The Difference Betweeen 96khz & 192khz - Page 3

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <zXi_e.4518$211.3652@trnddc08>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com says...
>
>
>"Bob Cain" <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message
newshb41a129c5@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>> Chevdo wrote:
>> > A higher rate captures a more accurate
>> > waveform, and a finer resolution between samples means that the waveform
isn't
>> > subject to as much interpolation. I assume this is why people notice an
>> > audible difference between higher and lower sample rates, not because of
any
>> > difference in frequency content.
>>
>> Oh, boy. This fellow knows nothing of what he speaks.
>> Thankfully he'll be gone soon.
>
>
>I think he should stay. <g> Hell, I made one heck of a fool of myself
>the first few posts I made. Getting over it is half the experience. :-)
>

Well neither of you have anything to do with whether I will be staying or not,
so why fret over it? I won't be staying, usenet is a massive waste of
time. Which is good when you want to waste time, like I do now, but next week
I won't be. What a relief!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon, Lorin. Have you tried de-caf lately? ;-)




I actually had to work really hard at being so vitriolic -- it doesn't
come naturally to me the way it does for some.

Still, I had to try. To paraphrase a saying from ya'll's corner o' the
globe, "He needed insultin'."

I miss Fletcher.

--
"It CAN'T be too loud... some of the red lights aren't even on yet!"
- Lorin David Schultz
in the control room
making even bad news sound good

(Remove spamblock to reply)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Chevdo" <chev@dont.com> wrote in message news:Fmj_e.193337$wr.129930@clgrps12...
> In article <zXi_e.4518$211.3652@trnddc08>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com says...
> >
> >I think he should stay. <g> Hell, I made one heck of a fool of myself
> >the first few posts I made. Getting over it is half the experience. :-)

> Well neither of you have anything to do with whether I will be staying or not,
> so why fret over it? I won't be staying, usenet is a massive waste of
> time. Which is good when you want to waste time, like I do now, but next
> week I won't be. What a relief!


Yes, yes... it is all so sad. Do we hang around, make friends with people
who have been in the industry longer than you are old, and possibly learn
something in the process... or do we claim to be so much 'holier than thou'
that we can't waste our time on such trivialities as KNOWLWDGE shared ??

Such a *tough* decision... but I am certain you have more important things
to do with your time than any of the above.

;-)

Peace, o' masked man...


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Morgan Audio Media Service
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_______________________________________
http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chevdo wrote:

> I know more about science than you ever will, simpleton.

Perhaps you should move to a chemistry or astronomy newsgroup, then.
You certainly don't know much about sampling theory.

> I was referring more to the Kruegers and Lawrys of this newsgroup

Lawry's? Is this cross-posted from a food newsgroup?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chevdo <chevdo@chevdont.com> wrote:
>
>I know more about science than you ever will, simpleton. I'm sure the term
>'Sokal Affair' is something you've never heard, and its unlikely you've ever
>been exposed to Popper's critique of Carnap or Feyerabend's critique of Popper.
Other people in this world have read Godfrey-Smith, I assure you.

> You think that playing around with a fancy calculator is all there is to
>science. Sadly, you probably some school exorbitant fees to gain such a
>piss-poor education. The education system is designed to churn out people who
>are overly literate in math and language and devoid of any philosophical
>perspective (though in your case you hardly qualify for the former distinction,

Understanding the philosophy of science is not the same as understanding
scientific principles or methods, any more than understanding the
philosophy of food will help you mkae a good souffle. Kuhn, for example,
describes how the body of knowledge changes in fits and starts as our
understanding evolves to better fit the real world. Knowing this, as
Feynman points out, doesn't help us do anything about the process.

I strongly recommend reading Feynman's critiques of the current state of
the philosophy of science. You'll find Feynman tends to get more respect
around here, since he has actually done real science.

>I was referring more to the Kruegers and Lawrys of this newsgroup, not the
>lowly Lorin Schultzs).

