the record, I hear vast improvements when the samplerate is above 44.1khz, and I'm hardly using a pro setup...only a modest home studio!

Which ofcourse mainly is due to the quality of your synths/effects

Almost all freeware I'm afraid...not much "pro" stuff (not saying that free stuff isn't pro...only not "pro"...geddit?)

So, What I mainly hear is the aliasing...much softer sound in higher samplerate modes.

Reason is a good example of this...And the latency is super low with higher rates...1-2ms is very nice to play!

[Stupid American Pig]

I said you should strive for good sounding recordings. But I am not going to worry about that last 5% of "quality" that I can get because:

1) I dont care that much, as long as you can hear my song.
2) I purposely lofi things from time to time(but not always)
3) Some of the best sounding recordings I have heard are not "hi fi" they were recorded on 8 track reel to reel tape machines that had a range of 30 to ~ 15-16 khz and recorded at + 9-10 db. The results arent the most life like or the best fidelity, but they sound good.

anyway, if you want to be an engineer, then care, that is your job. However dont think that just because you got a 96 khz card that you are making better sounding recordings than someone who "only" uses 44.1 khz...

[pHz]

Well, S_A_P...It's very easy to justify using the highest possible quality and the reasons NOT to do it (as those you stated) are true but not valid...Why compromise your sound if you can get it to sound better?

getting your 'sound' as good as YOU need it (as opposed to 'better' than you need it) is NOT necessarily compromising it

Seems loosley retarded imo...And isn't better sound what we all want??

not necessarily ... id take interesting sounds and creative composition over 'better' sound any day

Ask any pro engineer if they care wether the peeps can tell the dif or not...It's not the point, the point is to sound your best and to sound as natural as possible!

again false assumptions ... some of us dont want a 'natural' sound (whatever that is ... all sound by its physical nature could be described as natural)

And for the record, I hear vast improvements when the samplerate is above 44.1khz, and I'm hardly using a pro setup...only a modest home studio!

thats cool ... for YOU ...

The point??
Use the highest quality you can and make sure you know how to transfer it to CD or other medium without making it sound crap...Othervise, stick to playing the banjo in your back garden

or alternatively ... spend your valuable time polishing your composition / performance / sound design / production skills and let someone else worry about the uber-technical aspects if and when you need to (although IMHO if your preoccupation is with sound 'quality' then youre less liely to ever get into that position) ...

... diminishing returns anyone ???

slainte rob

[Z3R0T0N1N]

Ok, you tell me I'm wrong, but won't tell me why? Try again.

You are wrong and I did explain why. Contrast then gave another explaination why you are wrong. I'll try again if you like?

Please, do so. I'm referring specifically to how 44,100 samples taken in 1 second time interval of the amplitude of the signal is NOT playing connect the dots.

Devon

Hi Devon;
no dis' meant here; you know much more than I do about computer audio; However, in this particular case it is more like 'climb the stairs' than 'connect the dots', if I am not mistaken. This goes for both amplitude (bitrate) and frequency (samplerate).

Here's a question though; In theory any frequency content above around 19 to 21 khz (sometimes lower, and there are those that have been said to have higher...?) is inaudible to us. And, in order to actually lose anything at 44,100 the frequency would have to be higher than that, and thus inaudible. BUT, we don't make our music (usually ) out of just sine waves. I use very few if any. Much more often we use very complex sounds with different harmonics and all sorts of cool stuff; SO, with very complex sounds with lots of harmonic content, is there interaction between the elements of the sound such that poorly producing the upper range that might be above our hearing would effect those that are within our range??
It would seem so, but I have very little knowledge on the subject; I don't really know if or how the elements of a sound might interact.
anyone?

[Stupid American Pig]

In regards to my original post, dont forget to mention that alot if not most people have damaged their hearing to the point where they are more or less deaf to frequencies over 12 khz... phz is correct- diminishing returns.

[Armadillo]

oh wait you are right, it is pointless, because most of the copies will get ripped to MP3, and that would ruin either recording. Maybe the people who hear it on the radio could help- oh wait, there is a 15 khz cutoff for FM. hmm well maybe xm will do it, aww damn, they compress the music as well. maybe at a club they will be able to tell when the music is being pumped at 115 db through 2 way speakers with 15" woofers and Horn tweeters, hmm maybe not. I know who can tell, the middle aged audiophile guy with the vintage Mcintosh tube amps, b&w speakers, and $500/foot cables. Damn, that guy doesnt listen to my music.

