44k,,,48k...96k..???

  • Thread starter Thread starter newatthis
  • Start date Start date
N

newatthis

New member
I have been reading about recording and sample rates, and how obvisously recording using higher sampling rates makes for a much better quality recording.

Here are my question(s):

Normally I have been recording my Band Demos at 44K on my HD24 Recorder,,,,,then when done, I would send the tracks (while doing the mixdown) to my Masterlink 9600 to burn onto CD.

I noticed once that when I recorded at 48K, then burnt onto the Masterlink at 44K, the tunes sounded speeded up>? So from that point on I matched up 44K on both machines, and the tempos were fine.

My HD24 defaults to 48K while setting up for a new song to record. So should I use that 48K setting (even though I think I read that 44K was the industry Red Book standard for CD recordings) and then try to figure out if the Masterlink can also then be set at 48K so they match? Or shouldnt them matching make any difference?

Also if all this about recording at a higher sampling rate is true, and you then will get much better recordings, should or can I line up both machines to work/record at 96K?? And just record at 96K all the time??

I hope what I am saying makes sense because I am still learning.

Thanks
Peace
AJ :cool:
 
something needs to convert the sample rate for you if you are going to run at a higher sample rate than what CD is (44.1kHz, 16bit). One of your pieces of gear 'should' be able to do that, so look for a setting somewhere. This was the reason it played back weird on the CD.
Just keep reading the manual and I'll bet you find the answer.

As far as higher sample rates giving you a better quality recording......I suggest do a search around here first as this topic comes up all the time. But The consensus (and maybe I should say HR.com BBS rule) is that crap is still going to sound like crap no matter what sample rate you record at. It's not going to make your recordings better. Worry about getting the sound to sound good through the speakers, and don't worry so much about sample rate.
 
99% of the time, you're just fine at the target rate - 44.1kHz for audio CD applications, 48kHz for video applications.
 
newatthis said:
My HD24 defaults to 48K while setting up for a new song to record. So should I use that 48K setting (even though I think I read that 44K was the industry Red Book standard for CD recordings) and then try to figure out if the Masterlink can also then be set at 48K so they match?
Click to expand...
You don't have an option for making a cd, it's 44.1kHz, 16bit period. Some people do their mixing and processing at 24bit and then dither back to 16 to make the cd.
 
I have been reading about recording and sample rates, and how obvisously recording using higher sampling rates makes for a much better quality recording.

****Debateable. No one really agrees one way or the other on this. Let your ears be the judge.



My HD24 defaults to 48K while setting up for a new song to record. So should I use that 48K setting (even though I think I read that 44K was the industry Red Book standard for CD recordings) and then try to figure out if the Masterlink can also then be set at 48K so they match? Or shouldnt them matching make any difference?

***Think of sample rate sort of like tape speed or how fast a record spins. If you record a tape at 15ips and then play back at 7.5 ips it will sound like Darth Vader. Same deal with sample rate. Others have already said it, but you have to convert sample rates to match the target medium.

Also if all this about recording at a higher sampling rate is true, and you then will get much better recordings, should or can I line up both machines to work/record at 96K?? And just record at 96K all the time??

***You can, but again, see if you actully hear a difference as 96khz takes a lot more drive space. If you look at most of the polls on board like this where the sample rate question has been asked, the vast vast majority of folks are using 44.1 or 48 khz. 96khz is about the last thing I personally would worry about as mics, pres, the room you are in, and the performance will contribute to a good sounding record significantly more than sample rate ever will. I look at 96khz as high octane gas.... If I can still only drive 65mph in my Honda, why bother with 92 octane gas?
 
The damage that can be casued from SRC'ing from 48 to 44.1 kHz isn't worth the lousy extra smidge of information (that's beyond your hearing range and the range of most of your gear anyway).
 
Massive Master said:
The damage that can be casued from SRC'ing from 48 to 44.1 kHz isn't worth the lousy extra smidge of information (that's beyond your hearing range and the range of most of your gear anyway).
Click to expand...