I hate to tell you this, but I've heard Lorin's work, and I have respect
for Lorin as an engineer. I haven't heard anything you've recorded yet.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> news:1127909607.936107.220890
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

>
> Chevdo wrote:
>
>> I know more about science than you ever will, simpleton.
>
> Perhaps you should move to a chemistry or astronomy newsgroup, then.
> You certainly don't know much about sampling theory.
>
>> I was referring more to the Kruegers and Lawrys of this newsgroup
>
> Lawry's? Is this cross-posted from a food newsgroup?
>
>

So that's the secret to great audio - it's in the seasoning !

david

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
newshe5dg$8qn$1@panix2.panix.com...
> David Morgan \(MAMS\) <mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com> wrote:
>>
>>Anybody want to talk about vinyl versus CD ?
>
> Vinyl is obviously better because you can melt it into interesting shapes
> with a hairdryer, if you want to make planters and silly hats. CDs have
> too high a melting point to do this easily.

They go much better in the microwave though.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <1127912593.636004.243430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
huwgareth@my-deja.com says...
>
>
>Why do you think that being familiar with a practical joke played on
>postmodernism makes you know more about science than someone who
>doesn't keep up with Social Text (or Skeptical Inquirer)?
>

I wonder if you googled it or actually knew what I was referring to. I'm
guessing you googled. Many of the people who are familiar with that 'practical
joke' are scientifically illiterate, on both the 'skeptic' and 'post-modern'
sides of the debate. But that is the debate where the concept of what science
is has been taking place lately. Therefore, anyone who doesn't know about it
won't know much about the latest arguments about what constitutes science.

That doesn't mean he can't play with a fancy calculator better than I can.


>Of course the education system is designed to turn out people literate
>in mathematics. Mathematics is a lot more useful than Philosphy of
>Science, which appears to be your favored field.

Well when the computer age came around, people like Quine and Pierce and many
others worked out the formal logic we use for computing, and it appears as
maths, and it is has been very useful, indeed. It'd be even more useful if
those that used it knew more about what they're using than simply being
instructed on how to use it. But don't worry, there are so many millions of
people on earth that it doesn't matter if 99.99% don't have a clue.

Mathematics, for
>instance, can show why you are wrong about sampling theory, while all
>Philosophy of Science can tell you is how to the process of learning
>and discovery works (hint: you are not following the scientific method
>in your attempt to answer your question. re-read your Popper.)
>

If the scientific method were employed to answer questions about the ontology
of science, it would be circular reasoning.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <zIp_e.4634$211.3504@trnddc08>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com says...
>
>
>"Chevdo" <chev@dont.com> wrote in message
news:Fmj_e.193337$wr.129930@clgrps12...
>> In article <zXi_e.4518$211.3652@trnddc08>, mams@NOSPAm-a-m-s.com says...
>> >
>> >I think he should stay. <g> Hell, I made one heck of a fool of myself
>> >the first few posts I made. Getting over it is half the experience. :-)
>
>> Well neither of you have anything to do with whether I will be staying or
not,
>> so why fret over it? I won't be staying, usenet is a massive waste of
>> time. Which is good when you want to waste time, like I do now, but next
>> week I won't be. What a relief!
>
>
>Yes, yes... it is all so sad. Do we hang around, make friends with people
>who have been in the industry longer than you are old, and possibly learn
>something in the process... or do we claim to be so much 'holier than thou'
>that we can't waste our time on such trivialities as KNOWLWDGE shared ??

But sharing knowledge takes a back seat to communal reinforcement around here
far too frequently for my liking.

http://www.skepdic.com/comreinf.html

I have a much better exchange of knowledge on a couple other forums, and though
they have their own propensity for other types of fallacious reasoning, at
least it's not as immediate and so completely oppressive as communal
reinforcement is. I always end up swamped with pathetic flamewars on forums
where communal reinforcement is the dominant paradigm. Of course I can't get
away from entirely in any group setting, but it's particularly prelevant here.
I could consider that to be unfortunate, but it isn't since life is
competitive. Therefore I should be glad when people sabotage their own
intellect, because they have also sabotaged their ability to compete with me.
But that doesn't mean I want to hang around and babysit them! I just check in
once in a while to reassure myself that things are the same..

