a example of ff14 music.
I actually prefer the first one.
To add on Final Fantasy music, I will always remember FF12 bc of its awesome main theme and Boss Battle Crescendo:
As I said above, the Cubase Version has no bass/height differences Composers usually mix in. It is basically a âclear versionâ without much bass. Also, it is just there for reference of the sound quality difference.
And thatâs all fine. I still prefer the first one.
You donât need to try and sway my opinion or try to undermine it.
I feel how I feel about certain music and thatâs fine.
You have your own opinions. And thatâs also fine.
That I didnât try, Tah. Just making sure you read it. Some people these days tend to not read/listen at all.
I can totally respect your choice and I also think that the original sounds better, but only because there are no different bass values for the instruments in the Cubase version. If there would be, then I might would think different.
Understandable.
I donât think I would though. I prefer âdirtierâ sounding music. Music thatâs âlived inâ. Not too clean and crisp that makes it feel soulless and clinical to me. I donât like clean clear singing either. Give some grungy voice or a voice with a good vocal fry or just a âlivedâ voice; cracking a bit and hoarse and imperfect.
Me neither, but some aspects on the Cubase version just sound more clean and separable.
for me it was the ffx intro âŠ
Tbh, I always run into the problem that I never finish a FF-Game 
Every time I start a run I end up taking a short break, playing a different game and then returning only to have no idea where I stopped and starting a new run again⊠Maybe one day I will finish some games like FF12 and Dragon Age Inquisition.
Youâve just enforced my dislike of FF14. I didnât even remember the music from when I played it a few years back, but I guess I must have turned it off because this type of music is completely not to my liking (as opposed to much of WoWâs music - several tracks are in some Spotify playlists I have).
Glad you find it cool though. Each to their own. 
only ever completed 7 and 10 to 100%⊠got close to 100% in 9 as well (i had all the cards)
i tried 15 and the ff7 remake⊠i dont like what they did to the combat so much ⊠why fix whats not broken.
ff16 looks interesting⊠but i think it will be the new combat again âŠ
To shift the topic back to WoW⊠WoW OSTs with Vocals have sometimes a bit too much bass imo for the vocals, making it kind of impossible to hear what kind of vocal they even sing. That was probably made intentional, but I personally have to say that some of the magic goes away with doing so.
To me, that is like making the voice singing âInvincibleâ form WotLK with a more damped voice. I think you can imagine how wrong that would feel if someone would actually do this
Isnât the reason for the change from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz basically just a convenience for producers when they are working with video (or if you are having aliasing problems)? Itâs not an audible difference. And I donât see that you argue about aliasing either, and if you would I hardly think you would notice filtering issues (from the different sample rates) over some other more likely issues. I mean itâs not like the tracks have distorsion issues, right?
Itâs more like you are arguing about different sample libraries and their qualities, but I guess thatâs more of a taste argument.
Like every argument you have is wrong in a production, mixing and mastering kind of sense. Either they are plain false, like audible difference between the sample rates, or they just donât belong in your other reasoning.
I donât think your education in media design is at all focused on music productions and the things you think you hear differently is caused by other reasons than the difference between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz.
I actually have so many questions about how you argue for microphone quality and evolution and also about how you argue about ârap musicâ and ârecent released musicâ and how they are ârecorded in current times standardsâ, how does for example lo-fi and saturation tie into that? Since lo-fi and saturation is widely usued in modern rap and pop tracks?
I think you think you are an audiophile, but it seems not to be that case.
That I donât know. But I know for sure that the Standard is set to 44.1kHz because of both Movie and Music decisions made in the past. The reason why 44.1kHz is industry standard is (as far as I know) that it offers the best lossless data compression of Audio with the smallest possible file size to save data space on devices. âLosslessâ in that case means you still can hear everything relevant on your ears, without hearing noise from compression. But it also cuts down the dynamic audio range. In correlation to the Bit depth it can also impact the dynamic audio range.
To quote on an article from âDigitale Audio Systemeâ (Digital Audio Systems):
- Höhere Abtastraten ermöglichen aufgrund des breiteren verfĂŒgbaren Frequenzspektrums den Einsatz deutlich sanfterer Rekonstruktions-Filter, die die Nachteile der Filter bei niedrigeren Sampleraten vermeiden. Dadurch verbessert eine höhere Abtastrate den reproduzierten Klang, nicht weil man das erweiterte Frequenzspektrum hören könnte, sondern weil es eine Anwendung wenig invasiver Antialiasing- und Rekonstruktionsfilter ermöglicht.
- Mit dem Red-Book-Standard kommt neben der Abtastrate von 44,1kHz auch eine Wortbreite von 16Bit, die ĂŒber den gesamten Dynamikumfang von 96dB lediglich 65.530 LautstĂ€rkeabstufungen ermöglicht. Das menschliche Gehör löst allerdings deutlich feiner auf. Die psychoakustische Forschung legt Auflösungen im Bereich von ĂŒber 1 Mio. LautstĂ€rkeabstufungen nahe, was einer vergleichbaren digitalen Auflösung von 20-22Bit entsprechen wĂŒrde.
Which translates (roughly) to:
- Due to the broader frequency spectrum available, higher sampling rates enable the use of significantly gentler reconstruction filters, which avoid the disadvantages of the filters at lower sample rates. As a result, a higher sampling rate improves the reproduced sound, not because the extended frequency spectrum can be heard, but because it allows the application of less invasive antialiasing and reconstruction filters.
