dsane!!! heresy!!!!

[HERESY]

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=50757


http://www.digido.com/ (to the right of the website is a list of articles. click on "more bits please")



i posted on homerec in regards to a test that was done using 16 bit recordings and 24 bit recordings. the same song just recorded at different bit rates. i couldnt find the thread but someone will help me.


to all the readers work with a format that works for YOU. if its reel at 30 or 15 ips, two inch or quarter,if its 24 bit or 16 bit,if its 88k or 44k,analog or digital, mac or pc......find something that works for you and stick to it.



:H:

 

[Sick Wid It]

YOUR ears have been TRAINED to listen. the "average joe" doesnt even know when he is listening in mono or stereo. when i find the link to the homerecording.com test i will post it for you. they did a test on 24bit recordings and 16 bit recordings. maybe you can listen for yourself and see if a difference exists.

You're right, the average joe isn't anywhere near as picky & critical as I am of sound quality but he does usually know when something sounds better. It would be interesting to read what their findings were if you can find the link. Especially if they did things like FFT analysis and spectra-graphing. It's important to know what environment they conducted their tests in too.

we can go into the proven mathmatics all day long. nothing has been etched in stone. you have people that endorse 16 bit who will come with a math formula as well.......

I will say that the higher-bit-rate argument does have points that are fact and undebatable by the lower-bit-rate supporters. For example (and I mentioned this in an earlier post), the more bits you have, the more audio information you have to work with. The more audio information you have to manipulate, the more possibilties there are. Thats just fact. Slowly but surely, 16bit will become dinosaur technology just like 12bit, 10bit, 8bit and 4bit. That evolution will never stop.

But I absolutely agree with what you said, nothing is etched in stone because in the end. Or ever will be if you ask me because it's all about what sounds good to you as an individual. No two people hear the same so it really is just a matter of opinion.

until the AVERAGE JOE gets his hand on a 24 or 32 bit cd player that plays 96k or higher does it really matter? 5000000 bits or 666k. a person who doesnt know what they are doing can STILL make it sound like crap.....

I would say it does matter but that's just my opinion. I'm more the type who is willing to push the envelope rather than just make-due with what the majority prefers. And without a doubt, a person who doesn't know what they're doing can definately use good recording environments and still come out with crap!
Thanks to the independant market, there's plenty of good examples of that to choose from.

You can always find someone who is willing to argue and debate the shit to death. All I can say is fuck it man, do what sounds good to you.

 

[Kaze]

IT'S OUT!!!!

I've been trying to find it all day today on the net.......I've had no luck. I may get a copy from my boy at Guitar Center though....as soon as he can make a copy.

I did manage to find the BETA version of it on Kazaa.....but that's it.

Have you found Sonar 2.0 yet???

 

[Sick Wid It]

Have you found Sonar 2.0 yet???

I have Sonar XL v2.0 but haven't ever bothered installing it because I can't stand the cakewalk interface. Maybe some day I will give it a test but it won't be today.

 

[Mr. D-Sane]

I can't stand the cakewalk interface. Maybe some day I will give it a test but it won't be today.

I can't stand their interface either....doesn't seem very friendly to me.

@KAZE......Naw...I ain't found it yet. Ain't really looked recently either. I'll see what I can do......

@HERESY......I ain't tried the beta version yet. I'm kinda trying to hold out for the real deal. I may try it tonight though if I get some time.

 

[HERESY]

@sick wid it i agree with you man. i also dont dig the crapwalk sorry.....cakewalk thing either. i have all these programs and i only use 3 apps and a couple of plug ins...........


@d-sane man i hope your pc is up to its specs. you need xp and you need to be over 1.1 ghz if im not mistaking.....if i had the beta i would have loaded it up by now and tested it.......

if i cant get into how the program LOOKS i wont deal with it...take logic for example........POWERFUL.......yet it looks like CRAP.........



@all reason users. reason 2 should be out soon also. keep your eyes peeled.





:H:



ps for those of you who are familiar with the mac pro tools set up is it capable of importing .WAV files??????????

 

[Mr. D-Sane]

@d-sane man i hope your pc is up to its specs. you need xp and you need to be over 1.1 ghz if im not mistaking.....if i had the beta i would have loaded it up by now and tested it.......

ps for those of you who are familiar with the mac pro tools set up is it capable of importing .WAV files??????????

I got XP Pro runnin'......but I'm only runnin' a PIII 700. The system requirements only ask for PIII500......but suggest 1ghz. This is from the Steinberg page.......


Minimum system requirements PC

Processor: Pentium III
Processor speed: 500 MHz
RAM (Cache): 256 MB
Hard disc: fast E-IDE
Operating system: Windows 2000, Windows XP Home and Professional
Sound card: Supports Windows MME & DirectSound spec for standard sound cards
Other Components: USB Port required


Recommended system requirements PC

Processor: P III / Athlon
Processor speed: 1 GHz or faster
RAM (Cache): 512 MB RAM
Hard disc: Even Faster EIDE/Ultra DMA or SCSI Hard Drive
Operating system: Windows 2000, Windows XP Home and Professional
Sound card: Supports ASIO 2 spec for high-end multi-channel audio cards
Other Components: USB Port required

And I'm not a MAC guru or anything.....but there should be no reason why Pro Tools can't import Wav files???