Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Whilst on the subject of disk formatting...
| Whilst on the subject of disk formatting... [message #57941] |
Tue, 06 September 2005 23:34  |
Kim W
Messages: 165
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t; to
>> >> > the
>> >> >>> >right ( 50ms=2240 - 192 = 2048)
>> >> >>> >Regards,
>> >> >>> >Dimitrios
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>In order for this to be really effective, you need to record nothing, copy
this to an adjacent track, invert the phase and then do a bounce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whilst on the subject of disk formatting... [message #57946 is a reply to message #57943] |
Wed, 07 September 2005 00:28  |
Kim W
Messages: 165
Registered: July 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
at 44k, and audio sampled at 96k. I don't have any
96k converters, or I'd give it a shot myself. In all things audio, I'd trust
this group's ears over
m(any) others.
If it is audible I'd propose three possiblities:
-Our ears are much more sensitive than perviously thought or measured. (I'd
tend to doubt this one...)
-We do "hear" the higher frequencies, but with senses other than our ears.
Perhaps our skin, or fine hair on the skin. Much like someone who is deaf
"listens" to music, we are able to percieve the higher frequencies.
or...
-Its a sort of placebo effect. We think it's there, so it's there.
Any thoughts???
MRSeemed like the slutz were having some fun with that thread.
What's your worst gear purchase?
I'll go first.
1969 My first electric guitar. Went to a thrift shop and there was a
Jazzmaster that looked cool. Only 55.00! So, I sold a bunch of
stuff and bought it. It needed a knob so I took it to the local
Fender dealer and his service guy about fell off his chair. It was
a cheap knockoff (Fender decal and all) from the Phillipines!
(evidently some of the servicemen buy them and bring them back)
No truss rod, green wood in the neck, wavy plastic on the pickguard.
Total POS. Worth nothing.
ArrgGGGGGHHHHH...
I'm 16 right, and know nothing about guitars, but I do know I am
in a world of caca, and now I have no money.
So, I go back to the thrift store, having cooked up a story about
having sold something that wasn't mine and now I am in trouble, and
the guy gave me my 55.00 back...
Whew...
Went and bought a real Fender (Jaguar this time) and finally got my
heartbeat down to 195 or so....
DCDoes it taste like chicken?
"Mike Claytor" <claytor@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:43488518$1@linux...
>
> Man, my plate is mucho full. I've got projects a year old that i need to
finish!
>
> Really, all i've done is take the Royer mod and apply it to different
mics.
> It's REAL easy if ya know which end of the soldering iron is the hot end.
>
> If yer clueless on this stuff (and if memory serves, you're not!) it's
still
> an easy project.
>
> Keep the capsule and body and just wire in the Royer circuit, etc.
>
> I've got geetars, pre-amps, mics, landscaping, truck repair, etc. stacked
> up on me and just can't take on any outside stuff at this time.
>
> deadline stress is bad for Mikey!
>
> ...and hey! Texas b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whilst on the subject of disk formatting... [message #57953 is a reply to message #57950] |
Wed, 07 September 2005 04:23 |
erlilo
Messages: 405
Registered: June 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
c-pre quality,
> component quality, basic circuit design and interface issues.
>
>
> Recording engineers we have to be able to do 4 things well:
>
> Never yell with headphones on
>
> Coil cables properly
>
> Hear where to EQ
>
> Have minimal placebo effect. Yes, this can be learned.
>
>
> In the end, I would rather engineer well, with good gear (and never in
> the Pro Tools mix buss!) at red-book spec than use hi-rez stuff
> that has less attention paid to the quality of each piece.
>
> All things being equal, hi-res is better. But less than they say.
>
> BTW, with the amazing popularity of iPods and the like, it seems as
> if hi-res is no longer an issue since we can't even get beyond MP3
> let alone red-book. I disagree. Right now, there are iPods with 60
> gigabytes!
>
> Now, a CD can only 700meg, so we could easily have iPods holding
> 86+ CD's of uncompressed audio! No MP3 crap! It's mainly an
> access speed issue at this point, but I think it will happen, and then
> hi-res will follow.
>
> DC
>
>
> "Mike R." <emare@not.com> wrote:
> >
> >You know, I have read some reports that people actually percieve a
difference
> >between audio sampled at 44k, and audio sampled at 96k. I don't have any
> >96k converters, or I'd give it a shot myself. In all things audio, I'd
> trust
> >this group's ears over
> >m(any) others.
> > If it is audible I'd propose three possiblities:
> >-Our ears are much more sensitive than perviously thought or measured.
(I'd
> >tend to doubt this one...)
> >-We do "hear" the higher frequencies, but with senses other than our
ears.
> > Perhaps our skin, or fine hair on the skin. Much like someone who is
deaf
> >"listens" to music, we are able to percieve the higher frequencies.
> >or...
> >-Its a sort of placebo effect. We think it's there, so it's there.
> >Any thoughts???
> >MR
>Sort of on this topic, anyone notice how bad radio is sounding lately?
Even the Beatle hour is bad "you can't do that" sounded like a real audio
file or something.
I load my Ipod on the highest rate before Apple lossless.
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Yesterday I was doing some location work recording a panel discussion of
>some heavyweight film songwriters/scorers/producers and publishers who
>specialize in placing music with film editors and producers.
>
>The issue of higher sample rates and 5.1 mixing came up. The only place
>higher sample rates were preferred were for ftp'ing MP3's to the publisher
>for listening sessions prior to sending on the finished *stereo/44.1* final
>mixes subsequent to approval of the song. Seems that there is some voodoo
>that these folks think they are hearing when MP3's are upsampled to 192kHz.
