Thoughts on bandwidth, sample rates and other miscellaneous spewing...

  • What do the top 5 recording studios in the world use? That would be my starting point.


    Everything else is scientists and Internet warriors debating theory and semantics.

    Maybe the top recording studio's use the highest sample rates cause that's what sells at the time. Advertising is everything, and everyone always wants the best for their money............. so they think. Haha enjoy your better recording at 96khz... It's all snake oil to who makes a living with advertising what will get you the best sun tan!!!!!!!

  • I'm a hobbyist recorder and I record in 44.1 because that's what my system can handle easily.


    My point is that I normally take advice from successful, seasoned professionals that are immersed daily in the specific topic more seriously than from my buddies. They could be wrong or biased, but that's my starting point rather than who is the loudest or most influential.This topic isn't digital guitar amps, it's recording studios.

  • No offense, but thinking about those recording studios that want to make money. I don't know the scientific answer but the answer for sales is the best recording sample rate is it not? I listen to the KPA at 44.1 and 48.1 has no differenceto my ears at all. Tell me you hear a difference and tell me if your company was on the leading edge of higher sample rates the snake oil wouldn't make more money even though you can't hear the difference... Answer is ?

  • I have no idea what the 5 top recording studios use, do you? Probably whatever the client wants the client gets. I doubt they state, because it’s such a weird thing to ask, but for archive I’m sure they’ll provide whatever you want.


    People keep saying “the top producers/studios” do x y or z, but who exactly, where do they say this. It seems to be taken as truth but provided without evidence. Has anyone asked them recently? Has anyone asked them why if they do use a high bitrate? Old habits? Necessity to support archiving formats? Demonstrable improvement in quality? Or maybe they don’t use them at all or even care, and what sounds good is good to them. Maybe you don’t have to be a techie to make great music, nor infallible against snake oil.

  • No offense, but thinking about those recording studios that want to make money. I don't know the scientific answer but the answer for sales is the best recording sample rate is it not? I listen to the KPA at 44.1 and 48.1 has no differenceto my ears at all. Tell me you hear a difference and tell me if your company was on the leading edge of higher sample rates the snake oil wouldn't make more money even though you can't hear the difference... Answer is ?

    Like I said - this isn't about digital guitar amps. It's about the ability to plug straight into a project that a professional audio engineer has created at higher sample rates. I'm not going to argue with someone like that. Why else would CK have invested in this given that he has said they're sonically identical?

  • Zapman:
    I don't think anyone is saying here that the SP-DIF is necessarily better or worse or even different sounding at 44.1 or 48k.
    The discussion from my perspective is your overall project sample rate. Since it's necessary to use the KPA as the master clock in order to even use the SP-DIF out some would say they couldn't use SP-DIF in the past due to it's previous 44.1k clock only and they were using rates higher than that.


    Now that has changed and your KPA can now provide a master clock setting up to 96k. All great news.


    My initial point was that if you are recording acoustic instruments in an acoustical space (that is contributing to the overall sound and it's perspective) then a rate higher than 44.1 is desirable in capturing the overall musical soundfield.


    If your project consists of 12 tracks of KPA and Steve Slate drum samples then 44.1k is probably "good enough".


    One of the statements by Per (on page two?) mentioned clock quality. Since the KPA clock is now running the show for some using SP-DIF how is the KPA clock quality?

    Will

    Edited once, last by WillB ().

  • This discussion reminds of a conversation I had with Jimmie Vaughan, who was playing in Paradiso Amsterdam, back in the 90's. I was the sound engineer of the supporting act. At that time he was playing with two green Matchless amps. I asked him why he was playing on two amps. His answer was simple: "Two is better than one."
    So more is always better :P


    C'mon guys!! Play y'r guitar!!

  • Like I said - this isn't about digital guitar amps. It's about the ability to plug straight into a project that a professional audio engineer has created at higher sample rates. I'm not going to argue with someone like that. Why else would CK have invested in this given that he has said they're sonically identical?

    This is what I was trying to find out for sure... Is there a difference in the audio quality moving up from 44.1 and evidently there is no difference. So on that note, no reason to increase my sample rate.

    Thanks, since I don't record with a large amount of tracks then no reason again for me to move up in sample rate from 44.1. This and the point above are what I really wanted clarified in this topic for my personal home use is all. :thumbup:

