Revolution wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 09:38 |
FWIW I have recorded at 44,88 and 96 and always found the higher sample rates (88,96)to have sounded better even after the sample rate conversion to 44.1K. I just don't buy the argument that when bouncing down from 88 to 44 that by taking out every second sample means that the end product is going to sound the same.It doesn't according to my experience. It's incredible how often I here this from guys who only have 44,48k capability or limited storage. After trying all of these sample rates even 192 I am now sold at 96K. |
Revolution wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 02:38 |
FWIW I have recorded at 44,88 and 96 and always found the higher sample rates (88,96)to have sounded better even after the sample rate conversion to 44.1K. I just don't buy the argument that when bouncing down from 88 to 44 that by taking out every second sample means that the end product is going to sound the same.It doesn't according to my experience. It's incredible how often I here this from guys who only have 44,48k capability or limited storage. After trying all of these sample rates even 192 I am now sold at 96K. |
Pingu wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 20:56 |
I know this has probably been done and done so please forgive me. Down sampling to 44 from 88 or 96k. Is the SRC from 88 always going to sound closer to the source than 96k because of it being an exact half. Logically one would think so. But, are the results evading logic. What have you guys found. The reason i ask is that i have always recorded at 44.1 but the other day tried a recording at 88 and it sounded sweet to me. My destination is cd and i am thinking of going to 96k. Will the downsample be much different from the 88k audio. Cheers |
blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 11:57 |
I don't think Pingu wants to discuss SRC . . . It's a slippery slope - someone might suggest blind listening tests next . . . |
blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 11:57 |
I don't think Pingu wants to discuss SRC . . . It's a slippery slope - someone might suggest blind listening tests next . . . |
kraster wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 12:24 |
Well Pingu did say that his ultimate destination is Cd so SRC is pretty relevant. Personally I think that recording at the Sample rate of the ultimate destination is the best way. I try to avoid SRC when at all possible. And, in my experience, the benefits of recording at high sample rates are lost/altered when downsampling from a higher rate. |
kraster wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 12:24 |
Personally I think that recording at the Sample rate of the ultimate destination is the best way. I try to avoid SRC when at all possible. |
blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 13:01 |
Been there too many times twiddling a knob that wasn't connected to anything - until it was in the position that just 'felt right'. People in general seem to have a hard time accepting that psychology plays a huge part in aural perception - and it's so easy to prove. |
Pingu wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 13:20 |
Jeezus. I love how all of a sudden this turns into placebo. |
Revolution wrote on Sun, 25 June 2006 21:38 |
After trying all of these sample rates even 192 I am now sold at 96K. |
cerberus wrote on Thu, 29 June 2006 17:13 | ||
i was mastering last week at 88.2kHz and i switched waves lnmb from native to the apa hardware version (5.2) which does 2x internal upsampling at the moment (wheras the native version (5.0) does not internally upsample. ) apparently most people don't notice, but suddenly in a certain context, the difference was like night and day. dan has a theory i understand.. so i don't know why i heard what i did ... and i am not in the mood to go 192 at the moment, in fact i can't afford to. so this is not what i want to observe. but it seems reasonable to me that 384khz internal processing (around 4x my current working rate) could sound even truer to the source. jeff dinces |
danlavry wrote on Thu, 29 June 2006 13:35 |
When your material at some sample rate, then upsample it, the audio bandwidth content does not increase, nor is there "new music" or "new higher harmonics"... |
cerberus wrote on Thu, 29 June 2006 12:13 |
i was mastering last week at 88.2kHz and i switched waves lnmb from native to the apa hardware version (5.2) which does 2x internal upsampling at the moment (wheras the native version (5.0) does not internally upsample. ) apparently most people don't notice, but suddenly in a certain context, the difference was like night and day. dan has a theory i understand.. so i don't know why i heard what i did ... and i am not in the mood to go 192 at the moment, in fact i can't afford to. so this is not what i want to observe. but it seems reasonable to me that 384khz internal processing (around 4x my current working rate) could sound even truer to the source. |
mpd wrote on Wed, 05 July 2006 10:26 | ||
What were you doing when you noticed the difference? I have been meaning to work out the math, but I can think of two situations where internal interpolation can make difference. Both have to do with implementation of IIR filters. Basically, the same filter parameters will result in different tranfser functions in the z-domain at different sampling rates, which could result in audible differences. This is different than running the converters at a higher rate, though. |
blueintheface wrote on Mon, 26 June 2006 08:01 | ||
I guess the irony didn't translate - I agree with you that good SRC is vital, and generally best avoided altogether. I'm also a fan of blind listening tests. Been there too many times twiddling a knob that wasn't connected to anything - until it was in the position that just 'felt right'. People in general seem to have a hard time accepting that psychology plays a huge part in aural perception - and it's so easy to prove. |