I'm going to go tell that one to my teacher. :p :D ;)
 
Times to use 48k:
a) if you are working with video (which is commonly 16bit/48k)
b) if you have equipment that is locked into 48k (DAT machines or Creative SBLive/Audigy cards)

Otherwise, go with 24bit/44.1k and forget about it....
 
bubbagump said:
"Let your ears be the judge."

Yeah, I second that!! I recently tracked to quarter inch tape and then digitally recorded the tracks on my Masterlink at 16/44, 24/44, and 24/96. Guess what, the 24/96 sounded the best BUT when dithered and downsampled for CD 16/44 sounded better than 24/96!! Maybe it's the masterlink. I dunno. But I suspect that a lot of this craziness about sample/bit rates is just craziness unless and until the format du jour changes from CD to DVD-Audio or SACD. One argument for tracking at 24/44.1 is that it gives you a wider dynamic range. So, if you're afraid of clipping 24/44.1 might give you a little insurance. At least that's what I've heard I don't know if it's true.
Click to expand...
 
bigwillz24 said:
I'm going to go tell that one to my teacher. :p :D ;)
Click to expand...
Tell this one to your teacher:
The difference of the nyquist frequency between 44.1K and 48k is the difference between the musical notes A and half way between B flat and B. It isn't even a full step. And this is all at least a half an octave above what the average person can hear, a lot of mics can capture, and stereos can accurately play back. It's a full octave above the high filter on an mp3.
Now, since we know that all processing is in some small way destructive, so there is little point to record at 48k (unless you are doing audio for video) and emplying SCR to convert it back to 44.1k
 
Some people hear a difference. tech specs dont matter if your ears like 48 better. tech specs are sort of irrelevant in audio conversation, I think. The ears guide all.



Farview said:
Tell this one to your teacher:
The difference of the nyquist frequency between 44.1K and 48k is the difference between the musical notes A and half way between B flat and B. It isn't even a full step. And this is all at least a half an octave above what the average person can hear, a lot of mics can capture, and stereos can accurately play back. It's a full octave above the high filter on an mp3.
Now, since we know that all processing is in some small way destructive, so there is little point to record at 48k (unless you are doing audio for video) and emplying SCR to convert it back to 44.1k
Click to expand...
 
BigRay said:
Some people hear a difference. tech specs dont matter if your ears like 48 better. tech specs are sort of irrelevant in audio conversation, I think. The ears guide all.
Click to expand...
Some people hear the difference when they swap the two ends of a guitar cable. The power of suggestion is really strong when dealing with abstract things like which sounds 'better'.
 
fraserhutch said:
Well, thank you for settling that.
Click to expand...
I do what I can.

I figure I could save a lot of bandwidth by posting ealier in threads like these, but with my schedule...
 
I made some tests with the DFX plug-in for mp3 players such as winamp or mediaplayer. I exported different sample rate .wav versions of a 24bit song of mine, then i converted them all in the same .mp3 resolution and listened them via the DFX plugin..the higher was the original sample rate, the better it sounded, "frying" less..just try by yourself. I'm not telling 96k is better, but at this point differences are not so subtle at the end. I'd like to hear your experiences, point of views and explainations anyway.
 
jakeruin said:
I made some tests with the DFX plug-in for mp3 players such as winamp or mediaplayer. I exported different sample rate .wav versions of a 24bit song of mine, then i converted them all in the same .mp3 resolution and listened them via the DFX plugin..the higher was the original sample rate, the better it sounded, "frying" less..just try by yourself. I'm not telling 96k is better, but at this point differences are not so subtle at the end. I'd like to hear your experiences, point of views and explainations anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not the same as *recording* at specific rates.

If you took one rate and *exported* it at different rates...that makes little/no difference.

Also...MP3 ecoding rates are not the same as initial WAV recording rates.
 
If you have the equipment, you could try tracking at 96kHz, mixing, etc, so that you have the highest resolution possible. Then when it comes to converting to 44.1kHz, instead of using the computer to downsample, send it out through the D/A converter to (the CD device) and have it re- sample the analog at 44.1kHz. So instead of sample rate conversion, you are actually resampling analog data. It may make a difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top