  • I remember another (also very interesting ) thread on this matter on this forum, in it some links to theoretical explanation about benefits of higher sample rates. It is from all those papers clear that scientifically there is no improvement (with good AD-DA) in higher sample rates, like Per, CKemper and Zapmann all stated above. But I was skeptical, because I remembered I really heard a great difference in audio-quality when I first listened to gear with high end converters (that's years ago, at the moment I use RME converters). On the other hand I know that we judge normally in a split second, unconsciousness, of whether we like something or not. That is with all emotional related things (like music) in the world and is a basis concept of how we function as humans. So my skepticism was funded on my memories and of course my conception that I can't be fooled in such a manner. But I also remembered one time i was mixing and trying to find the best eq for a track. I dialed in subtle eq, and (like i always do) compared without looking if i switched the eq in or not. So I choosed one (believing it was better than the other). Only to find out later I switched off this effect globally. So I couldn't have heard any change, but only because of my mindset there should be a difference (from which I had to choose) I heard a very subtle difference and I actually choosed... (embarrassing experience)
    I have recorded many years on 192 , and recently tried again on 48 , now with a different mindset, and I couldn't hear a difference. But maybe my mind is now biased by wanting to believe the theoreticians. But at least they don't have commercially bonds (or do they ?) :)
    Just my little story


  • My initial point was that if you are recording acoustic instruments in an acoustical space (that is contributing to the overall sound and it's perspective) then a rate higher than 44.1 is desirable in capturing the overall musical soundfield.


    I‘m afraid that a higher sample rate does not capture the ‚overall musical soundfield‘ in a better way.
    In contradiction to what some people state on the net, all kinds of phase circumstances such as stereo separation, stereo localisation, reflections, reverberation, sound cancelation and superposition will be captured the same way at all sample rates. That is, with a virtually infinite accuracy.


  • The POD output sample rate might be at 32 kHz.
    However, the internal sample rate for the distortion will also be a multiple of this. There is no other way to avoid aliasing in a distortion process.

  • The POD output sample rate might be at 32 kHz.
    However, the internal sample rate for the distortion will also be a multiple of this. There is no other way to avoid aliasing in a distortion process.

    You might not have heard the distortion of the POD.... :S

  • ENGINEERING GUIDELINES

    EUROPEAN BROADCASTING UNION

    THE EBU / AES DIGITAL AUDIO INTERFACE:


    "Most signals used by EBU Members in studios are expected to be sampled at 48 kHz. However 44.1 kHz may be used instead for some applications, such as recordings intended as masters for CDs. If signals are to be fed to transmission equipment, the frequency used may be 32 kHz."

    Will

    Edited once, last by WillB ().

  • Have you ever heard of anyone having a bad audio clock?

    I am clueless on the subject but I vaguely remembered reading an article on the subject a few years ago and I found it:


    https://www.soundonsound.com/t…need-digital-master-clock


    Hence the question I posed, per the Per post, bringing the subject up initially earlier in this thread.


    RME manual:
    But word clock is not only the 'great problem solver', it also has some disadvantages. The word clock is based on a fraction of the really needed clock. For example SPDIF: 44.1 kHz word clock (a simple square wave signal) has to be multiplied by 256 inside the device using a special PLL (to about 11.2 MHz). This signal then replaces the one from the quartz crystal. Big disadvantage: because of the high multiplication factor the reconstructed clock will have great deviations called jitter. The jitter of a word clock is typically 15 times higher as when using a quartz based clock.


    The end of these problems should have been the so called Superclock, which uses 256 times the word clock frequency. This equals the internal quartz frequency, so no PLL for multiplying is needed and the clock can be used directly. But reality was different, the Superclock proved to be much more critical than word clock. A square wave signal of 11 MHz distributed to several devices - this simply means to fight with high frequency technology. Reflections, cable quality, capacitive loads - at 44.1 kHz these factors may be ignored, at 11 MHz they are the end of the clock network. Additionally it was found that a PLL not only generates jitter, but also rejects disturbances. The slow PLL works like a filter for induced and modulated frequencies above several kHz. As the Superclock is used without any filtering such a kind of jitter and noise suppression is missing.


    The actual end of these problems is offered by the SteadyClock technology of the Fireface UFX. Combining the advantages of modern and fastest digital technology with analog filter techniques, re-gaining a low jitter clock signal of 22 MHz from a slow word clock of 44.1 kHz is no problem anymore. Additionally, jitter on the input signal is highly rejected, so that even in real world usage the re-gained clock signal is of highest quality.

    Will

    Edited 5 times, last by WillB: Add information ().

  • 7) Treat everyone with (equal) respect. Lack of talent, experience (or both) and lengthy CVs mean nothing here.


    I think I DID say, and mean "with respect".


    but frankly the second part of that is ridiculous.


    there is another thread running that's titled "MBritt EXPERT advice..."; should his 'expert opinion' not count for something over, say, a brand new user?


    'expert opinion' actually counts for something in the real world, and should.


    but I'm not telling you what to do either.
    I'm merely saying that opinions on the internets are only valuable IF one knows whom one is hearing them from.

  • I'm sure many have said this before, the current available quality for even the basic audio interfaces is good enough for whatever it is that anyone wants to pursue for the most part. The user and or performers are and will be the most crucial elements. On the other hand you can also be surrounded by elite professionals and no one would pick that the bass was recorded out of tune and that might go undiscovered until the mix down or mastering stage. :D


    Sample rate is no longer an issue of concern to me thanks to all those who educated me on the issue.