I'm just wondering how much better it is. The MOTU HD192 looks sick.
Haven't had a chance to check out 192KHz.
Printable View
I'm just wondering how much better it is. The MOTU HD192 looks sick.
Haven't had a chance to check out 192KHz.
nope but I will start working with 96khz / 24 on my next projects! :)
Z
yeah, i've been working with 24/96 on most of my stuff, but i want to hear 192 ;)
well, i've heard no difference.
96/24 or even 192 is maybe nice for people who do lots of da/ad'ing or regular music, but i don't think its useful when doing techno. or maybe my ears are too bad? :oops:
I suggest the following test...
Do the all of yer project in 192 then at the end go down to 96... let us know if u noticed any differences... U shouldn't hear any difference ... but maybe it will have a slight different feel, nuance 2 it!?
:?:
Z
if you work in 196 kz, would it be that the only difference is that you hear more degrading once you transfer to cd being 44.1khz, than 96khz. (if you see what i mean !!)
wow detfella I gotta do a VERY BIG :notworthy: this has gotta be one of the most precious link I have ever had the luck 2 Click!!!
Thank U!!!! :)
Z
i only lasted till the end of page 2 but it was some very intersting, if a little confusing in places reading :)
well it's like this:
it might have advantages if you need to do lots of stuff, e.g. like having a huge photo where you need to do detail work. this might be useful for internal processing, where you do mixing at a very low level and then push the master up 3 miles.
but if you can't hear the difference, there's no need to switch.
my virus plugin sounds loads better at 96 ... guess you should try whatever soft synths you use ... especially when the filter is wide open, check those sawtooths ... yummy! at least i think it does ... i'm going to have to do a serious a/b test ... i'll post the results somewhere
I don't think a lot of plug-ins even support 192 yet.
from what I read and understood (lot less than what I read :P ), internal resolution can benefit from all u can muster, has 2 the recording I kinda end up thinking 24 bits 48 Khz is All I'll ever need... (4 now!?! lol)
Z
96KHz is perfect for me now, I think it sounds really good, you probably need really great ears and perfect monitors to hear 192KHz quality haha
Most differences we hear with 96 Khz 24 bits are due 2 better operation of the converters and the fact that the Nyquist frequency gets moved above, so the anti-alias filter doesn't in any way fall into our hearing range, I mean there is absolutly no way we can hear the difference... It's humanly impossible, as to psychoacustics.. humm... there is nothing 2 prove possible or impossible, but even if possible it would b dreafully small difference (if at all noticable)....
This is all I have know and learned on the subject but it is a very untapped area, where u get a lot of big brains saying 192 is bollox.. but most agree 96 is great for internal processing...
Mind u I am very willing 2 learn on this tricky subject and I don't have any dogmas on this 1!
Z
let's do music for dogs, so we can go even further than 192 :)
i think 96/192khz is more for delicate recordings.. hehe and for SACD