Hi, Les wrote: >That's basically how they did the test, for a lot of audio folks >coming through the room (did it in a hotel room suite where it >was quieter.) They'd play the same performance, and have >people guess which was 192k. As described, that's a blind test, but not a double-blind, which is the standard in science. In a double-blind, the people who administer the test also don't know which one is being chosen. This is necessary because of situations where it's been shown that both subconscious and conscious cues can be given by the test administrators, to the respondents, showing which one is being run at a given moment. I'm not saying this test wasn't double-blind, or that it would make a difference. But it might not have been and it might have. :-) steven rowat

>> >That's basically how they did the test, for a lot of audio folks >> >coming through the room (did it in a hotel room suite where it >> >was quieter.) They'd play the same performance, and have >> >people guess which was 192k. On 11/3/06 9:29 AM, "Steven Rowat" <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: > As described, that's a blind test, but not a double-blind, which > is the standard in science. In a double-blind, the people who > administer the test also don't know which one is being chosen. > This is necessary because of situations where it's been shown > that both subconscious and conscious cues can be given by the > test administrators, to the respondents, showing which one is > being run at a given moment. > I'm not saying this test wasn't double-blind, or that it would > make a difference. But it might not have been and it might have. > :-) Also, presumably these people were sales people ­ meaning they were not necessarily objective. They presumably had a vested interest in people noticing the difference....there are many ways to achieve this, including the audio salesman¹s best friend ­ volume. Once again, like Steve, I don¹t know that these folks were intentionally influencing the results here (I wasn¹t there) but I have always been skeptical of snake oil salesmen, whether it be audio or other. Blair -- blairfisher@shaw.ca

> Les wrote: > > That's basically how they did the test, for a lot of audio folks > > coming through the room (did it in a hotel room suite where it > > was quieter.) They'd play the same performance, and have > > people guess which was 192k. On Nov 3, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Steven Rowat wrote: > As described, that's a blind test, but not a double-blind, > which is the standard in science. In a double-blind, the > people who administer the test also don't know which one is > being chosen. This is necessary because of situations where > it's been shown that both subconscious and conscious cues can > be given by the test administrators, to the respondents, > showing which one is being run at a given moment. > I'm not saying this test wasn't double-blind, or that it > would make a difference. But it might not have been and it > might have. :-) I'm sorry to have jumped into such a controversy, I only meant to share my experience. People are obviously going to believe what they believe about it, I wasn't trying to change anyone's opinion one way or the other, only offer my experience. I do however think it is narrow-minded to assume that communication cannot occur though other than auditory stimuli, or that people "hear" or perceive supersonic and subsonic soundwaves only with their ears. Sound vibrations can affect every cell of the body. And to argue about sampling frequencies when most people perceive music in mp3 form is time wasting at best. Leslie Bell

On 11/3/06 1:15 PM, "Leslie Bell" <xbjllb@earthlink.net> wrote: > > I'm sorry to have jumped into such a controversy, I only meant > to share my experience. People are obviously going to believe > what they believe about it, I wasn't trying to change anyone's > opinion one way or the other, only offer my experience. > > I do however think it is narrow-minded to assume that > communication cannot occur though other than auditory stimuli, > or that people "hear" or perceive supersonic and subsonic > soundwaves only with their ears. Sound vibrations can affect > every cell of the body. > > And to argue about sampling frequencies when most people > perceive music in mp3 form is time wasting at best. > > Leslie Bell > > Leslie: I¹m sorry that you¹re sorry :) Really, this is what this forum is for ­ people sharing information, and sometimes disagreeing. The original poster asked for feedback from people about recording at 192k ­ you gave yours and others gave theirs. Some didn¹t agree with you, but I haven¹t heard anybody attacking you personally. However, I think this is a really valid topic ­ definitely not time wasting. If somebody is preparing to spend thousands of dollars upgrading their equipment, just so they can do everything at 192k it might be useful to get some reassurance from those that don¹t think it is necessary. (And some information from those who think it is worth while, of course.) If somebody is having problems recording enough tracks and this is seriously impacting their work with Logic, once again it is not a waste of time to help them out. I don¹t really think of myself as narrow minded, and I won¹t take offense at you using that term for all that don¹t agree with you ;) I¹m sure there are all kinds of communication that happens other than auditory stimuli ­ I just don¹t happen to think that a 192k recording is where that happens... Blair PS ­ have you checked out the links people have posted in the last few days? Interesting stuff. -- blairfisher@shaw.ca

On Nov 4, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Leslie Bell wrote: > I do however think it is narrow-minded to assume that > communication cannot occur though other than auditory stimuli, > or that people "hear" or perceive supersonic and subsonic > soundwaves only with their ears. Sound vibrations can affect > every cell of the body. I have not seen one person discounting that idea, or anything at all heated about the debate. All I have seen is people looking for some verification.

