The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 12-21-2015, 03:49 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
It depends. I've usually used 96Khz, for no reason I can justify. Your 88.2 makes more sense, I should switch back to that (I recorded my first CD at 88.2). My last few projects I just did at 44.1. I have played around with 192, mostly just to verify that my interface would do it. I don't hear any actual differences, but if you're going to record something these days and aren't limited by CD restrictions, it seems fine to record at a higher sample rate just to do it - maybe some audiofiles will appreciate it. But I don't believe it's the cure for bad recording, or adds air, or anything.
Actually one reason you might consider recording at a higher sample rate is so you can have your tracks up on hdtracks.com and/or Neil Young's Pono store (if it ever opens?). Not sure if that means a lot more money, but it's a thought...
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:01 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
Actually one reason you might consider recording at a higher sample rate is so you can have your tracks up on hdtracks.com and/or Neil Young's Pono store (if it ever opens?). Not sure if that means a lot more money, but it's a thought...
I host my CDs on Bandcamp now, which allows users to download at any rate they like, so if I post a high-def audio track, those who care can get that. I've had people with great home systems tell me they download the high sample rate files and appreciate the sound, so you you know, why not? If Pono takes off, it'd be nice to have that option, too.
__________________
Doug Young
----------------
Music on Pandora
You Tube Channel
website: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com
Fingerstyle Christmas Tunes: A DADGAD Christmas
Hymns Book: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar
CDs: Closing Time, Laurel Mill
Pickup tests: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/pickuptests/
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:17 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
I host my CDs on Bandcamp now, which allows users to download at any rate they like, so if I post a high-def audio track, those who care can get that. I've had people with great home systems tell me they download the high sample rate files and appreciate the sound, so you you know, why not? If Pono takes off, it'd be nice to have that option, too.
As long as it's a "value add"... I wouldn't do it unless people would pay more for the higher sample rate audio. I would call it an anti-science tax.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:23 PM
Trevor B. Trevor B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
I host my CDs on Bandcamp now, which allows users to download at any rate they like, so if I post a high-def audio track, those who care can get that. I've had people with great home systems tell me they download the high sample rate files and appreciate the sound,
Did they tell you what it is about the sound they appreciate at the high sample rate?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:48 PM
rick-slo's Avatar
rick-slo rick-slo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 12,945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
Did they tell you what it is about the sound they appreciate at the high sample rate?
What I hear, or think I hear, in some cases is a bit of difference is in the sense of space, most easily heard in some reverb tails. I even felt there was some difference in that between some of the A/D converters I have used. Frequency response maxing out around 20k in younger people. Ability to detect timings delays between the two ears may go beyond that. I have not read the research on this topic as to what it may suggest. Anyway for me, it ranges from subtle to imaginary.
__________________
Derek Coombs
Website -> Music -> Tabs -> CDs and Youtube
Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:49 PM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
Did they tell you what it is about the sound they appreciate at the high sample rate?
Of course I don't know about Dougs customers
But, If Lavrys statement about 44.1 rolling off the top of high end is correct, then given that the high end is where the "air" resides there could actually be a bit more presence or air, in higher sample rate recordings

Trevor . I do not think you or anybody posting in this thread has even remotely forwarded the notion that higher sample rate can make a bad recording better.

But I would tend to just try to absorb and give some consideration to the thoughts of one of the most well respected designers of converters in the field.

Dan Lavry "Although 60 KHz would be closer to the ideal; given the existing standards, 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz are closest to the optimal sample rate."

Now some may attempt to dismiss his thinking as anti- science but that is probably based in the misconception that there is any actual well established objective scientific evidence to the contrary.
But as has been repeated, there other elements that are going to make a great deal more difference than simply upping the sample rate.
There has also been a ongoing discussion on GS about plugins working better in higher sample rates which could for example factor into reverb tails for example.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud

Last edited by KevWind; 12-21-2015 at 04:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:49 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
Did they tell you what it is about the sound they appreciate at the high sample rate?
In the case of Pono, they might not even know what it is or what it means when people say so called "HD audio," but rock stars might be telling them it "sounds like vinyl" or the funniest thing ever when Neil Young tells people with a straight face "it sounds like you are no longer listening underwater."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehetDGUVwf8

You are playing to to the hipsters and the people in the audiophile community who think very expensive power cables make an audible difference.

http://nautilusproaudio.com/power_cords.htm

But people DO pay for things like this, so maybe musicians should profit from it too by releasing "HD" audio files.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-21-2015, 04:57 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Now some may attempt to dismiss his thinking as Anti- science but that is probably based in the misconception that there is any actual well established objective evidence to the contrary.
Kev, seems to me the burden of proof is on people who say there is a difference with audio content above the frequencies humans can hear.

