ilovefuzz.com

So the UR-C series have 32bit recording and the prices are cheap as hell, same as Scarletts. Their high end audio interface, the AXS, not only has 32bit but at 384k sampling rate.

Now I know a lot of you are probably rolling your eyes but Ill explain why you would maybe want these things. The second reason is a bit dumb but philosophically smart. The first is more of what type of recording you do.

So, I am on the forum of I love fuzz. I imagine a lot of you play loud music. Having a 32bit audio interface means whilst recording, the fear of clipping becomes less of a problem and you'll be less likely to turn down the gain of your mics, and for me it is all about capturing the actual sound that is there live. I want the mics as is, no cuts, no boosts. Also you can record ungodly SPL's like lightning or earthquakes close up not just far away, ofcourse you would also need a mic that can withstand that amount of pressure. Would a normal dynamic mic be able to handle it?

Now for the 384k sampling rate. Now yes you can't really tell a difference between the sampling rates. However, its all about seeing into the future. Just because you can't hear the frequencies doesnt mean they aren't there. Think about hundreds of thousands of years from now when humans have evolved where we can hear those frequencies. All the music from the past would be nion obselete cos all we did was just cut those frequencies. Its about preserving your music for as far into the future as possible. I am not trolling. I am 100% serious. The only annoying thing a DAW prolly cuts off at 192k for now lol but the AXS is expensive anyway but Im defo gonna pick up a UR-C. Its so cheap and at 32bit? Are you serious? The preamps are prolly dope as well, better than a scarlett definitely.

If we haven't invented better music than this hundreds of thousands of years from now, I'm going to kill myself.
Do most DAWs cut off at 192k? Most of my mp3s are higher than that...
I don't know anything about 32bit but I'm happy with my Steinberg UR22 mkii and I'm sure this new thing will be fine.

oldangelmidnight wrote:If we haven't invented better music than this hundreds of thousands of years from now, I'm going to kill myself.
Do most DAWs cut off at 192k? Most of my mp3s are higher than that...
I don't know anything about 32bit but I'm happy with my Steinberg UR22 mkii and I'm sure this new thing will be fine.

Say what? MP3's are at like 44.1k at 16bit.

Woolworm wrote:Think about hundreds of thousands of years from now when humans have evolved where we can hear those frequencies.

I can't hear those frequencies, so I have no notion of what sort of horrible unintentional hash I'm capturing at say, 100 kHz. Hell, I've designed a switchmode PSU that switches in that range so it'll be well removed from our hearing. I would posit that IF the file formats we have today are even playable in hundreds of thousands of years it's highly likely that a lot of material would find a wider scope of hearing detrimental.

Gimme that sexy bell curve with a nose dive at 20 kHz, thanks.

That said, shiny new gear is cool, and having a bonkers top speed is cool too; let us know how well it "drives in town".

crochambeau wrote:

Woolworm wrote:Think about hundreds of thousands of years from now when humans have evolved where we can hear those frequencies.

I can't hear those frequencies, so I have no notion of what sort of horrible unintentional hash I'm capturing at say, 100 kHz. Hell, I've designed a switchmode PSU that switches in that range so it'll be well removed from our hearing. I would posit that IF the file formats we have today are even playable in hundreds of thousands of years it's highly likely that a lot of material would find a wider scope of hearing detrimental.

Gimme that sexy bell curve with a nose dive at 20 kHz, thanks.

That said, shiny new gear is cool, and having a bonkers top speed is cool too; let us know how well it "drives in town".

Exactly we don't know, so why not just preserve them for now, and when it comes time, think about all that jazz the remixers and samplers have to work with. And your tracks can be remastered and remixed to whole new different ways. More things to play with in the EQ.

LOL

Now I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but why on earth would humans of the far future evolve to have such sensitive hearing? The only scenario I can envision is a Matrix/Terminator-type scenario where we are hunted by relentless machines, in which case the least of our worries (if humanity even survived that long) would be remixing future pop, or listen to music at all.

frodog wrote:LOL

Now I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but why on earth would humans of the far future evolve to have such sensitive hearing? The only scenario I can envision is a Matrix/Terminator-type scenario where we are hunted by relentless machines, in which case the least of our worries (if humanity even survived that long) would be remixing future pop, or listen to music at all.

