44.1 kHz versus 96 kHz?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EveningSky
  • Start date Start date
E

EveningSky

New member
Is there a perceptable difference between recorders operating at these two sampling rates, or do other factors play such a more decisive role that these sample rates in real life of most users will not make a perceptable difference?
Advice?
Opinions?
Experiences?
 
 
There is definitely a difference... whether it's perceptible or not depends on whether your have gear that let's you hear the difference, as well as a good ear...!

But the difference is less obvious (IMO) than the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit converters (of equal quality) given the same sample rate.
 
So Bear. Can you hear the difference between 44.1 or 48 and 96kHz? I'm just curious how you went about comparing the two and ONLY compare sample rates?
 
My 2-track unit (Alesis Masterlink) is capable of different rates... so I tested the difference in sample rates - at 24-bit/48 and 24-bit/96 I couldn't swear to a difference....

I know I have good ears, but it could be that my chain at the time was not as revealing.... it wasn't the same as I have now (different monitors, and no Lucid converters).

I should try again with the Lucids in place...

That doesn't change the fact that there IS a difference between the two, and given an immaculate signal chain, one would be able to differentiate.
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
My 2-track unit (Alesis Masterlink) is capable of different rates... so I tested the difference in sample rates - at 24-bit/48 and 24-bit/96 I couldn't swear to a difference....

I know I have good ears, but it could be that my chain at the time was not as revealing.... it wasn't the same as I have now (different monitors, and no Lucid converters).

I should try again with the Lucids in place...

That doesn't change the fact that there IS a difference between the two, and given an immaculate signal chain, one would be able to differentiate.
Click to expand...

Try again. Also, set up a listening test for fades and hf translation. I agree the chain probably wasn't revealing enough for the Masterlink. You could get the 3D Audio converter disc and see if there are anythings you notice on that. I find its usually the monitors themselves, nearfields sometimes just don't translate. You will probably find that if you isolate certain instruments in the test that low end will be where the clarity changes and that the hf will be more full. I find if that Ive listened to something to long that picking out nuances become more difficult. Have fun.

SoMm
 
The problem is that you are not just comparing sample rates. You are comparing how a 96kHz signal sounds played back through a 96kHz converter with a 48kHz signal through 48kHz converter. Why not try downsampling a 96kHz signal to 48, then back up to 96 and compare that with the original. Even this is probably not perfect.

And you should really do double blind testing...

Anyway, if the distribution medium is 44.1kHz, I've heard zero evidence that recording at 96 makes any audible difference after downsampling. So even if you can hear some subtle differences at 96, what's the point?
 
ebeam said:
Anyway, if the distribution medium is 44.1kHz, I've heard zero evidence that recording at 96 makes any audible difference after downsampling. So even if you can hear some subtle differences at 96, what's the point?
Click to expand...
The point for me personally (generally, I mixdown to 24/88.2) is that I am taking advantage of storing the digital signal to its (current) highest potential of quality. Whether I dumb it down afterwards or not is not really relevant, I'll always have a hi-resolution source from which to work.

It's exactly the same rationale as doing digital imaging... you retain the highest resolution from the start.... from there you can dumb it down to any lower resolution you need, but you'll always have the hi-res "master" to start from...

But hey - like I said - that's MY methodology... YMMV!
 
I have no methodology or any other scientific testing procedures but I started recording 24/96 as opposed to 24/44.1 I can't really explain the difference because I'm a newbie but things seem to have a nicer high end. I don't seem to have as many problems mixing the 24/96 tracks as they seem to gel a little better. Keep in mind that this may all change the next time as my consistancy sucks and I don't know what I'm talking about either.:D
 
Thank you for sharing your experiences. I suspect that there is a difference if all of the chain of your signal path is of sufficient quality to allow you to hear the difference. If your ears allow you to hear the difference, etc.
I suspect that the A/D/A conversions are extremely important and that there may be a reason why some pay a premium price for high end equipment to do this conversion?!
I think that high resolution would probably be the best way to go, but I am still considering the Presonus Firestation with 48 kHz upper sampling rate.
 
I should also point out - I was talking about mixdowns in my above posts....

For tracking it's generally 24-bit/48Khz into an HD24 hard-disk recorder.... digital edits as needed via the DAW... then it's mixed analog onto the Masterlink via Lucid converters at 24/88.2....
 
EveningSky said:
Thank you for sharing your experiences. I suspect that there is a difference if all of the chain of your signal path is of sufficient quality to allow you to hear the difference. If your ears allow you to hear the difference, etc.
I suspect that the A/D/A conversions are extremely important and that there may be a reason why some pay a premium price for high end equipment to do this conversion?!
I think that high resolution would probably be the best way to go, but I am still considering the Presonus Firestation with 48 kHz upper sampling rate.
Click to expand...

I think you should find the best sounding converter for the price you can spend. Whether that's a 16/44.1 or 24/96 converter matters less than the overall sound. For example, I'd rather have an old Apogee 16 bit converter than a soundblaster that can do 24. When I went from my Gadget Labs card at 24/44.1 to my new LynxTwo at 24/44.1, the difference is night and day (especially the D/A). Comparing the Lynx at 44.1 to the Lynx at 96 or 192 is subtle at best - I haven't done any sort of controlled tests yet myself.

Bear- I agree about having a high res master. The standard format may very well become 24/96 in the future. Anyhow, what advantage does upsampling during mixdown have? Are you running through outboard on the way out or just converting your 24/48 mixdown to 24/88.2. If the latter is true, I'd think that would be worse than just keeping it at 24/48. I mean, you're not adding any extra information except for artifacts caused by the sample rate conversion.
 
eBeam - you didn't read my post very carefully! ;)

For tracking it's generally 24-bit/48Khz into an HD24 hard-disk recorder.... digital edits as needed via the DAW... then it's mixed analog onto the Masterlink via Lucid converters at 24/88.2....
 
Oh, I didn't see that - hadn't had my coffee yet :) .

That probably does make a difference then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top