44.1Hz VS 96Hz?????

Lmao so much at this thread.

Big up Mteezy

Wrong and Strong lol..
 
Mteezy said:
No, I took the mp3 that was 44.1 hz and resampled it to 96hz. The clarity and presence difference between the two files were crazy. Try it. If your DAW cant do this or does it but makes it sound shytty then I can't help you determine the sound difference.
Click to expand...

The dumb just got dumber I guess.

Mteezy said:
In case u bruthas don't know, Samplitude isn't like no other software out there. It's easily the best, besides Sequoia which is the higher grade version. If your Daw can't do this, then don't comment.
Click to expand...

You have to record at the higher sample rate dumbass.Not
upgrade after the fact.You act like you're upgrading your cable
service.

Mteezy said:
First of all, google the title of this thread. Others have been saying the same thing including many mastering engineers. Like I said, if you don't have Samplitude to test it out, how can u call me stupid or dumb. U dumb asses go by what u read, I go by what I hear.
Click to expand...

The 44.1Hz vs 96Hz debate is one thing but converting 44.1 to
96Hz is not debatable

Mteezy said:
Remember my FP n.i.gs, the industry isn't about knowing everything, it's about knowing somebody. U can't make good music dissing muthas in blogs all day every day like 99% of the nigs on here do. Internet is for info, the streets is fo sho.
Click to expand...


If this is true then you have a good chance because you know nothing
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mteezy said:
Others have been saying the same thing including many mastering engineers.
Click to expand...

Which mastering engineers? I want to know so I can add them to my list of who not to use. I'd hate for one of my friends to drop dosh on someone who has no clue.:cry:
 
Mteezy said:
It's not 96khz idiot, it's 96hz. Now who sounds dumb?...Yu
Click to expand...

96 hz... you really sure? REALLY?


RLY.jpg


I'll just post a picture of the average human ear frequency chart so we can all wonder what you are talking about.

fletchermunson.gif
 
Mteezy said:
It's not 96khz idiot, it's 96hz. Now who sounds dumb?...Yu
Click to expand...

Err, no. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? CD sample rate is 44.1KHz, or 44,100 cycles per second. If you sampled at 44.1Hz, you would have little or information above 22.05Hz, which is just about the theoretical lower limit of human hearing. Sampling at 96Hz would give you little or no information above 48Hz, which would mean that the only info contained was sub-bass and a tiny way into the bass spectrum.

Do some reading on Shannon-Nyquist theorem. You can't beat the laws of physics, mate.

Just to clarify, there is some milage in upsampling for processing purposes only. Upsampling will never make something sound better than it did at the lower sample rate, as this sample rate determines how much information is in the signal. You can't add information without processing.

Any improvement you hear is entirely psychoacoustic, ie, not really there.

Have you ever been called JP22? :) :) :)

1005 said:
I'll just post a picture of the average human ear frequency chart so we can all wonder what you are talking about.

fletchermunson.gif
Click to expand...

And some clarification on this chart, which is just a smidge misleading. The audibility and pain thresholds here are to do with level, not frequency. The human hearing spectrum runs, give or take, from about 25Hz to about 25KHz, using round numbers. In reality, it's a bit of a moving feast, since degradation occurs almost from day one. Frequent exposure to loud music or industrial noise will deplete the upper end of the spectrum quite rapidly. It is reckoned that the average adult only hears up to around 17KHz, unless your hearing is treated with extreme care in youth.
 
Last edited:
hackenslash said:
The human hearing spectrum runs, give or take, from about 25Hz to about 25KHz, using round numbers.
Click to expand...


Yea, couldn't find a better graphs so decided to stick with that.. :) (like the graphs would matter anyway, mteezy has made his mind up about this allready and thinks he is right)
 
mteezy, what you are doing is similar to this:

Taking a 256 color image created on a 256 color software, and opening it in photoshop or whatever, and converting the 256 color image to 20 million colors and saying "wow, now look at all these bright colors!"...

You're looking at the exact same image=you are hearing exactly the same thing....

its all in your head man, thats like having a headache and taking a sugar pill mistaken for a tylenol and thinking you're feeling better, its all in your head man...

Best thing to do is admit you were wrong thats it homie, we all learn from our mistakes, no big deal (thread was funny tho lollll)

But if you are STILL convinced you are right, then simply upload the audio files............
 
Can't be bothered to read the whole thread, but this Mteezy guy is either taking the piss or is a colossal retard...
 
Last edited:
hackenslash said:
Err, no. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? CD sample rate is 44.1KHz, or 44,100 cycles per second. If you sampled at 44.1Hz, you would have little or information above 22.05Hz, which is just about the theoretical lower limit of human hearing. Sampling at 96Hz would give you little or no information above 48Hz, which would mean that the only info contained was sub-bass and a tiny way into the bass spectrum.

Do some reading on Shannon-Nyquist theorem. You can't beat the laws of physics, mate.

Just to clarify, there is some milage in upsampling for processing purposes only. Upsampling will never make something sound better than it did at the lower sample rate, as this sample rate determines how much information is in the signal. You can't add information without processing.

Any improvement you hear is entirely psychoacoustic, ie, not really there.
Click to expand...
Put simply; you can't polish a turd!




We're clearly dealing with a troll here, guys. ;)
 
Last edited:
hehehe.

Sometimes, on forums, I will click on the last page of a long thread, so I can see where it ended up.

Damn.

DVD rewinder. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top