192k hz vs 48k hz project file vs microphone sample rate

[calmyadam]

I have a fifine usb microphone I use to record vocals. When I have my project file to 192k I notice less latency, 6ms to 2ms for my audio input.

now if I have a microphone that can only be set to 48000hz in my windows settings will this mess up the clarity of the recording? I loop back the sound input into my headphones while recording

any help will be appreciated, thank you!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

It should be fine. 192kHz is 4x 48kHz so it just gets up-sampled.

 

[calmyadam]

It should be fine. 192kHz is 4x 48kHz so it just gets up-sampled.

thank you sir

 

[ecc83]

AFAICT the Ffine USB mic is a £30 jobby? I would say any kind of sample rate conversion is going to be completely unnoticed.

The mic is also almost certainly a 16 bit device and although there is nothing wrong with that in principle the 16 bit converters used in, ah, 'good value' USB audio devices are not exactly 'state of art'.

Why do you need 2mS latency? Running at 192 kHz just gives you bigger files and more system stress. What is your final destination format?

Dave.

 

[Chili]

192khz sampling prompts the notion, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

With a cheap $30 USB mic running at 48khz, you're not getting any advantage sampling at 192khz. Even if you had a $3000 awesome USB mic running at 48khz, you get no advantage running at 192khz.

I don't see how you can get lower latency when the processing is 4x the amount, but if you say so....

Welcome to the site.

 

[rob aylestone]

2ms would be nice, but mine averages 9ms latency and I cannot detect this at all. I could record at 192, but for me, 48K is perfectly fine. I have no need whatsoever to record things I can't hear.

 

[TalismanRich]

Just an FYI... the difference between 2ms and 6ms latency is equivalent to standing 2 ft away vs 6 ft away. Sound travels at approximately 1.1 ft/ms. I don't find 6ms delay disturbing. Unless there is a compelling reason for running at 192K, its a waste of resources.

 

[ecc83]

192khz sampling prompts the notion, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

With a cheap $30 USB mic running at 48khz, you're not getting any advantage sampling at 192khz. Even if you had a $3000 awesome USB mic running at 48khz, you get no advantage running at 192khz.

I don't see how you can get lower latency when the processing is 4x the amount, but if you say so....

Welcome to the site.

Er...PC numpty about to opine! You do get lower latency at higher sampling rates IF the rest of the system can handle the data throughput. You find things like DSP in monitors is 96kHz mainly because of this. Also of course so they can boast an upper HF -3dB of around 30k instead of 22kHz! Not that anyone really gives a ***t coz they can't hear 22k!

Of course, the CPU and ram in a speaker is doing next to FA compared to a computer.

Dave.