Now they tell us!

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:09 am

It's just a discussion.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:08 am

An opinion from Jim Roseberry at http://www.prorec.com , opinion dated from 1998:

"I know... I know... I can hear many of you saying there is absolutely NO need for recording with a 96kHZ Sample Rate. Two weeks ago, I would have agreed with you! I emphasize *would have* agreed with you! Let me state this very clearly... YOU CAN INDEED HEAR THE DIFFERENCE when recording with a 96kHz Sample Rate!"

This opinion is from October 1998; many (me included) have the same opinion; now we're in 2003, and Creamw@re chooses to regress on 48 kHz!...It's crazy

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 09:54 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:14 am

Extracted from http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.n ... 88000FBE08 :

"Whats all the Hubbub about recording at 96kHz?

I know... I know... I can hear many of you saying there is absolutely NO need for recording with a 96kHZ Sample Rate. Two weeks ago, I would have agreed with you! I emphasize *would have* agreed with you! Let me state this very clearly... YOU CAN INDEED HEAR THE DIFFERENCE when recording with a 96kHz Sample Rate!

I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't heard the results. Bottom line is that the highs sound more open and detailed. By the way... two other folks here in my studio could pick the 96kHz track EVERY time in a blind listening test (when compared with a 44.1kHz version). To hell with theory, my EARS tell me there is a difference.

Want a real dose of Blasphemy? I compared recording at 96kHz and Sample Rate converting down to 44.1, to simply recording at 44.1kHz. I couldn't believe my ears! The track originally recorded at 96kHz and Sample Rate converted down to 44.1kHz had much better sounding highs, maintaining much of the character from recording at 96kHz.

This goes against everything that I have learned over the years... and goes against accepted practice. So I don't make this statement lightly! You CAN hear a difference... anyone who tells you otherwise hasn't tried recording at 96kHz! Period. "

Jim Roseberry, October 1998, http://www.prorec.com
_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-06 01:29 ]

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:22 am

Always take things like this with a grain of salt. One guy claiming he can hear it isn't really much to go on. And I'm sure CW don't mean to limit it's devices on purpose. If they have technical difficulties implementing it, well, there's not much they can do about it (or anyone else for that matter). Maybe they'll crack it in the future.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:38 am

1) May I remind you that my Minimax is currently working at 96 kHz with my SFP3.1c?

2) And also, I make mine the statement made by Jim Roseberry.

And for the 1) and the 2), I'm not alone to share these constatations...Believing or not is not the topic there, we're talking about facts

Considering all that, I guess there is a management problem inside Creamw@re, unfortunately

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 09:55 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 12:35 pm

96Khz will NEVER be å commersial success, simply because the average consumer couldn't care less if the recording was made @ 44.1/48/88/96khz or even with analog equipment...
(No one here is an average consumer by the way)

The bottom line is that it's the CONSUMER that decides whether or not they care, and unless you are recording classical music with a 100 piece orchestra that will be released on HD-CD or 96khz DVD, there is no real need for 96khz.
If you can hear the better sound, that is good for you, but good sound dosen't sell music alone.

Think of it, people are buying vintage gear because they sound better.. Doesn't that say something?

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 1:22 pm

As I said earlier, everyone is free to buy a 4 tracks cassette recorder if he wants...

But:

-the industry has decided to go on DSD and DVD Audio because they need that to continue making money;

-big recording studios are currently working at 96 kHz and above;

-audiophiles prefer high resolutions and audiophiles are opinions leaders;

-everyone prefers high resolution if he can listen to it (and it will be the case soon or later);

-16bit/44,1 kHz audio CD benefits also from high resolution mixes, this way the sound is better even if the final resolution is lower

-high resolution is a good commercial argument, do you want to be quoted as a technical has-been?

-this is just the direction of history...

So:

Do you want to make a step in the near future, or do you want to regress in the past?

Do you want the gears you hardly bought to stay competitive and easy to use for some more time, or do you want to regress quick in the past? And be forced to buy other dispendious gears after this error?

Don't you see competitors are coming and surfing on the native's computers exponentially increasing power?

Do you think regressing is a fine policy?

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 17:13 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 1:36 pm

A friend of mine bought a Moog synthesizer some fifteen years ago (not sure which model, but it was one of the first to come into Norway and it is older than the one which has been placed in the Nowegian Technical Museum), he payed aprox. 70 Euros for it then..

A Couple of months ago he got an offer to sell it for 2200 Euros (obviously he refused)...

I don't believe the Moog har either 96khz operation (obviously not, since it is analogue), midi I/O or anything else we take for granted, but to you think that is regression?

The only thing 96khz is REALLY good for is making higher demands on audio equipment and thus forcing us to pay more for it.

