|
|
|
|
| Re: Well crap!!!....there may actually be something to this 88.2 voodoo. [message #89861 is a reply to message #89851] |
Sat, 15 September 2007 08:08   |
![neil[1] is currently offline](/theme/PARIS_Forum_Template/images/offline.png "neil[1] is currently offline")
neil[1]
Messages: 164
Registered: October 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>You should hear the sheen at 1GHZ sample rate. WOW And when it's played
>back through your FM radio where they smash the dynamics so much that it's
>one huge smear of spectral shit, then you know all your hard work and money
>was worth it.
Thing is, is doesn't cost you any more work OR money once
you're in Native-land. Yeah, there is still SOME hardware that
doesn't do 88.2k... like for example I wish my Presonus Central
Station would (it does 96k, though, just not 88.2), so I could
eliminate one more analog signal path between the convertors &
the monitors; but, it's so clean that I can't even say that it
would really matter much. As an aside, that little unit has
probably been one of the best purchases I've made for my
setup - I especially like the remote for it; having the
talkback switch, mic & monitor level right there on the desktop
is great - I used to have to set up a -57 on one of those
little desktop stands & use a spare pre & turn the gain up &
down when talking. In that scenario, sometimes it was simpler
to just yell back & forth lol
>One of our FM stations has such a bad sound that it's totally unlistenable
>for me. I don't know what they fuck they are doing but it is simply horrible.
> And it's classic rock so I'm wanting to listen but they are just smearing
>every part of the music that previously existed into one bit tunnel of goo.
> Anyone else got radio stations that seriously destroy the sound ?
ABSOLUTELY! We have one here that does it. There's a wide
variance in signal quality between any number of the radio
stations here, a few sound OK and a couple sound like utter
crap, but none of 'em realy sound as good as what you hear in a
lot of major markets, either. Every time I travel somewhere
else it becomes even more apparent - like I was in LA a few
weeks ago, and even on the cheezy factory stereo in my Hyundai
rental car, KLOS sounded great.
Neil
|
|
|
|
| Re: Well crap!!!....there may actually be something to this 88.2 voodoo. [message #89863 is a reply to message #89838] |
Sat, 15 September 2007 08:44 |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"DJ" <animix _ at _ animas _ dot _ net> wrote:
>I'm not sure that it sounds that much better when it's downsampled, but
I'm
>sure hearing a silkier top end at 88.2 than at 44.1 on my RME ADI8-DS units.
Thing is...
a.) NOW you know.
b.) Another thing to remember when considering your
statement "not sure that it sounds that much better when it's
downsampled" is this - your statement seems to indicate that it
DOES sound SOMEWHAT better (even if not "MUCH" better). It's
like I've said before... how much money have we all spent on
incremental gains in one aspect or another?
IOW - you want to get this or that mic or preamp because it
will sound SOMEWHAT better than what I've got now. You want to
drop a grand or two on a Mytek or Benchmark D/A convertors set
because it will make my monitoring sound a little
clearer/cleaner. You drop a few hundred on a Porkpie snare
because it's just "that much" more articulate than the snare
you've got. Or even something as inexpensive as hearing an
Audix i5 and deciding that you like it much better than a -57
on a guitar cab, and so you go ahead & drop 89 bucks on one.
These are examples of how we all go for, or have gone for,
incremental gains - not even necessarily huge ones - and will
spend anywhere from tens of dollars to thousands of dollars to
do so. 88.2k represents an incremental gain you can have without
costing you a dime.
c.) And finally... if it doesn't exist in your initial file
(the raw, indiviual track files), then you absolutely know for
certain that NOT ONE ASPECT of what doesn't exist there can
exist in the final file... whether it be a higher-frequency
content abve 22k - the lower harmonics of which may be
perceived, but ONLY if they exist in the first file - or a more
accurate representation of a given sound to begin with,
multiplied by ALL the sounds on there, which could translate to
a more accurate representation of the entire amalgam of sounds,
all the way down the conversion spectrum, to 44.1 wav, to mp3
at whatever bitstream rate the end user is listeneing to it on.
It's not about WOW THAT'S FUCKING WAY HUGE AMOUNTS BETTER when
you listen to the end result at two-track-dithered-down-44.1,
it's about being "incrementally better" - noticeably better.
What if it's only (if you could put a number on it) five
percent better? Ten percent better? Personally I think it's
more than that, but every little sonic improvement you can get,
makes a difference, yes?
Neil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