I would like to thank everyone who posted there thoughts regarding 192K. I can remember studying the Nyquist theorem roughly ten years ago now. I've been meaning to re visit this information for sometime now, so thank you for posting the link. On 192k or not I am enjoying my newly purchased MOTU Traveler. Coupled with the Mac Pro and Logic my studio has never been more prolific. Everything works fast and sounds great. I'm still getting up to speed with Logic, recently made the switch from DP. Thanks to my new set up MacPro 2.66, 2gb ram, Logic 7.2, Motu Traveler, Virus C, Nord micro modular, and Roland V Bass. I have been able to get rid of almost all of my out borad hardware gear. These are great times we are living in with regards to Pro Audio. thanks again Aaron

> On Nov 4, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Leslie Bell wrote: >> I do however think it is narrow-minded to assume that >> communication cannot occur though other than auditory stimuli, >> or that people "hear" or perceive supersonic and subsonic >> soundwaves only with their ears. Sound vibrations can affect >> every cell of the body. On Nov 3, 2006, at 7:03 PM, dennis gunn wrote: > I have not seen one person discounting that idea, or anything at all > heated about the debate. All I have seen is people looking for some > verification. > The one aspect of higher sample rates has to do with the phase relationships of the signals. The higher the rate - the better the phase replication of the original input channels. This "seems" to affect the perceived "sound stage" of the recorded tracks. We occasionally use 96K sample rate, and those cases have been "chamber music" scenarios. We can hear a difference in that case, but in general, we track predominately at 48/24. We have not tried 192K - because we are not geared up for it. Just our thoughts on the subject. Dave Shirk Pamlico Sounds

> The one aspect of higher sample rates has to do with the > phase relationships of the signals. The higher the rate - the > better the phase replication of the original input channels. > > This "seems" to affect the perceived "sound stage" of the > recorded tracks. We occasionally use 96K sample rate, and those > cases have been "chamber music" scenarios. We can hear a difference > in that case, but in general, we track predominately at 48/24. We > have not tried 192K - because we are not geared up for it. > > Just our thoughts on the subject. > > Dave Shirk > Pamlico Sounds > Thanks Dave... that might have been "it"... the recording was a jazz trio and the higher sample rate recordings just had more depth to them, the musicians seemed to be in the room and in 3d, and there wasn't a lot of room ambience or reverb used to create the illusion of depth either... it was just "there", and phase might have had much to do with it! If you closed your eyes it was fascinating, the entire fairly dead hotel room just opened up. Thanks! Leslie Bell

> I have not seen one person discounting that idea, or anything at all > heated about the debate. All I have seen is people looking for some > verification. I did. But it doesn't matter, it almost approaches the ancient argument of faith vs. science. I've spent a lonnnng week rebuilding a hard drive after a crash, so I'm more tired than usual and have probably missed a lot of stuff and seemed more confrontational than I meant. My apologies. Leslie Bell

On Nov 3, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Blair Fisher wrote: > Blair > > PS have you checked out the links people have posted in the last few > days? > Interesting stuff. > -- > blairfisher@shaw.ca > > Yes I have. Interesting stuff, I disagree with some of it though. Thanks! Leslie Bell

On Nov 4, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Dave Shirk wrote: >> On Nov 4, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Leslie Bell wrote: >>> I do however think it is narrow-minded to assume that >>> communication cannot occur though other than auditory stimuli, >>> or that people "hear" or perceive supersonic and subsonic >>> soundwaves only with their ears. Sound vibrations can affect >>> every cell of the body. > > On Nov 3, 2006, at 7:03 PM, dennis gunn wrote: >> I have not seen one person discounting that idea, or anything at all >> heated about the debate. All I have seen is people looking for some >> verification. >> > > > The one aspect of higher sample rates has to do with the phase > relationships of the signals. The higher the rate - the better the > phase replication of the original input channels. Dan Lavery says flat out that that is not true. Here is the link again. > This "seems" to affect the perceived "sound stage" of the recorded > tracks. There may be a problem of attribution. I am not saying you can't here a difference just that if what Mr Lavery claims is true then the difference you are hearing is not attributable to better phase reproduction. > We occasionally use 96K sample rate, and those cases have been > "chamber music" scenarios. We can hear a difference in that case, > but in general, we track predominately at 48/24. We have not tried > 192K - because we are not geared up for it. I am not saying you can't here a difference just that if what Mr Lavery claims is true then the difference you are hearing is not attributable to better phase reproduction.