Well worth repeating.

[Stupid American Pig]

Ok, you tell me I'm wrong, but won't tell me why? Try again.

You are wrong and I did explain why. Contrast then gave another explaination why you are wrong. I'll try again if you like?

Please, do so. I'm referring specifically to how 44,100 samples taken in 1 second time interval of the amplitude of the signal is NOT playing connect the dots.

Devon

Hi Devon;
no dis' meant here; you know much more than I do about computer audio; However, in this particular case it is more like 'climb the stairs' than 'connect the dots', if I am not mistaken. This goes for both amplitude (bitrate) and frequency (samplerate).

Here's a question though; In theory any frequency content above around 19 to 21 khz (sometimes lower, and there are those that have been said to have higher...?) is inaudible to us. And, in order to actually lose anything at 44,100 the frequency would have to be higher than that, and thus inaudible. BUT, we don't make our music (usually ) out of just sine waves. I use very few if any. Much more often we use very complex sounds with different harmonics and all sorts of cool stuff; SO, with very complex sounds with lots of harmonic content, is there interaction between the elements of the sound such that poorly producing the upper range that might be above our hearing would effect those that are within our range??
It would seem so, but I have very little knowledge on the subject; I don't really know if or how the elements of a sound might interact.
anyone?

Spoony, the sample rate only determines how big your stair step is. the more slices per second, the closer the stairs are together.

[pHz]

In regards to my original post, dont forget to mention that alot if not most people have damaged their hearing to the point where they are more or less deaf to frequencies over 12 khz... phz is correct- diminishing returns.

12kHz seems a bit low though ... on a sine wave test even my shot hearing can get up to 16kHz ...

slainte rob

[Stupid American Pig]

touche

maybe you are right. a friend of mine like to shoot guns without hearing protection, and could not hear above 6 khz reliably

another reason guns suck...

[pHz]

6kHz ?!?

thats rough ...

... still be able to hear my mixes perfectly though ...

slainte rob

[snooky]

anyway, if you want to be an engineer, then care, that is your job. However dont think that just because you got a 96 khz card that you are making better sounding recordings than someone who "only" uses 44.1 khz...

Well, that depends what you mean with better "sounding"

If you're talking musically then no, it makes no dif.
But if you're talking technically, then a recording made at a higher samperate and bitrate than the same one using lower quality will of cource sound better...Or?

[stefancrs]

anyway, if you want to be an engineer, then care, that is your job. However dont think that just because you got a 96 khz card that you are making better sounding recordings than someone who "only" uses 44.1 khz...

Well, that depends what you mean with better "sounding"

If you're talking musically then no, it makes no dif.
But if you're talking technically, then a recording made at a higher samperate and bitrate than the same one using lower quality will of cource sound better...Or?

Depends on the fidelity of the synths and fx used. If they don't produce noise at 48KHz sample rate but produce what they should up to 20KHz (signal frequency), your mix won't sound better at 96KHz.

[monkeymandarin]

touche

maybe you are right. a friend of mine like to shoot guns without hearing protection, and could not hear above 6 khz reliably

another reason guns suck...

Actually I think that noise-induced hearing loss gives you hearing loss (a dip) around 4kHz. Frequencies much lower or higher than this are preserved. Age-induced loss (presbyacusis) tends to cause loss of all the higher frequencies. Maybe we're just all getting old.

[snooky]

ehm, not really, even playing hearable freqs get's me a less sharper and a smoother, rounder sound...

Perhaps I have bat hearing?

[Stupid American Pig]

anyway, if you want to be an engineer, then care, that is your job. However dont think that just because you got a 96 khz card that you are making better sounding recordings than someone who "only" uses 44.1 khz...

Well, that depends what you mean with better "sounding"

If you're talking musically then no, it makes no dif.
But if you're talking technically, then a recording made at a higher samperate and bitrate than the same one using lower quality will of cource sound better...Or?

So maybe we are both drawing the same conclusion here- better is subjective, possibly in the ear of the beholder?