Aside from my studio, I am a guitar player. I have played on both dig and analog gear over the years. I have discovered that for the most part, I can’t stand digital guitar effects. Why? They simply sound sterile. It’s like taking a robot and comparing it to a human. They may make it look the same, but it will never be human.

I can literally walk into a show, and tell by the sound if they are using digital or analog effects. That said… It doesn’t mean that one is “better” than the other. It means that you have to decide what sound you like. The argument earlier to say that digital is better, and basically that people who prefer analog are morons is ludicrous. You really make yourself sound like a moron by being so dogmatic.

Consider other ideas, but ultimately do what sounds best for you and your project.

Mark, I appreciate hearing from a pro on the matter.

Are you saying the anti-alias filter has an effect at frequencies below Nyquist? I thought oversampling made that a moot point.

@Mark: >The idea of ‘accuracy’ is the flawed concept

Maybe we’re ultimately saying the same thing.

But all that’s saying is that the harmonics of the combined sounds produce frequencies greater than 22KHz. And we already know that ultrasonic frequencies can’t be represented by a 44.1KHz sample.

@geist: > I know however, that at least mathematically this is true.

Without question.

@Jon Davis: > The difference is when you zoom in on a real sound wave derived from a mix.

Remember, though, that the waveform shown in your DAW is not the same as the sound that comes out of your speaker.

@Jon Davis: > you *can* hear the “jagged” difference.

Can you, though? Have you done blind A/B tests to confirm this?

The main benefit you get from higher sample rates relates to the steepness of the anti-alias filter curve and having more ‘frequency space’ to use a smoother filter.

Even if you band limited the input to your A/D to 20kHZ, and not a frequency over that got through, and then recorded the bandlimited signal at 96kHz, the above benefit of a higher sample rate still applies.

It has nothing to do with frequencies being present in your music above 20kHz, nor does it have anything to do with the ability of engineers to hear above 20kHz, or having more samples to “capture sound more accurately.”

The idea of ‘accuracy’ is the flawed concept, not the idea of higher sample rates. There’s a big difference.

It’s not that the average human ear is sensitive to frequencies above ~20kHz but more and issue of the wave form that is created when you combine two audible frequencies. Say for example a cymbal is putting out a 12kHz and 15kHz tone. The resultant complex wave form will, at certains points in time, have a curve that cannot be written inside of a 44.1kHz sample. The slope is too steep. But when you hear it, you still will hear the two separate frequencies. Therefore you need higher sampling rates to be able to write these complex waves correctly. This is basically the same problem that Neil describes when he talks about the triangle waves.

Now I’ve never really done a proper test to find out what the answer to this question is. But I believe it is a question of human hearing, and not equipment. Can people *perceive* the difference. I make recordings for people to listen to, not machines to analyze. Some people I know claim to hear it, some do not.

I know however, that at least mathematically this is true. You lose resolution in your complex waves carrying multiple very high frequencies.

Oh, and just to chip in on the analog vs. digital thing. Analog in this day and age should be treated as an effect.

i’ll start with “44.1 doesn’t cut it!” Quote from Neil H. Schubert

Now Neil lets look at the recording i was talking about previously “smells like teen spirit” we could really use any hi quality “Tape” recorded album or song that was released to modern main stream success.

This hit of our time, this uncontested production and recording masterpiece which was recorded on tape then got pressed to multiples of millions of CD discs.

I was just wondering were are all the people walking around saying “wow this sounds terrible on CD!”

if you haven’t already got the point it’s this:

if the analogue “sound” is related to it’s Quality which is derived from it’s ABOVE 44.1 hz recording why is it universally accepted that Analogue recorded albums sound Great on 44.1hz CD?

Why Daniel even proved this correct of course by saying:

“A lot of old records sound more natural as MP3 than the digitally mixed stuff sound in the studio at 24/96.”

Um, Daniel… did those great sounding analogue recorded mp3s you heard get encoded from the line out of the 70’s tape in 1974 or did they get ripped from a 44.1 hz CD?

As you can not continue with the 44.1hz argument (as one may risk looking daft to continue arguing a lost argument) wouldn’t it be much more in a “common sense” realm and also an observable scientific reasoning to say that the analogue “sound” is related to it’s complex equalisation and phase manipulation of the audio emitting device.

A complex equalisation and phase manipulation which has been now copied 1:1 by many digital plug-in companies small and large.

and presto you can now not tell the difference on CD or Mp3 between analogue or Digital recordings.

Mixing might sound worse in digital because of noise introduced during summation, this is why most software uses 64-bit internal mixing. I don’t think the sample rate of mixers has a lot to do with it though.

Also, how many of us even own monitors or cans that are technically capable of accurately reproducing anything above, say, 24khz? Few indeed I’d wager.

When you consider that they put up with punishing amounts of sound pressure delivered via over-compressed monstrosities offered by most mastering hacks these days, and the dumbing down syndrome from the constant use of that atrocious Mp3 algorithm that is so popular, I really think the whole argument is moot. People are so used to trash sounding over-compressed sick ass Mp3’s that all of the hard work is lost in the final analysis.

Sad, but for the most part… True.