- In addition to the sampling rate of 44.1kHz, the Red Book standard also comes with a word width of 16 bits, which enables only 65,530 volume levels over the entire dynamic range of 96dB. However, the human ear has a much finer resolution. Psychoacoustic research suggests resolutions in the range of over 1 million volume levels, which would correspond to a comparable digital resolution of 20-22 bits.
Source (for those able to read german):
https://digital-audio-systems.com/sinn-und-unsinn-von-hohen-sampleraten/
You are right about that. My educational focus was more about visuals like Video and Images. Sound and Sound Design were subsidiary subject in my education and I have more experience in the Video area than the Audio area of my job. Also, the Pandemic did cut short on content the education should have contained. I also want to make clear that I never said âI am a expert of matterâ (not yet). I may be wrong about one thing or another, that I do admit if that is the case. But then I demand proof that I am wrong 
Yeah the proof is basically that there is no audible difference between 44.1 and 48, which is, if I understood you correctly, your whole premise.
I think you misunderstand how aliasing affects sound and that you instead compare it to âaudiableâ directly.
You wrote âI can totally hear a difference because I am trained to hear itâ, but you are not, you are neither trained at that and you canât hear the difference, you just think you are/that you do.
Itâs a bit demanding that you want proof of that you are wrong when I basically said that almost every argument you shared arenât valid.
For starter you should have proof of that 44.1 and 48 gives no hearable difference (as stated about aliasing), itâs emperic, I havenât done the research but it seems plausible to me atleast. And you pretty much base your other arguments from that.
So, being wrong about the difference between 44.1 and 48 kinda breaks the point of remastering or whatever it is you want to do.
Besides, as others have written, none would be interested in this change. What exactly is it you want to do even? Just remaster the file in slightly higher sample rate? Then itâs not noticible. Or you want to re-record it, then thatâs pretty much another topic from that of sample rate.
With âI demand proof I am wrongâ I basically said âexplain in detail why I am wrong and whereâ.
In regards of the OSTs we have rn? I want them to be at least the same audible and hear-able quality (both emperic and psychoacoustic) of minimum Legion OSTs. Including the bass and height values/ranges.
In general? I want WoW OSTs to reach more for the Stars, be more outstanding, less generic and more unique. You may have seen the OSTs from other games I posted in a longer comment above. All of those are, imo, more unique than most of WoWs music. That might just be me, but, as I said, aside of a few WoD, Legion and BfA OSTs and the Invincible OST from WotLK I barely am able to remember other OSTs from WoW.
In comparison I pull again up Destiny 1 and Destiny 2. I know there every OST by name and sound, simply because they are all unique in their own way. Remarkable. Cinematic, as I said.
Na, you didnât say âexplain in detail why I am wrong and whereâ.
But we can begin to see if you understand that you are wrong about the argument of that there is an audible difference between 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz?
The other points you have arenât really tied to that of sample rate then. Are they still valid for you then?
It now seems that you are just discussing personal preferences instead of technical ones. Is that so?
All I can say to that is that I donât think there is a majority that have issues with WoWs music, especially not when it comes to production issues.
Like, I can say just in my own perspective that one of the most memorible compositions and one of my favorite over all is the ambient Teldrassil track. Itâs not grand, blockbusterish and probably not the first song people think of when they think of WoW. But to me, it hits the right atmosphere. But how would a discussion about that be, about my own preference? Itâs rediculous to argue about that, especially in a topic like this, about re-recording or remasters.
About the âtasteâ of music, composition or even sample library-wise seems like a total other discussion than the one you brought up here, that is more technical. I donât think that is in the slightest interesting for Blizzard.
I can also say that the links from youtube in your first post is pretty rubbish imo. The reasons for that is that the one who made them uses articulations and modulation pretty poorly. And by poorly I mean worse than the original version thatâs in the game. Same with the sample library itself, which I find more out of place than the original.
Ok, I admit I maybe over-exaggerated with my statement here:
There is not a big difference for the vast majority of people. For those with very good hearing maybe. Technically there is a minor difference.
As I said, I am not a matter expert. I am just a Media Designer with much more experience and knowledge in Video editing and Visual Effects than Audio Design.
I mean, you are listening to an Orchestra composition (game version) vs. a complete digital cover (made within a program from pre-recorded presets). Of course the Original will sound better. Softwares like Cubase are not necessarily made for creating Music of Orchestra quality on the same level as an actual Orchestra, simply because they lack the âRoomâ as I mentioned before in a comment. Software like Cubase is for composing music sheets and exporting them as Note Sheets.
With Room I refer to reverb, echo and size of the building/area a real Orchestra would play in, in addition to the sound distortion caused by the instruments and musicians siting there, playing. Each body has impact on the reflection of sound and thatâs why the digital Music doesnât match the quality of an actually, well executed Orchestra composition.
Edit: And people with knowledge with plug-ins can solve that Problem simply with Reverb/Echo-Software.
If you want a good example of Cubase Music, you should look up this channel: Samuel Kim Music - YouTube
It is not microfon quality problem those soundtracks were recorded with microphones that allow you make highquality vinyl. But because of data compresion you lose quality of sounds. If you some where get flac files they quality will be a lot better.
Well, since I canât find any public information of what Microphones were used for the production of Music from Classic-Cataclysm (between 2004 and 2008), I canât tell how much the difference is in numbers and data.