Members CME Posted August 18, 2012 Members Share Posted August 18, 2012 DVaz's answer is much better, but consider this. You draw a wiggly line on a sheet of paper. I copy the wiggly line, freehand, on another sheet of paper. Then I get another sheet and copy it again, except this time I use a ruler and measure where your line is every inch along it's length, so I end up with a lot of dots an inch apart on my sheet of paper, then I draw a curvy line between the dots. Both my sheets of paper will look pretty damn similar. But maybe not the same. One has no sample rate, it's continuous and the differences between it and yours will be down to my skill as an artist. The other is based on your line, but sampled at a rate of once an inch. Hope that makes sense. If it doesn't I'll draw pics Great analogy. I was trying to find of way of putting up pics earlier, but I had been up 20 or so hours. Brain wasn't, and probably still isn't, fully functioning . I'll try to use it to explain my point earlier about higher sample rates and percussive sounds. If you've ever really looked at the sound wave of a percussive instrument, it's a really sharp steep transient that decays afterwards. How steep exactly is the transient? and how fast would you have to take two samples to accurately "capture" the wavefront? That part has nothing to do with the actual frequency response, but definitely is part of the sound. So higher sample rates will more accurately "capture" those super steep transients. Could also be a big reason why higher sample rates can sound better, even if all they do mathematically is provide frequency data above our natural hearing ability. Also I read a paper once on how our ears really work. Seems as though they may actually perceive super high frequencies, and it's part of our hearing, even if we don't hear an audible tone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted August 18, 2012 Members Share Posted August 18, 2012 talking about sample rates and converters while not knowing who Dan Lavry is, is like talking about amps and not having a clue about Jim Marshall. Lavry Engineering OT: I would love to have one of his DA converters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted August 18, 2012 Members Share Posted August 18, 2012 Anyhow, I hear no difference between 44.1 and higher sample rates. Even on nicer systems like the one I worked on that was running benchmark converters in an acoustically tuned room with a pair of focal twin 6s. I hear a huge difference between 16 bit and 24 bit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DVaz Posted August 18, 2012 Members Share Posted August 18, 2012 DVaz's answer is much better, but consider this. You draw a wiggly line on a sheet of paper. I copy the wiggly line, freehand, on another sheet of paper. Then I get another sheet and copy it again, except this time I use a ruler and measure where your line is every inch along it's length, so I end up with a lot of dots an inch apart on my sheet of paper, then I draw a curvy line between the dots. Both my sheets of paper will look pretty damn similar. But maybe not the same. One has no sample rate, it's continuous and the differences between it and yours will be down to my skill as an artist. The other is based on your line, but sampled at a rate of once an inch. Hope that makes sense. If it doesn't I'll draw pics I was trying to think of a good analogy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members PaoloJM Posted August 18, 2012 Members Share Posted August 18, 2012 Higher samples rates are important for recording to prevent rounding errors when multiple bounces are performed after processing with plug-ins. There is no audible difference when comparing the two directly. Some children may be able to claim otherwise, but no adult can claim to. Personally I can't hear beyond 17k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tommy Horrible Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 Props to DVaz and jimSG for bringing the smartness learning into the thread. This is why a Lynx Aurora is on my studio shortlist. + 1 to DVaz and JImSG and also +1 to the LynxMy Allen and Heath ZED R-16 was a quantum leap in Quality over the Korg D3200 I used to use to track bands. It made me truly realize the value of preamps and DAC. I'm skrimping and saving for a Lynx and and 4 API 3124s and being done with buy Preamps and ADC for a long long long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 DVaz's answer is much better, but consider this. You draw a wiggly line on a sheet of paper. I copy the wiggly line, freehand, on another sheet of paper. Then I get another sheet and copy it again, except this time I use a ruler and measure where your line is every inch along it's length, so I end up with a lot of dots an inch apart on my sheet of paper, then I draw a curvy line between the dots. Both my sheets of paper will look pretty damn similar. But maybe not the same. One has no sample rate, it's continuous and the differences between it and yours will be down to my skill as an artist. The other is based on your line, but sampled at a rate of once an inch. Hope that makes sense. If it doesn't I'll draw pics k, so which would would be a more accurate representation of the ambient timbre I'm hearing when I'm playing....recording with analog ot with digital (assume quality recording equipment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DVaz Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 k, so which would would be a more accurate representation of the ambient timbre I'm hearing when I'm playing....recording with analog ot with digital (assume quality recording equipment) Digital is more accurate, strictly speaking. Noise floor (and therefore dynamic range - its been a while, so people forget, but one of the great, and eventually ironic hopes for CD was that the vast dynamic range available in 16 bits of digital compared to tape would actually, y'know, get used...:lol::lol:), linearity, total distortion are all much better, except with poor conversion (and I mean poor conversion; it hasnt been the case for a long time that analogue is higher fidelity in any empirically verifiable way than digital: the still-raging battle between them is now one of preference; analogues shortfalls in fidelity can actually sound good, whereas digital is damned near perfectly clean if the hardware is decent; any OK modern AD/DAC has a noise floor down at -110db at least, and will be close to perfectly linear with minimal distortion artifacts - and thats why some folk dont like it compared to analogue. Horses for courses). Anyway, unless youre going to be recording to 2 inch, its a moot point. Youre using digital. Cheers valtiel and tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kardula Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 Digital is more accurate, strictly speaking. Noise floor (and therefore dynamic range - its been a while, so people forget, but one of the great, and eventually ironic hopes for CD was that the vast dynamic range available in 16 bits of digital compared to tape would actually, y'know, get used... :lol: :lol:), linearity, total distortion are all much better, except with poor conversion (and I mean poor conversion; it hasnt been the case for a long time that analogue is higher fidelity in any empirically verifiable way than digital: the still-raging battle between them is now one of preference; analogues shortfalls in fidelity can actually sound good, whereas digital is damned near perfectly clean if the hardware is decent; any OK modern AD/DAC has a noise floor down at -110db at least, and will be close to perfectly linear with minimal distortion artifacts - and thats why some folk dont like it compared to analogue. Horses for courses). Anyway, unless youre going to be recording to 2 inch, its a moot point. Youre using digital. Cheers valtiel and tommy Intriguing, got any links or websites where I can learn more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimSG Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 Originally Posted by jimSG the question now is where you want to do the downsampling -- the ADC or your DAW. This choice does, in principle, make a difference. Unfortunately I had to bail out on this discussion to tend to a software crash on one of my spacecraft before I had a chance to reply. Before I was so rudely interrupted by my real job, I wanted to note that I agree with DVaz that the choice does make a difference and, as usual, it all depends on context and requirements. Bringing the data stream in at 44.1/16 will work in all cases to varying degrees. In fact, with modern ADCs it is perfectly fine if you are going for a nice, straightforward record > EQ > mix > master > burn workflow. On the other hand if you are going to be doing a lot of DSP work in your DAW, a higher sample rate along with a 24-bit sample width will likely serve you better. Also thanks for the kind words guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cirrus Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 Also thanks for the kind words guys. No problem, Jim. And might I say, your eyes are looking very lovely today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jimSG Posted August 19, 2012 Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 No problem, Jim. And might I say, your eyes are looking very lovely today! My avatar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike LX-R Posted August 19, 2012 Author Members Share Posted August 19, 2012 Thanks everyone for the input and information on my thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nerine Posted August 20, 2012 Members Share Posted August 20, 2012 Funny thing is, a lot of what has been said here, even by opposing sides is pretty accurate. Subjectivity, though.. What a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.