Until there is evidence from scientific testing, any difference that exists is outside science and not quantifiable. So by definition I think it's anti science.

Like I said, I'm open to learning otherwise. Maybe there are people who are hearing "something"... that maybe I can't hear, or that disappears in a/b/x testing, or that is impossible to quantify so far.

EDIT: I know I might come off wrong in this thread (maybe pedantic/etc), but the bottom line is there are many reasons why you might want to record at higher sampling rates, but so far none of those reasons can logically include a proven increase in sound quality. A "possible" increase in sound quality, or faith there might be an increase in sound quality, or future proofing, or marketing, or desire to get your files on Pono or HDtracks seem to be to be possible reasons.
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics

Last edited by Psalad; 12-21-2015 at 05:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-21-2015, 05:42 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rick-slo View Post
What I hear, or think I hear, in some cases is a bit of difference is in the sense of space, most easily heard in some reverb tails. I even felt there was some difference in that between some of the A/D converters I have used. .
The quality of converters could certainly affect that, I dont know about the sampling rate (maybe). Have you every checked out the Shefield "My Disk" test CDs? They have a test where they keep lowering the volume, from full volume to -70 db. The point is to test where your D/A converters crap out and things no longer sound good. I tried it on the various converters I had at one point, from a sound-blaster to my Cranesong and some things in between. The soundblaster was more or less garbage at -40db, if I recall, which would certainly affect how we hear reverb tails. Anyway, slightly different topic....
__________________
Doug Young
----------------
Music on Pandora
You Tube Channel
website: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com
Fingerstyle Christmas Tunes: A DADGAD Christmas
Hymns Book: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar
CDs: Closing Time, Laurel Mill
Pickup tests: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/pickuptests/
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-21-2015, 05:57 PM
Doug Young's Avatar
Doug Young Doug Young is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
Did they tell you what it is about the sound they appreciate at the high sample rate?
You know, it's funny, I was invited to a party by a friend a while back, who had friends who were audiophiles - sand-filled speaker bases and all kinds of gear I've never heard of and so on, and they had downloaded my CD in high-def. I show up, and they're raving about how good the CD sounds, and want me to hear it on their system. But of course, there's a party going on, and on top of that they put it on at about the lowest level possible, so I could just barely hear some guitar tinkling away in the background. But they were just beaming over how great it sounded, so all I could do was nod and thank them for letting me hear it. Maybe they had incredible ears and could hear a difference even at a sub-audible volume, who knows.

I could imagine (no basis for this, just wildly guessing) that a higher sample rate might work better for some plugins and other digital manipulations where accumulated errors might play a role. Same with using 32 bits or 64 bits internally, and so on. Sometimes I think I prefer the sound of 88/96 to lower rates, but logically, I know I can't hear it and would never pass a blind test. In any case, this is definitely in the "I think someone might be able to hear it, or at least imagine it?" category, not "wow, that recording sounds better". So I don't think it plays much of a role in understanding how to get a good sound.
__________________
Doug Young
----------------
Music on Pandora
You Tube Channel
website: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com
Fingerstyle Christmas Tunes: A DADGAD Christmas
Hymns Book: Hymns for Fingerstyle Guitar
CDs: Closing Time, Laurel Mill
Pickup tests: http://www.dougyoungguitar.com/pickuptests/
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 12-21-2015, 05:58 PM
Trevor B. Trevor B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
In the case of Pono, they might not even know what it is or what it means when people say so called "HD audio," but rock stars might be telling them it "sounds like vinyl" or the funniest thing ever when Neil Young tells people with a straight face "it sounds like you are no longer listening underwater."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehetDGUVwf8

You are playing to to the hipsters and the people in the audiophile community who think very expensive power cables make an audible difference.

http://nautilusproaudio.com/power_cords.htm

But people DO pay for things like this, so maybe musicians should profit from it too by releasing "HD" audio files.
Do I detect a hint of cynicism here?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-21-2015, 06:04 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor B. View Post
Do I detect a hint of cynicism here?
There's a fine line between cynicism and opportunism.

BTW, I'm not wired to be an opportunist, but if I were I could probably make a lot of money...
__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-21-2015, 06:07 PM
KevWind's Avatar
KevWind KevWind is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Edge of Wilderness Wyoming
Posts: 11,891
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psalad View Post
Kev, seems to me the burden of proof is on people who say there is a difference with audio content above the frequencies humans can hear.

Until there is evidence from scientific testing, any difference that exists is outside science and not quantifiable. So by definition I think it's anti science.

