2 Apr
2013
2 Apr
'13
3:34 p.m.
Quoting Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>et>:
Peder I'm 46 years old and worked most of my live
as audio engineer, so
I'm experienced with the way people listen and I made a lot of tests
myself.
You are talking about esoteric, take the "$5000 Les Paul or the $500
copy" and compare the neck humbucker played as humbucker and played as
single coil, while playing a blues scale around the 12 fret of the same
guitar. A guitarist will hear the difference.
In the test I saw the same guy played the same lick on both guitars
using the same pickup configuration. Of course you hear the difference
between a single coil and a humbucker, but in this case the test was
just to see if people could hear which was the expensive original and
which was the cheap copy.
Just as ABX:ing an mp3 file and the original isn't about hearing if
someone swapped the cowbell for a tambourine but to tell if the codec
is transparent enough that you can't hear the audible difference
between the two files.
And most people can't once you get over 96-160 kbps.
What is the improvement of 192 KHZ for audio
production? My card does
provide it, but I never used it. What I need are 48 KHz only and to
reduce issues while processing the audio data, it's wise to use 32 bit
float, but a sample rate higher than 48 KHz?
Your car can probably do 140 mph even though you never go that fast.
Being able to use the card in 192 kHz probably doesn't cost that much
extra for the manufacturer and I guess the marketing department really
loves being able to use it in the advertising.
- Peder