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <V1E_e.14928$iM2.1224701@news.xtra.co.nz>,
gwood@nospam-audioproducts.co.nz says...
>
>
>"hank alrich" <walkinay@thegrid.net> wrote in message
>news:1h3ljzk.4l8deb15sdsirN%walkinay@thegrid.net...
>> Chevdo wrote:
>>
>>> I know more about science than you ever will, simpleton.
>>
>> Ah, the truth revealed. Ignorant prick.
>>
>> Lavry bases his objections to marketing sample rates on the basis of
>> _science_.
>
>
>I had a bit of a run-in with Dan when he was on about that - damning people
>for advertising 24 bit converters, while happily describing his own device
>as '24 bits' and conceding that it wasn't really !
>


Heh, putting it that way is amusing, but that's what I read, too.

>Maybe I misunderstood something somewhere...
>

Or maybe you weren't easily distracted by the 'science'.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chevdo wrote:
> And understanding scientific principles is not the same as implimenting
> methods. There are plenty of people who impliment technology, design circuits,
> etc, who look up how to impliment it when they need to, and don't bother
> learning any 'scientific principles' beyond ohms law. In fact, I'm accusing
> everyone who has been trolling me of that, and I'm giving them the benefit
> of the doubt that they even recall ohm's law.

There are plenty of people who check their spelling before attempting to
impress on the basis of academic depth.

Lord have mercy.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <ArO_e.862$4h2.18@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
schopenhauer@thinkers.org says...
>
>Chevdo wrote:
>> And understanding scientific principles is not the same as implimenting
>> methods. There are plenty of people who impliment technology, design
circuits,
>> etc, who look up how to impliment it when they need to, and don't bother
>> learning any 'scientific principles' beyond ohms law. In fact, I'm accusing
>> everyone who has been trolling me of that, and I'm giving them the benefit
>> of the doubt that they even recall ohm's law.
>
>There are plenty of people who check their spelling before attempting to
>impress on the basis of academic depth.
>

Could be, then again I'm not looking to impress a pack of clowns!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Chevdo wrote:
> In article <1127912593.636004.243430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> huwgareth@my-deja.com says...
> >
> >
> >Why do you think that being familiar with a practical joke played on
> >postmodernism makes you know more about science than someone who
> >doesn't keep up with Social Text (or Skeptical Inquirer)?
> >
>
> I wonder if you googled it or actually knew what I was referring to. I'm
> guessing you googled.

You are the most arrogant idiot I have come across in usenet for some
time. *Of course* I'm familiar with the Sokal controversy. It was
reported in the New York Times, you dumbass! And Skeptical Inquirer
can't go an issue without reporting on it. I also get Nature, which
covered it in detail. You dumb, dumb adolescent moron. Just because
your flatmates haven't heard of Sokal, don't assume that outside your
group of acquaintances no-one else has.


> Many of the people who are familiar with that 'practical
> joke' are scientifically illiterate, on both the 'skeptic' and 'post-modern'
> sides of the debate.

Actually, I studied Physics at Cambridge University. How's about you?

96khz versus 192khz - um well after 2 years of 96khz, mixing blind and relying on single chip processors to run relentless plugins, computers falling over etc, I can safely say that i will be switching to 196khz. The reason is simple; crunching plugins takes up processing power which ultimately cuts into your bandwidth when mixing down. I took me 2 years to figure it out! Recording at 196khz is a difference ball game. The higher you are, the more difficult it is to mix down, but as long as you follow the frequency rules when you eq and only allow the bandwidths frequency through on each channel that apply to your sound, you will have crystal clear playback and good mixes. Using plugins to eq those channels is more difficult but if you good ones and watch your processor the result is great.

Hi Kevin,

I heard a violin recorded with Focusrite Red into Pro Tools and played back over very revealing big monitor systems of DynAudio and Genelec.
The difference between 96K and 192K were present but hard for me to hear. The end of the tone enveloppe of the violin seemed to be more pronounced.
I never heard a full mix but I doubt the I would be able to hear clear differences when several tracks are mixed together. There is a fine difference for sure but I am a big believer of investing in good acoustic recording conditions and right microphones/microphone positions. Getting it right at the beginning makes the flow of the mixing, editing and mastering much more pleasant. That said of course a good reference monitorposition is just as important to get it all "right".
See this as a personal opnion that will not suit everybody but works fine for me. Hope it helps to form your own personal opnion.