You might be hearing aliasing due to bad SRC.

 

so called glorious 192 sounds the same as 44.1 and 48 etc etc

 

Ahh.....but the devil is in the details of your references....

these comments were all based around innovations that actually tackled hurdles or sticking points people and/or commerce faced. They also had vested interests pitted against them so the dissidents went to the presses with an agenda.

192khz audio has absolutely no relevance to your context.

 

Nice thread . Let's change the topic quickly before olymoon close this thread: How about analog vs. digital?

(Of course 192kHz is better)

 

No point in mixing in 192 khz if it's recorded in 44.1 khz (maybe it would even hurt the sound if you up-sample a 44.1 khz wave file to 192 khz but I'm not sure). If the whole processes is done in 192 khz there would be some benefits in better sound quality. I usually record and mix in 48 khz but probably gonna double it to 96 Khz in the future. If you use 192 khz on all recordings the wave files and projects would be very large, that's why I don't do it.
Maybe not a fair comparison but if you blow up a 1080 HD video to a 4k video does not mean that the video suddenly becomes 4k quality.

 

Last edited: Feb 16, 2019

No matter when you read this:
1) pointless discussion of most_used_fs_today vs most_used_fs_today x4 is going on everywhere

 

a cut out of an interview to Dave Hill from Crane Song (a real guru)

What’s the challenge when designing digital dynamic processors these days? Quite a number of users still quote analog to be better.
On the digital side there are problems dealing with the sampled audio and what happens on the make up gain side of things. With sampled data finding the peak of the signal is much more difficult than in the analog domain. The peak may be between two samples, 192k works better than 44.1k, more samples to work with.

If you have a problem with how digital sounds, move to 192k, it is better, signal processing is better, it images better. I have in my possession what I think is the best compressor plug-in. It has not been released to the public. I did a careful A-B with a very good analog box, the analog box wins.

 

It's like watching a video in 4K with a monitor in Fullhd.

 

everything depends on the distance you look at the monitor.

 

Will it sound better on my Apple ear buds?

 

so, 44.1k it's ok for you??

I was expecting a lot more from audiosex people: you are all a bunch of retrograde farts

 

i write email to Streaky ( find him on youtube) mastering engineer, and he said to me,

"Work at 96 24 that way your plugins will work better and you can always doensample in RX later...going down is better then up."

He knows his stuff though. and on 96k i can hear more clear reverb and delay effects, not night and day different comparing to 44.1 but i can hear the difference.

 

There is no problem to convert from 96 or 192 to 44.1, there is just another math used. But the quality after good src won't suffer.
When mix, all samples with 44.1 should be upsampled to 192 as your project (i work in 96 mostly) .

SoX (sox based daws as well)
RX
DBPOWERAMP (one of the best ripper/converter with mastering grade src)
Finalcd (sharp mode) - only from higher smple rates to 44.1, but super mastering grade
Weiss saracon
Shibatch SSRC
The brick (mac only)
Old not so bad src: voxengo r8brain free/pro, secret rabbit code
Players with hq src converters, such as foobar2000 (v1.4 and newer), aimp4, jriver.

 

That's interesting. But does it really make sense, if I produce sample-based music, where the source material is samples in 44.1 kHz? Some EQ plugins (especially those with 'air bands') already use internat over-sample internally to avoid aliasing.

I understand, that having as little gaps in between the sampling points when recording audio is desireable, but I don't really see the point when working with 44.1 kHz samples. I am pretty sur that neither DJ Premier, RZA, Dr. Dre, Pete Rock nor anybody else of the who is who in the rap game actually care about that when making beats. They probably do care when recording vocals or live instruments, but as far as chopping samples, I don't know… But I am happy to be convinced otherwise!

 

try to listen to some reverb and delay plugins at 96k vs 44.1 i can hear some wider more spacious sound.

 

That's why we have oversampling/ISP limiters which have been around for years. Way more efficient than switching the whole processing to 192k when not every process needs it.

 

People using cellphones and wireless headphones shouldn´t even read this thread..

 

I guess that you didn't experience growing up in the USA. Being black was being fucked, people coming back from Vietnam were fucked, woman were still making waaay less than men doing the same work were not represented in government and were screwed, Latina neighborhoods were rough and tumble, though, if you were white and living in a large city, for the most part things were rosy. Don't believe it just because someone made a documentary, they obviously had an agenda.

 

Of course you can if they do not

As I already stated here
https://audiosex.pro/threads/mixing-at-192-khz-vs-44-1-khz.43062/page-2#post-380067

With signals that contain a lot of high freqs the difference is really audible but only as long as you listen to it at 96kHz. As soon as it is converted to 44.1kHz the difference is gone, at least according to my own experiments...

 

Same difference compared to a sound engineer and a normal guy that listen music with 0 knowledge, everything depends on your ears!