Posts by wwittman

Quote from Tony G

I tried to understand the difference between 44.1khz and 48khz and its just not sinking in. So my question is: Is there a difference between both of them as far as quality goes? Or is it a compatibility thing.

From what I have read 44.1khz is what most people use at home and 48khz is what most studios use. If this is not correct please feel free to educate me because I really don't understand sample rate.

Most music professionals are working at 96k.

Video work is 48k.

You're going to launch a religious war if you ask about "quality".

But most of us, actual professional engineers, find that not only do the vast majority of A-D convertors sound "better" at the higher sample rate but that in the ox processing (especially demanding processes such as pitch and time shift) sound and work far better.

No matter what you want to believe or determine for yourself about small rates, one thing for sure is I'm going to work at the rate that I want and not let any piece of hardware dictate to me.

Bottom line is the Kemper sounds great taken into my records as an analogue source.

And by doing that I don't have to worry, or even think, about clocking or sample rate issues.

The funny thing to me is that the same people arguing that "you can't hear the difference between sample rates" are the ones arguing that "you can hear how much better it sounds being taken in SPDIF digitally"

I, like every other actual audio professional I know, work at 96k for music and 48k for video projects.

So I take the Kemper into a mic pre, or line in, as an analogue input; just like a guitar amp.

it sounds great and I avoid all the faffing about.

all guitars and bass 100% Kemper

The FOH mixer works for us.
not the other way round.

I'm not sure it's gong to be helpful here, but I have to say I disagree strongly on two points being made here.

1) I need my in-ear mix to be what works for me to do my best performance.

That often means "more me" in my ears and not what would be considered a balanced 'good FOH mix'.

and

2) I very much expect our FOH mixer to be riding solos and actually mixing during the show.

While I might expect a guitar solo sound to want to change, and perhaps boost in level, in the Kemper for artistic reasons, I don't think the purpose is to idiot proof the FOH mix.

Granted, I'm not playing clubs or relying on a bored or unqualified house sound guy.

But I expect the FOH engineer to be a professional so we, in the band, don't have to try to do his/her job as well as our own.

My view during soundchecks

I use the powered rack with an Ampeg 1x15 live.

But the cab is only for a bit of stage volume... the output XLR is all that goes to FOH and Monitors for their-ear mixes.

My main bit of advice is that, just like for guitar in my opinion, the best profiles are the ones you make yourself of your own amps set and mic'ed the way you like them.

I tour with profiles of a B15 set clean and warm, a B15 set growly and bright, and a Hiwatt also kind of growly.

Then each performance slot also has a drive, a chorus, and a transpose -1/2 step and transpose -1 step assigned to my remote footswitches.

You're going to love it.

And in my experience, you're going to love the profiles you make yourself especially.

but in addition to the 'speed' of selecting a rig for recording, you're also going to love that if a client wants to change something two weeks, or two months, later, you'll be able to go instantly right back to exactly that sound and drop in the change.

I just make a note of the choice I make and the instrument I used right in the Pro Tools Comments field so that when i open a session up again, at a any point, i know just how to go right back to it)

I can tell you that its been completely reliable for me.

But I would also say that in the bigger venues I tend to play, everything is either mic'ed or more often going directly into the splitters (to monitor and FOH mixers) from devices like Kempers and synths etc.

and everyone is on in-ear monitors plus perhaps stage side fills.

so, in truth, there's never any "competition" for volume to be heard, it's being mixed, for both the band and the audience, and I rarely turn my powered rack up beyond 2.

There’s a whole gearslutz and YouTube cottage industry out there in “debunking” what ‘those stupid elitist professionals in audio’ do or say.

Talk about a money grab

that’s who has a vested interest in this

no one pays me, or George, because of my opinions in sample rates.
When I walk into a studio I set the sample rate with my assistant engineer.
the client doesn’t even know.

Believe me, George has nothing to ‘gain’ from his position. It’s just what he hears and thinks.

Quote from Dynochrome

I didn't mean to dismiss anyone, I'm just saying that you can't tell the difference so why burn the data.

and I’m saying YOU can’t hear the difference.

Quote from Dynochrome

And then sell them as MP3 files or in the past burned them on CDs at 44/16. I have lots of CDs that sound amazing and I have heard 96K files that sound like crap. I'm one to believe it's more your recording techniques than sample rates. I have tons of albums that were done on ADAT and they sound just as good as anything today. IMO above 48K is just cork sniffery unless you're using it for compatibility, not sound. I guess that makes me an "amateur" then.

Nobody on God’s green Earth is going to hear the difference between 44 &96 because our ears just aren’t that sensitive. The most common range of human hearing tops out around 20K If your hearing can't reach anything higher than 22.05kHz, then the 44.1kHz file will outresolve the range of freq

when the majority of sales were in Cassette format we still didn’t make the multi tracks or mixes on cassettes.

The end user format is irrelevant to wanting the best quality masters.

I have no issues with anyone who says “I can’t hear a difference”

but I do have a problem when anyone says NO ONE can.
no one is claiming to hear 32k.
but people hear the artifacts and the behaviour of plug ins etc.

I’ve seen too many real world examples of top notch engineers hearing things with repeatability that supposedly they ‘couldn’t’.

And I hear the difference in real world implementation between 96k and lower sample rates in most convertors. Easily.

Display More

He’s a great designer. Not a record producer.

I’m happy to be in George Massenburg’s ‘company’

by all means, do what works for you and if you do t hear a difference then you don’t.
but no one should dismiss the people who do.

meanwhile, every record I make for major labels is being archived at mastering as 24 bit 96k files no matter the source.
Sterling saves everything at 96k

Not you specifically

it's a general internets thing.

I learned by paying attention to what the people making the best sounding records were doing.

That's still good advice, as opposed to the self appointed internets "myth busters"

By all means people should do what sounds best to them.
if it doesn;t sound better to you, don't do it!

But I bristle when people tell other people what "doesn't matter" when it clearly does to so many serious professionals.

I do almost every record I make at 96k.
so do most of the other professionals I know.
George Massenburg argues for 192k!

it’s mostly the armchair and online hobbyists who love to tell each other that “it’s unnecessary” and how stupid the professionals are.

I was irritated by the egregious anti COVID measures BS coming from Van Morrison and Eric Clapton.
so with the help of my friends Dave Earl and Eric Bazilian I made this response.

Guitars and bass guitar via Kemper, of course.

Available on Apple Music and Spotify and all the usual suspects.

https://www.pro-tools-expert.c…-hardware-product-of-2020

The internets is full of self appointed ‘myth busters’

I don’t know any professionals working at 44.1

most I know work at 96k with a few at 48.