Home Computer Audio Asylum

Music servers and other computer based digital audio technologies.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Computer Audio Asylum ] [ Return to Search Results ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

RE: Yesterday I did some comparisons between 96kHz and 192kHz on my MAC Mini

We are not talking about a simple upsampling process. I know that there are many hirez files on the market that are only upsampled; you can see this in a FFT spectrum. So I understand your wishes, but please let me explain it in an other way:
The end product exists at this moment when the signal exists on the stereo output of the mixing desk. All steps before are parts of the whole. Each component is chosen to get the best possible sound and music. The recording format is only one thing. The final sound of the recording is a result of all this technical components and of the creativity and capabilities of the recording producer.
Music recording is not as easy as mathematics or bookkeeping. The technical dates are no guarantee for the result. A absolute "no go" are samplerates below 96k because then we really lose details. The limiting factor are the microphones. They deliver signals that you cannot archive @48k, but they deliver no signal you could only archive with 192k. So 96k is the right samplerate for mono microphone tracks. Also the ringing effects and energy dispersion are large @44,1/48, but low @96k and only a bit lower @192k. At this point the quality of the converter is much more important than the question 96k or 192k. Above 96k there are other effects more important. So it is very easy to get a worse sounding 192k recording because of bigger problems with jitter and DAW timing.

But now during analog mixing you get a much more complex mix of the signals and this complex mix results in a signal which contains much more details than each of the recording tracks. Now 96k is not enough to archive this complex mix.
Perhaps I have underestimated the problems in communication about this point. So it is good to talk about. It would be much easier to tell the people that we use 192k at all steps, but why should we do this when the result is not better or even worse. We own 24 AD-converters @192k, but the first tests with 192k multitrack have been not really convincing.

So if you listen to the 96k version of our recordings this is not more close to the original. 192k ist the original, all other formats are downsampled from this. Not the reverse way.


This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Schiit Audio  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
FAQ

Post a Message!

 Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]