>I've never done this so maybe there is some validity to it, but anyway,
they
>like having it done this way. As far as the final audio product that is
>heard in the film is concerned, 5.1 and higher sample rates aren't taking
>the world by storm.......not even a little.
>
>Deej
>
>"DC" <dc@spamyermama.com> wrote in message news:4349c570$1@linux...
>>
>> Here's my .02
>>
>> 1. Everything has to be equal. *Almost always* when someone
>> complains about digital it is because of cheap convertors or bad
>> engineering. Compare the same convertor at different resolutions
>> and you can hear some difference. I've done this with a Lavry and
>> it is real, but of smaller magnitude of improvement than most people
>> expect.
>>
>> The existence of so many recordings transferred back in the 80's
>> on the wretched convertors in the Sony 1630/40 mastering decks
>> is still causing complaints about "digital harshness".
>>
>> I have done orchestras straight to 44.1 / 16 bits that have been
>> as smooth and sweet and detailed as anyone could expect and way
>> better soundin
|
|
|
|
| Re: Whilst on the subject of disk formatting... [message #57955 is a reply to message #57953] |
Wed, 07 September 2005 04:41 |
Kim
Messages: 1246
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>> well reproduced. This may be an issue in digital also.
>>
>> 3. What many people are claiming to hear is not more highs, but
>> more detail. I hear more detail at very low levels on classical, where
>> you start running out of bits at 16. This is a real issue, but less
so
>>
>> for pop music since with most pop, the waveform is so compressed
>> it looks like a solid bar instead of a waveform.
>>
>> 4. There's always some placebo effect, and there have been a LOT
>> of bad sounding boxes sold on their high sample rates while the
>> bozo designers simply forgot about things like mic-pre quality,
>> component quality, basic circuit design and interface issues.
>>
>>
>> Recording engineers we have to be able to do 4 things well:
>>
>> Never yell with headphones on
>>
>> Coil cables properly
>>
>> Hear where to EQ
>>
>> Have minimal placebo effect. Yes, this can be learned.
>>
>>
>> In the end, I would rather engineer well, with good gear (and never in
>> the Pro Tools mix buss!) at red-book spec than use hi-rez stuff
>> that has less attention paid to the quality of each piece.
>>
>> All things being equal, hi-res is better. But less than they say.
>>
>> BTW, with the amazing popularity of iPods and the like, it seems as
>> if hi-res is no longer an issue since we can't even get beyond MP3
>> let alone red-book. I disagree. Right now, there are iPods with 60
>> gigabytes!
>>
>> Now, a CD can only 700meg, so we could easily have iPods holding
>> 86+ CD's of uncompressed audio! No MP3 crap! It's mainly an
>> access speed issue at this point, but I think it will happen, and then
>> hi-res will follow.
>>
>> DC
>>
>>
>> "Mike R." <emare@not.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >You know, I have read some reports that people actually percieve a
>difference
>> >between audio sampled at 44k, and audio sampled at 96k. I don't have
any
>> >96k converters, or I'd give it a shot myself. In all things audio, I'd
>> trust
>> >this group's ears over
>> >m(any) others.
>> > If it is audible I'd propose three possiblities:
>> >-Our ears are much more sensitive than perviously thought or measured.
>(I'd
>> >tend to doubt this one...)
>> >-We do "hear" the higher frequencies, but with senses other than our
>ears.
>> > Perhaps our skin, or fine hair on the skin. Much like someone who is
>deaf
>> >"listens" to music, we are able to percieve the higher frequencies.
>> >or...
>> >-Its a sort of placebo effect. We think it's there, so it's there.
>> >Any thoughts???
>> >MR
>>
>
>DJ,
Are you sure they didn't mean 192kbps mp3 encoding vs 128kbps encoding?
That would make sense in the context.
And for DC: I think the lossless codecs (Apple's and FLAC for example) are
a good way to go for portables. I guess the problem is that a lot of consumers
can't hear the difference between 192kbps mp3 or AAC in their environments...
And about those amp designers, what analog recording format (or more importantly,
what consumer playback medium) in the past had response out to 250k?
Regardless, I think it's always going to be a battle where convenience wins
out over fidelity in consumer audio. And as long as it sounds "good enough"
to the consumer, that's a good thing for music when people want to listen
and can do it where they like. It remains a part of their lives and thus
lets us live ours.
;)
Regards,
Graham
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>Yesterday I was doing some location work recording a panel discussion of
>some heavyweight film songwriters/scorers/producers and publishers who
>specialize in placing music with film editors and producers.
>
>The issue of higher sample rates and 5.1 mixing came up. The only place
>higher sample rates were preferred were for ftp'ing MP3's to the publisher
>for listening sessions prior to sending on the finished *stereo/44.1* final
>mixes subsequent to approval of the song. Seems that there is some voodoo
>that these folks think they are hearing when MP3's are upsampled to 192kHz.
>I've never done this so maybe there is some validity to it, but anyway,
they
>like having it done this way. As far as the final audio product that is
>heard in the film is concerned, 5.1 and higher sample rates aren't taking
>the world by storm.......not even a little.
>
>DeejOn Sun, 9 Oct 2005 17:26:28 -0600, "DJ"
<animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>In order for this to be really effective, you need to record nothing, copy
>this to an adjacent track, invert the phase and then do a bounce.
>
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Sep 05 00:35:13 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00728 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
