Now they tell us!

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Thu Mar 06, 2003 10:52 pm

garyb has wrote:
now, sell your shit.share it.oops no one can listen to it at 96k.you are the ONLY ONE!hooray!by definition,(not as a personal attack,i'm only arguing for the sake of future generations and the truth is no offence,respect to all!)i call this foolishness even the discussion of it...

No offence, but I'm not the only one...

We're not many, but we're some...

And I said that for joking (selling my gear), coz I'm a really bad seller, I'm really stupid on this point; selling is a thing I've never been able to do in my entire life!

So I think I'm gonna stay with that rare Minimax that few have until my cards or PCI motherboard die! For some years, maybe.

Life is great!

Thanks to this topic to have advised me to not upgrade my Minimax

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-06 23:02 ]

bassdude · Post by **bassdude** » Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:23 pm

companies like to hype up the 96khz thing (or whatever is the latest craze) so they can market and sell new products. many people will tell you that an older very good 16bit, 44.1khz audio card can still sound better than a newer mediocre 24bit, 96khz audio cards.

I was in a store the other day and I was listening to this salesman telling a customer about this flash new dolby digital surround dvd player that has 192kHz splashed all over it. He was saying "and its 192kHz so it sounds better.....". I was very tempted to point out that dolby digital surround format is actually 48kHz. But the guy was just doing his job I suppose so I didn't say anything. Actually, to me, the sound on dvd's is awesome and I think one of the reasons is the dynamics haven't had the life squeezed out of them as much as they do on cd's (to get them as loud as possible).

And I agree with the "very good 16bit, 44.1khz audio card can still sound better than a newer mediocre 24bit 96kHz" thang. IMO today, it's still valid. However as time moves on and technology gets better and better and cheaper, you would think that that argument would die. When I do eventually move to 96kHz, the actual quality of the converters will still be of prime consideration. Not just the 96kHz number.

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:54 am

Sure...

But who's gonna buy a mediocre 24bit/96kHz thing in this forum?

You? No...Me? No...

And what is the reference standard in audio productions recording studios today?

16bit 44,1 kHz? No.

32 bit 192 kHz? Yes.

So, what do we, users and buyers of the Creamware products, want? (I'm not writing neither about the CW resellers nor the few interested in selling gears related to CW products

)

Be amateurish? No.

Join and be in the "pro" league? Yes.

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-08 03:59 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 4:20 am

a-ha!

So what your'e saying is that you can measure professionality in kHz?
The higher the kHz the more pro you are?

It probably make's you make better music too?
Sort of boosts your talent??

Don't think so... DUH!

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:23 am

I think there's some deliberate bullshitting going on here... I agree Grok sometimes comes across as being rather forceful but that's not a reason to disagree with him just for the sake of it.

Why the hell are we all Pulsar users?? Because the synths just sound a fuck of a lot better than VST ones. Now, there's a lot of VST users who will say I'm full of shit for saying this. But I know it's not true.

So who wins? I don't see why people are abusing Grok for complaining about 96kHz being removed from MiniMax. I think it's a legitimate issue. The future is 88.2kHz+ . Processing thru lots of plugins sounds better at high resolution. Therefore the finished mix, when resampled (or re-recorded) at 44.1 is going to be better-defined.

So I think it's in all our best interests to campaign for consistent 88.2kHz+ support. I don't use it now. But when I have a faster computer, I WILL : it's one of the only useful things I see hapening with faster CPUs.

Just remember, until you guys got your Pulsars, you probably thought your native shite was great (I know I did...)

peace

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:26 am

aMo wrote:
a-ha!

So what your'e saying is that you can measure professionality in kHz?
The higher the kHz the more pro you are?

It probably make's you make better music too?
Sort of boosts your talent??

Don't think so... DUH!

No confusion: as I said the topic is not music

Take a look at the pro recording world...And tell me wich records company (CBS/Sony, Universal...others) records their artists in 16 bit 44,1kHz recording studios

I'll be amazed if you find one

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-08 06:30 ]

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:30 am

Just for the record, I don't think 88.2 or 96kHz is the best... I don't think we are gonna see proper analog-like sound until we reach 384khz.

And it's no use arguing about Nyquist theorems etc. Listen to a pristine piece of vinyl on a good record player thru a good amp (i.e. proper stuff which doesn't use lots of DSP and processing to fuck up the sound). Then listen on even a decent CD player. The vinyl will kill it for sheer vibrancy and warmth.

I acknowledge that a good DAC has a huge part to play in the process... but analog is CONTINUOUS... theres no pigeon-holing into digital blocks of convenient size of the audio... just continuous waveforms (of course probably disturbed by the odd click or pop from the vinyl

)... there IS and always will be a difference.

But 384kHz... I'll happily accept that as a compromise

peace

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:32 am

Thank you dArKr3zIn, I was feeling a little bit alone

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 7:10 am

I'm not abusing Grok, I'm disagreeing on the fact that is i such a big deal.. that's all..
No hard feeling ey Grok?

Now about higher frequency-range's equals more analog-like sound, that might just be right, but at the present time, it just isn't any point, since it uses too much DSP... (offcourse, if Grok has one or more PowerPulsars with 15 DSP's I could agree with him, on his behalf.. )...

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 7:15 am

you're right, higher samplerates do use more DSP and CPU. But surely it is still usable for mixdown/final bouncing?

peace

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:33 am

On 2003-03-08 07:10, aMo wrote:
I'm not abusing Grok, I'm disagreeing on the fact that is i such a big deal.. that's all..
No hard feeling ey Grok?

Now about higher frequency-range's equals more analog-like sound, that might just be right, but at the present time, it just isn't any point, since it uses too much DSP... (offcourse, if Grok has one or more PowerPulsars with 15 DSP's I could agree with him, on his behalf.. )...

No hard feelings...

I'm not psycho, it's just words written on a computer screen

But: yes, honesty in business is a big deal...Trust is a big deal. I'm not going to rewrote what I already have...

Today's CPUs allows us doing big mixes if you rely on a powerful soft (Samplitude Pro 7 is the powerfulest soft for native audio mixing http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... orum=10&19 ) and native CPU power...

No need of several Scope Cards for doing this...

You can even do that with a Luna only (mixing 96kHz tracks)...Or a RME card that have no synths in...Sure, you can't have many 96kHz synths with a Luna. But even one Scope card isn't necessary. 8 DSPs is a beginning, I think...I have a little bit more DSPs than that

_________________
Toujours l'Amour!

[ This Message was edited by: Grok on 2003-03-08 08:45 ]

Grok · Post by **Grok** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:56 am

I think the final point of this topic is that Creamw@re should improve their communication for the benefit of all!...

Thanks

King of Snake · Post by **King of Snake** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:08 am

well that's something I think no one can disagree on

_________________

[ This Message was edited by: King of Snake on 2003-03-09 05:49 ]

aMo · Post by **aMo** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 5:31 am

THAT I agree on!