Like I said, I'm open to learning otherwise. Maybe there are people who are hearing "something"... that maybe I can't hear, or that disappears in a/b/x testing, or that is impossible to quantify so far.
Except of course Lavry's statement about 44.1 rolloff is about a rolloff starting in the range that people can hear.


Seems to me that the assumption of requiring "the burden of proof" is for people saying something like "the law of gravity on earth is changeable" Applicable to something that has an objective well established body of evidence, that would then place the burden of proof on the new contrary idea.

I think there is no such credible objective well established body of evidence that higher sample rates sound the same.

Until there is credible evidence that objectively compares recording and playback on the same system with the least amount of other variables as is currently technically possible. (Which does not seem to be case in the skewed evidence presented so far here and elsewhere ) . I think assuming that there is no difference is just as anti-science based.

This has been interesting but speaking of changing the law of gravity I have to go defy the law gravity by becoming weightless and breath underwater during our local scuba challenge evening cheers
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...


KevWind at Soundcloud

Last edited by KevWind; 12-21-2015 at 06:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-21-2015, 06:17 PM
Trevor B. Trevor B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post

Trevor . I do not think you or anybody posting in this thread has even remotely forwarded the notion that higher sample rate can make a bad recording better.
Dan Lavry "Although 60 KHz would be closer to the ideal; given the existing standards, 88.2 KHz and 96 KHz are closest to the optimal sample rate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Young View Post
I could imagine (no basis for this, just wildly guessing) that a higher sample rate might work better for some plugins and other digital manipulations where accumulated errors might play a role. Same with using 32 bits or 64 bits internally, and so on. Sometimes I think I prefer the sound of 88/96 to lower rates, but logically, I know I can't hear it and would never pass a blind test. In any case, this is definitely in the "I think someone might be able to hear it, or at least imagine it?" category, not "wow, that recording sounds better". So I don't think it plays much of a role in understanding how to get a good sound.
I certainly hope my original question doesn't sound like I'm saying. "Hey, you guys are making great sounding recordings and it's gotta be your Sample Rate and Bit Depth, so come on guys, give up the big secret!" I am, however; curious as to the various settings and levels people use who are getting consistently good home recording results. In light of the Dan Lavry assertion I'll try a higher sample rate and see if I can hear a difference and when I get to the point where it matters I may borrow from the wisdom imparted by Psalad re: what people are prepared to pay for (lol). BTW - I love the Neil Young allusion.
This has turned out to be a fascinating thread and I'm grateful to everyone who has taken the time to share their knowledge and experience.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-21-2015, 07:53 PM
Psalad Psalad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: San Francisco bay area
Posts: 3,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Except of course Lavry's statement about 44.1 rolloff is about a rolloff starting in the range that people can hear.
There is no evidence anyone can hear the current filters working. Lavry's statement is sound in theory, but there is no proof there is a difference people can hear.

Quote:
Seems to me that the assumption of requiring "the burden of proof" is for people saying something like "the law of gravity on earth is changeable" Applicable to something that has an objective well established body of evidence, that would then place the burden of proof on the new contrary idea.
Actually it's kind of the opposite.

Science says people can't hear above 20khz. Nyqvist says 44.1 is a good enough sampling rate based on the known limit of 20khz.

If people believe there is something that matters above 20k that is not yet known, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. The science about what one can and cannot hear is clear.

Quote:
I think there is no such credible objective well established body of evidence that higher sample rates sound the same.
That's exactly it... according to current science, 44.1k should be all we need. You are asking to prove the negative, but that's not how it works.

Quote:
Until there is credible evidence that objectively compares recording and playback on the same system with the least amount of other variables as is currently technically possible. (Which does not seem to be case in the skewed evidence presented so far here and elsewhere ) . I think assuming that there is no difference is just as anti-science based.
Science just shows what can and cannot be proven. Science doesn't weigh in on the existence of god, other than saying there is no proof of god existing. Science shows humans can't hear above 20k (and most of us top out at a lot lower of a frequency, especially as we age). If you think there is something above 20k that has an impact, again, the burden of proof is on your side, to show why science is wrong.

Quote:
This has been interesting but speaking of changing the law of gravity I have to go defy the law gravity by becoming weightless and breath underwater during our local scuba challenge evening cheers
Enjoy, and while you're there, enjoy the sound of mp3, CD, and even 96khz according to Neil Young:

__________________
Music: http://mfassett.com

Taylor 710 sunburst
Epiphone ef-500m

...a few electrics
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Tags
acoustic guitar, logic pro x, sample rate

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=