[ This Message was edited by: aMo on 2003-03-05 13:36 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 1:42 pm

As you say, the Moog is analogue, so its audio definition is infinitely superior to 96 kHz

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:11 pm

I think you are (deliberately) missing his point

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:42 pm

I hope not, and if I do (unintentionally), please excuse me for any stupidness that could be mine and kindly explain to me, I'll thank you in this case...

I just wanted to point out a confusion I think aMo made...To be short, a Stradivarius hasn't MIDI, hasn't numerical I/O, it hasn't even electricity...But a Stradivarius is sold for millions.

A true Moog (even if not being a Stradivarius) can also not be introduced in this debate on numerical audio high or low definition in the way aMo has done, it is simply neither relevant nor accurate.

Originally the debate was on the numerical -not analogue- synth Minimax that was working at 96kHz once upon a time (and still working at this samplerate in my configuration) and that Creamw@re chooses after that to lock at a 48 kHz use max...

I just don't understand how anyone can defend this Creamw@re 's move against the users interests.

Please explain to me, if I miss something on this topic...

Cheers,
Grok

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 14:51 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 2:56 pm

I give in...

If it's THAT important to be able to reproduce sound that only BATS can hear, be my guest, NAG all you want...

I, on the other hand, prefer sound I can actually hear...

Now I'm not going to discuss this anymore, since it is of little interrest to me...

If anyone want's me, I'll me makin music... at 48khz btw

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:05 pm

On 2003-03-05 14:56, aMo wrote:
...
If it's THAT important to be able to reproduce sound that only BATS can hear, be my guest, NAG all you want...
...

Not only bats

...

Each human being can hear the difference, as written above...

I can, and you can

And: music is not the topic right here; the topic is audio restitution and commercial credibility

Cheers,
Grok

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 3:08 pm

And, very infortunately, the topic is Creamw@re fooling us and disrespecting us...

So sad, so senseless...

Perhaps because they're losts

Regards,
Grok

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 17:16 ]

Post by **garyb** » Wed Mar 05, 2003 9:22 pm

of course one can hear the difference w/96k.but silly people,cds are still at 44.1k and downsampling from 96k MUST cause violence to your signal.88.2k would make more sense since in downsampling you could just toss out half the samples.at 96k you have to have the computer ESTIMATE the new samples,a stupid idea imho.

when another audio format that has more storage space(sacd?,dvd?)is forced upon us and becomes more common,maybe then 96k will be the standard.

still, in spite of the loaded adjectives,"silly" and "stupid",whatever works for you is fine with me.

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 6:21 am

On 2003-03-05 15:08, Grok wrote:
And, very infortunately, the topic is Creamw@re fooling us and disrespecting us...

So sad, so senseless... Perhaps because they're losts

Regards,
Grok

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-05 17:16 ]

Yes, listen to their evil cackling rising up from their deep, dark development caves. Their deceitful, glowing red eyes glimmering in the dark, always watching....they are the Creamware Programmers....lost souls damned for all eternity....they fools us prrrrecious....they fools us....

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 4:40 pm

Bloody hell! I think I better run around and start putting 96kHz stickers on all my gear! Maybe I can fool 'em.

huffcw · Post by **huffcw** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 7:30 pm

the bit rate is much more important frequency. 24 bit vs. 16 bit makes a bigger difference than the increase from 44.1 khz to 96 khz.

but anyway, the bottom line is that Minimax sounds killer regardless of the sample rate - that is what is most important.

companies like to hype up the 96khz thing (or whatever is the latest craze) so they can market and sell new products. many people will tell you that an older very good 16bit, 44.1khz audio card can still sound better than a newer mediocre 24bit, 96khz audio cards.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 8:18 pm

I feel happy to have a Minimax that runs at 96kHz

. Happily I'm one of a few that have bought it at its first release!

I can assure you that I can hear the difference, when playing my Minimax at 48kHz and then at 96kHz, and the inverse way. That's what you can't, now; but it has no importance coz you don't use 96kHz. And I'm not forced to resample (with a quality loss, a slight loss but a real loss) for 96 kHz arrangements, hurray!

So now I'm one of a few that can compare, and can use the best.

Even the Noah hasn't a 96kHz Minimax!

Maybe I can sell this now very rare Minimax at a good high price with my cards! I feel very advantaged, thank you Creamware!

I've not been a long time loyal user for nothing!

So we're all happy with our gears, and that's what is important.

Cheers,
Grok

Post by **garyb** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:40 pm

now, sell your shit.share it.oops no one can listen to it at 96k.you are the ONLY ONE!hooray!by definition,(not as a personal attack,i'm only arguing for the sake of future generations and the truth is no offence,respect to all!)i call this foolishness even the discussion of it...