> Thanks Dave... that might have been "it"... the recording was a jazz > trio and the higher sample rate recordings just had more depth to > them, the musicians seemed to be in the room and in 3d, and there > wasn't a lot of room ambience or reverb used to create the illusion > of depth either... it was just "there", and phase might have had much > to do with it! If you closed your eyes it was fascinating, the entire > fairly dead hotel room just opened up. The thing is if you subtly distort a mix, and I am talking about plain old distortion here like from a tube amp, or a driven transformer or even with Logic's very own phase distortion, people will say similar things about it. On a fusion album I mastered for a friend I made versions of several of the mixes with a tiny bit of Logics phase distortion on them, and guess what, the distorted versions were the ones that everyone picked to go on the album.

On Nov 4, 2006, at 4:35 AM, dennis gunn wrote: > The thing is if you subtly distort a mix, and I am talking about > plain old distortion here like from a tube amp, or a driven > transformer or even with Logic's very own phase distortion, people > will say similar things about it. > > On a fusion album I mastered for a friend I made versions of several > of the mixes with a tiny bit of Logics phase distortion on them, and > guess what, the distorted versions were the ones that everyone picked > to go on the album. > > _ Thanks, I know and can hear the difference between all kinds of distortion, from actual and modeled solid state to tube and in-between, as did most of the professional sound engineers in that room, and probably more than a few in there could nail it down to a percentage point. That said, the recordings were identical in the miniscule amounts of tube distortion they had, because like I said before, that came from the mic and preamp stages before the separate recorders used (which to their credit, were the same recorder merely set at different sampling frequencies.) This was not an "our unit is better than their unit demo; this was an attempt to demonstrate whether higher sampling frequencies made any difference that their audience could hear. I agree with you that most people prefer tube distorted sound to perfectly clean distortion-free sound, and one could even argue the exact percentage values. I will say that mixes like Goldfrapp's come dangerously close to being ridiculously distorted, but without that tube distortion, they'd sound just like any other digital squeeky clean 80's band and that explains why they go overboard with 20%+ on some synth tracks. Usually anything from 3% on ballads to 8% on rockers gives that classic LA-2a 60's-70's sound, and more if you're trying to duplicate an optical track on film. Most people who grew up with tube distortion (and other forms of analog distortion like speaker distortion, vinyl disc and radio broadcast distortion) do not recognize it as distortion at all until it's well over 20%. But they sure can recognize when it's missing. Personally I don't like to just rely on modeled tube distortion either, but always send final mixes out to my trusty Panasonic 1500 half-track and peg the meters. Which makes a vast difference far beyond distortion and frequency response when re-digitized for CD. One of the main reasons I'm moving to Logic from my bank of VS-1680's is being able to set up a system that can record higher frequencies. I might even grab an Alesis HD-24 or three on the way to Logic and use them together for awhile, mixing in Logic. Bottom line on distortion; use your own ears. When it sounds good to you, it's done. And if you can hear what few others can hear, that's what made you an engineer and musician in the first place. Les P.S. All distortion percentages are @1k

Now that I have imported an OMF file into Logic 7.2. All audio is represented as non interleaved regions. I would like to find a way to merge each set of L & R regions to one stereo region to limit the amount of tracks I need to work with. I have tried assigning a stereo pair of tracks to mono channels then panning left and right and merging the channels together. This results in one mono audio region. I have pressed the mono / stereo button on the newly created regions channel and their is no difference to the stereo field. Does anyone have any ideas on how to make a non interleaved stereo pair of audio channels interleaved stereo channels directly to the regions in the arrange window with out having to go to the audio window and re drag regions back into the arrange window. thank you Aaron

Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net> wrote: >As described, that's a blind test, but not a double-blind, which >is the standard in science. In a double-blind, the people who >administer the test also don't know which one is being chosen. >This is necessary because of situations where it's been shown >that both subconscious and conscious cues can be given by >the test administrators, to the respondents, showing which >one is being run at a given moment. A double-deaf test would produce the most accurate results with sample rates this high. f-erenc szabo, smarty pants Z+E+R+O+B+E+A+T "NOW POWERED BY THE MIRACLE OF THE TRANSISTOR!" <http://home.goodmedia.com/~zerobeat>

Hi, Aaron. I just got the same setup as you. What kind of adjustments did you have to make in order to get audio and midi sychronization correct? I've installed all the most current Traveler drivers and Logic updates and when I play the tutorial song, I'm getting nothing but clicks and squeals and an error message that says "Error while trying to synchronize audio and midi." Any ideas? Thanks in advance for responding. fm