1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
     
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

192khz=more tubes, real (or real pricey) reverb

Discussion in 'Recording Gear and Equipment [BG]' started by BANGTHEORY, Mar 30, 2006.


  1. BANGTHEORY

    BANGTHEORY

    Mar 29, 2006
    Atlanta
    Hey folks,

    Had a chance to check out some 192khz audio last night. Was wondering if anyone had a chance to play around and what they thought.

    I had my doubts, but it is a very clear difference, literally...but, maybe a little too clear. I think it made most distortion sound buzzy, you can hear every edit and digital reverb better be top notch.

    Of course, the answer will be more tubes and if not real space, probably Eventide. But it's going to get tougher when everything's in high def audio. I'm not really sure it sounds "better" to me, certainly more natural, but getting full rich sounding tracks might get pretty pricey unless the new emulators keep up.

    I'm not planning on recording in 192khz anytime soon, but have been planning on getting more tubes in my fairly complex chain that includes both a PODxt and the much maligned/misunderstood ART Nightbass SE (the last generation SE model is signifcantly better than earlier versions and, yes, it can get noisy if you use a lot of gain, so can my POD).

    I'm planning on adding an Ampeg SVP-CL and an Alembic F-2B as there really is no better way to get that classic tube sound than to actually use them. The Nightbass does have 1 (dual stage, but still 1) tube, I think the F-2B only has 2, but it is a true classic and great for guitar too (based on the Fender Dual Showman). The Ampeg SVP-CL has 4, 2-12AX7's and 2-12AU7's which Ampeg says replicates the orginal circuit of the SVT, whether it does or not, that's another forum really, but was wondering if anyone else had recorded with any of these pre's, as well as any feedback on recording in 192khz.

    Thanks to all and catch y'all later-S.
     
  2. Was it 16, 24, or 48 bit? After 48 bit, the human ear cannot descerne differences. "Hi-def" is really only for those audiophiles who spend large portions of their annual income on their equipment. But since it's being hyped, the average person wants it, but their system isn't good enough to reproduce that sample rate. When was the last time you heard a Discman that could acurately replay 48 bit at 192khz?

    Rock on
    Eric
     
  3. BANGTHEORY

    BANGTHEORY

    Mar 29, 2006
    Atlanta
    Yeah, it was 24bit. I kind of thought there'd be no discernable difference between that and 24/96 (I'm recording in 24/48 and pretty happy with the results).

    So you've worked in or at least heard 48/192 on a sytem that could reproduce it? So there's an audible difference between 24/192 and 48/192? I kind of figured it might make a difference in VSTs running smoothly, etc., but probably no real impovement in clarity. I figure it's mostly hype too and I imagine they'll keep pushing standards so they can keep selling new gear, but it has to stop somewhere (when only a bat can hear the difference, or does it have to be only when machines can tell?).

    Can't hurt to throw more tubes at it though and better FX do tend to sound better(as in I need to buy some newer FX anyway).

    Catch you later.-S.
     
  4. Yeah, my college has a studio with a really nice 5.1 in the control room and a 7.1 in the screening room.

    If you listen REAL hard, yeah you can hear a difference. But I can only hear it in the screening room, with no one else there, and completely concentrating on the sound. If I listen in the car, or at a friends house, it all sounds the same.

    Rock on
    Eric
     

Share This Page