ermghoti II

Hey Guys, you are the only other people i have ever seen that have been blessed with the barringtons. I actually have a prototype model that was sent to Guild, from barringtons shop in Illinois. Guild was going to buy barrinton out, so they made a few prototypes and sent them to guild, but they never ended up buying them out. So the guitars were auctioned off... Five year thread necromancy, that's a personal record! Anyway, I have in my hands my girlfriend's Barrington by Guild, so apparently they got past the looking-at-prototypes stage.Maybe it was produced after one of the restructures? It's not a Krameresque superstrat, but something reminiscent of a BC Rich Eagle crossed with a Warlock. Imma try to sell it at my yard sale tomorrow, but I'll get some photos for posterity first. EDIT: I'm an idiot. It says "Burnside," not "Barrington."

This was covered in a big, acrimonious thread a couple months back. It is possible that the converters on your gear have filters better suited to higher sample rates, but the sample rate itself can have no audible difference above 44.1.

I never said they were from Texas. I said never buy a cheap Asian guitar NAMED AFTER a Texas city. It's a handy rule of thumb. If somebody is selling a Vietnamese-built guitar on eBay called a "Waco" or a "San Antonio", don't bid on it. It's almost certainly crap. We don't go for that fancy city-boy readin' you carpetbaggin' homuhtesticles are always doin'. [spit] [ding] [weds cousin]

Mastering != limiting. Mastering is preparing mixed songs for the destination media, be it vinyl, wax cylinders, CD, DVD, whatever. It includes arrangeing the songs in order, applying fade in/outs, and any conversion needed. It MAY include some EQ and compression to create a consistent feel among the songs, and to ensure optimal sound on a variety of playback devices. Very rarely, a last-second effect or two may be applied (the phase over the bridge of Kravitz's "Are You Gonna Go My Way," for example). It DOES NOT mean a final mixing step. If, as a home recordist, there is something about a song that doesn't sound right, you are not done mixing (or maybe tracking). There is nothing about mastering that can't be accomplished with the typical DAW, except for the treated room, flawless monitors, and a dispassionate and unbiased set of ears. Maybe you need to d/l a sound analysis application, at most. A dedicated sound editing software suite would be handy/ideal, but hardly mandatory for the weekend warrior. Commercial loudness is acheived at the expense of the overall quality of the mix, every time. Blue Bear can sertainly be abrasive, but when the first response to a thread liek this is "limiters!" it's the exact same thing as somebody asking "how do I sound like EVH?" and the first response is "get a variac!"

Keep reading. That has been covered.

whatever. If they continued recording in 44.1, their clients would go down the road to another studio running 96 because the results would sound better Because, as we all know, musicians never buy into hype. Or maybe they'd convince themselves that the recordings sounded better, despite the laws of physics.

I'm not buyin that. You don't need to. Their clients are.

And again, I'm only telling you what I heard with my own ears, the difference was remarkable. And I've spent fifteen minutes tweaking an EQ in bypass.

Those other tests your talking about do not prove that if you record and mix a project in 48kHz, it will be identical sounding to the same project recorded and mixed with a higher sample rate, all they prove is that single sources recorded in different sample rates are identical dithered down. There's no way to test that, obviously. However, if identical sources at different rates dither down identically, it would be a real stretch to claim that combining higher rate sources and then dithering would have a detectable improvement over mixing at the destination rate, even if there were an advantage to using the higher rate in the first place, which pretty much the entire field of audio engineering rejects.

You might want to try running a similar test to our one yourself. We weren't mucking about, the 96kHz recordings had more space, resolution and depth on Genelec monitors in an acoustically treated studio listening room. I don't take placebos, I use my ears. Math does not give you better time domain resolution. Only a higher sample rate can do that. Why would I duplicate a hopelessly flawed test? If you're not double-blind, you are susceptible to placebo effect, regardless of your room, your monitors, the phase of the moon, and who wins American Idol. Knowledge of the tests by the test subjects invalidates any results. OTOH, if I sniff around, I can find links where people have converted the same audio at a lower and higher rate, dithered down to 44.1, summed one track with the other with one inverted 180 degrees, and ended up with a complete null.

I've been talking about the benefits to recording all along and the test you linked to has nothing to do with recording whatsoever. As I've said before, I've no doubt it's very difficult to discern between SACD and CD in a blind test but that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. And 'me and my buddy sitting in a room' repeated that test running the different sample rates on either machine and running either sample rate from either side of the XLR splitter numerous times and every time without fail, the 96k recordings had more space, definition and depth so you can sneer all you like. Math does not give you better time domain resolution. Only a higher sample rate can do that. You might want to Google "double blind test" and "placebo effect."

You mean, the same real world where every test of sampling rates has proven that the same source, when dithered to 44.1, phase inverted and summed, results in a total null?

Yet there is no experiemental or theoretical evidence to support your claim. Odd, no?

I've heard drums are especially suited for 96kHz rather than 48kHz. Would this pertain to analog drum machines as well? How about voices as well, do they benefit much from the increased sample rate? You've heard wrong. Sampling rate governs the reproduction of frequency, and 44.1kHz will reproduce the full range of human hearing. There is some controversy about the interaction of inaudible high frequencies with the audible ones, but the overwhelming consensus, backed up by the failure of any study to demonstrate a contrary position, is that 44.1kHz or 48kHz will do anything that 88kHz and beyond will do, at half the memory and disc usage.

wat? Penthouse forum quote was removed from the OP.