Sample rates

[crunkthanamug]

Is there really a noticeable difference in recording using 96 Khz vs 44.1 sample rates. What does this do to the audio? Does it make it less likely to clip?

 

[MadAudio]

More samples per second = higher fidelity. Also, it uses more hard drive space.

Clipping is dependent on your signal strength, not sampling rate.

 

[Farview]

Bit depth is responsible for dynamic range, sample rate is responsible for frequency range. If you are clipping the signal, turn the preamp down.

 

[jjmanton2]

44.1 or 48 is fine for recording. Its physically impossible to hear the difference, since our ears only go to about 20. Save your drive space and make more music. I do recomend always recording in 24 bit though.

 

[Massive Master]

With good conversion, yeah... 44.1kHz is fine for the most part. Especially if it's your target rate (CD, etc.).

 

[xstatic]

I wouldn't say it's impossible to hear the difference. Much of whatever difference you hear is going to be more realted to the quality of the converter though, and not the actaul sample rate used. First off, you could pic two microphones that have the same response curves, or even two monitors. In the end they will most likely sound different. In the end, I would rather have good 44.1k converters than cheap 96 k ones. However, the way that 96k converters react in the conversion process of lower transients can really affect the over all sound quality of the conversion as a whole. a good 96k converter also is able to translate thos really high frequencies that we can hear with a little more clarity. At 96k, in general, you can typically get a smoother sound in the 14 to 20k ish region since you aren't really making the converter strain itself at the top of it's capacity (or capability). For me though, i would get some decent 44.1k or 48k converters unless it's well within your budget for both converters, processor strength, and hard drive space to accomodate the added weight of 96k conversion.