It doesn't even have to be for us. It could be for aliens or higher dimensional beings. But also, even in the spectrum we do hear, we are biased towards 1k to 2k in the spectrum. So evolution would even reshape the sounds we hear in the 20hz to 20khz current human hearing spectrum, then nevermind what is above 20khz.

Just because you cant hear it, doesnt mean its not there. What we do here has consequences in the higher dimensions, the same way a cell has an effect on our body.

But why would I care what my music sounds like to people in 10000 years? Nobody cares about it now

Now in more regular day to day terms, I didn't know Steinberg made these, but they look like decent interfaces! Definitely another thing to keep an eye on if/when mine dies.

The key with any interface is how good are the converters? Nothing else matters if they aren't great.

shikawkee wrote:The key with any interface is how good are the converters? Nothing else matters if they aren't great.

Its steinberg bro, they'll be good. BUT FUCK CUBASE.

Woolworm wrote:

shikawkee wrote:The key with any interface is how good are the converters? Nothing else matters if they aren't great.

Its steinberg bro, they'll be good. BUT FUCK CUBASE.

If they were Apogee or RME or any other top line converter chip I'd feel better frankly (I won't expect them to be Benchmark or Burl).

coldbrightsunlight wrote:But why would I care what my music sounds like to people in 10000 years? Nobody cares about it now

shikawkee wrote:

Woolworm wrote:

shikawkee wrote:The key with any interface is how good are the converters? Nothing else matters if they aren't great.

Its steinberg bro, they'll be good. BUT FUCK CUBASE.

If they were Apogee or RME or any other top line converter chip I'd feel better frankly (I won't expect them to be Benchmark or Burl).

Who has best preamps and converters on the market? Give it to me in a ranked list.

Woolworm wrote:

shikawkee wrote:

Woolworm wrote:

shikawkee wrote:The key with any interface is how good are the converters? Nothing else matters if they aren't great.

Its steinberg bro, they'll be good. BUT FUCK CUBASE.

If they were Apogee or RME or any other top line converter chip I'd feel better frankly (I won't expect them to be Benchmark or Burl).

Who has best preamps and converters on the market? Give it to me in a ranked list.

That totally depends on your budget and a lot of other factors (like who has the best drivers for your particular set up).
UA gear works like crap with PC's (They openly admit this. Not sure why they even sell for PC.) for instance.
RME is rock solid. Apogee is solid.

Also depends om what DAW software you use. Some interfaces work better with some than others (usually drivers).

The best unit is what works best for your purposes within your budget.

My favorite stand alone converter is still Benchmark but a lot of that has to do with the pressing plants I use also use Benchmark
so I know they're hearing the same thing I do when I send them a master (I do a lot of high end mastering for part of my living).

Woolworm wrote:

frodog wrote:LOL

Now I'm not an evolutionary biologist, but why on earth would humans of the far future evolve to have such sensitive hearing? The only scenario I can envision is a Matrix/Terminator-type scenario where we are hunted by relentless machines, in which case the least of our worries (if humanity even survived that long) would be remixing future pop, or listen to music at all.

It doesn't even have to be for us. It could be for aliens or higher dimensional beings. But also, even in the spectrum we do hear, we are biased towards 1k to 2k in the spectrum. So evolution would even reshape the sounds we hear in the 20hz to 20khz current human hearing spectrum, then nevermind what is above 20khz.

Just because you cant hear it, doesnt mean its not there. What we do here has consequences in the higher dimensions, the same way a cell has an effect on our body.

I'm not saying those frequencies are not there, just that they are inaudible to humans. I'm perfectly happy with the hearing range I currently have, and - apart from a slight issue with my left eardrum - glad I've avoided developing tinnitus.

If you believe in that higher dimensions stuff, well OK... pretty much the same as someone believing in God to me.

Maybe you are trolling, but you still haven't explained WHY evolution would reshape the human ear in such a way.