48k vs 96k

  • Thread starter Thread starter bradthefattest
  • Start date Start date
B

bradthefattest

New member
Hey,

I was wondering, I have always recorded at 48k, but I have been reading about 94k making recordings sound a lot tighter and better. So I want to try it. But I have a question. Does it take a lot more computer power to record 96k compared to 48k?

I have:
Gigabyte8Ik1100 Motherboard
Pentium 4 2.4ghz
512 dual channel DDR ram
30gig WD hard drive
160gig Seagate hard drive
Aardvark direct pro q10
 
Yeah, its sounds a LOT better. I've seen tiny little wave forms, horribly recorded in that they didn't use the dynamic range of the convertors at all, but since they were recorded at 24/96 they sounded fantastic anyway.

And, yes, it takes a LOT more computer power. Figure that a 24/96 track is twice as big as a 24/48 track so you get half as much everything. Half the tracks, half the plugins.

The first time I experimented with recording 88.2, a single instance of Waves Ren Verb was about all I could handle along with a few low CPU compressors. Then I realized that all of the plugs had to handly twice as much data. CHOKE!

Can't beat the sound, though. I'm really gald my interface can do the higher sampling rates, but I don't use them all that often, yet. Native systems haven't quite caught up to hardware systems at higher sampling rates, yet.

Take care,
Chris

P.S. That's with a 2G P4, by the way.
Chris
 
If you are summing inside your computer don't record at 48 or 96, instead record at 44.1 or 88.2, home computers can't handle the math that it takes to make a 48k or 96k signal to 44.1 without adding more distortion than it normally would. I like recording at 88.2 (or 176.4) but have found out that if you aren't summing in an analog environment then the difference in the end is so small that it isn't usually worth the disk space.

Later,
musik
 
Instead of going 96kHz, I think you'll be much better off recording at 24-bit, 44kHz if you've got the hardware for it. This will add 50% to your file sizes. However, what you sacrifice in the way of plugin count, you gain in fidelity. You can always 'freeze' your tracks to get more plugs going if you need to but you can't add more resolution to your audio.

By all means, go 24-bit, 96kHz if your DAW has the horsepower for it.
 
If you are summing inside your computer don't record at 48 or 96, instead record at 44.1 or 88.2, home computers can't handle the math that it takes to make a 48k or 96k signal to 44.1 without adding more distortion than it normally would.
Click to expand...

musikman - do you remember how you assembled these facts ? I'm about to make the 96KHz jump but your comment about distortion vs 88.2 looks interesting. Maybe a link or something that discusses this. :)

I use 100% Grade 'A' Garage DIY gear so I don't want to add any distortion on purpose ! Audiophile2496, dbx386 are my A/D interfaces for transcribing my analog library and converting to digital. I expect to use Sonar3 or Cool Edit Pro to 'downsample' when necessary (depending on the medium) after everthing is mixed, pre-mastered, finalized then transfer to CD. Otherwise I'll leave it at 24/96 or 24/88.2 and let a DVD player deal with it. I guess Dolby AC-3 is another DVD option which is 48KHz so I'm beginning to think about 88.2.

Time to research downsampling I think and see where the 'state of the art' is for me.

kylen
 
Chris Shaeffer said:

The first time I experimented with recording 88.2, a single instance of Waves Ren Verb was about all I could handle along with a few low CPU compressors. Then I realized that all of the plugs had to handly twice as much data. CHOKE!
Click to expand...

And there's another good reason to go with Pro Tools. Not that I'm advocating Pro Tools at all but if your going to doing a lot of plugs that off CPU and on DSP horsepower would only help a lot. I wish someone would come out with a PCI DSP card that would run my DirectX plugs and free up my CPU.
 
Daedalus said:
Mackie's UAD also does this... http://www.mackie.com/products/uad1/
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware of those but those are proprietary right? What I would like to see is a stand alone unit that runs "all" DirectX or VST plugs independent of your application. There was a thread awhile back discussing this, maybe I'll dig that up
I think there was someone talking about how DirectX writes to the CPU or something and that what I'm asking for would be hard to do. Then go with VST.

If that Mackie unit could run all my plugs that would:cool:
 
musikman316 said:
If you are summing inside your computer don't record at 48 or 96, instead record at 44.1 or 88.2, home computers can't handle the math that it takes to make a 48k or 96k signal to 44.1 without adding more distortion than it normally would. I like recording at 88.2 (or 176.4) but have found out that if you aren't summing in an analog environment then the difference in the end is so small that it isn't usually worth the disk space.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with most of this...

First of all, as mentioned above.. I agree that these days 24 bit recording is pretty much standard.

As far as your comment about "recording at 44.1 or 88.2 because home computers can't handle the math that it takes to make a 48k or 96k signal to 44.1 without adding more distortion" I think is mostly bollocks. I'll assume what you mean by this comment is that an 88.2 to 44.1 conversion simply involves dropping every other sample. I think this is a common misconception.

Yes, conversion between sample rates that are multiples of each other is a simpler algorithm but it's not simply dropping every other sample. Doing this alone would result in some horrible aliasing artifacts. Any down sampling must contain a filtering algorithm to filter out the frequencies above the Nyquist freq of the down sample rate. The downsampling algorithm may be simpler and faster from 88.2 to 44.1 than say 96k to 44.1, but I really don't think any type of distortion would be an issue as the downsampling algorithms for non multiple sampling rates in todays software are far superior to yesteryear. Any home computer can easily make 96k to 44.1 calculations. The algorithms just may take a bit more time.

All and all, there's far more significant (and noticeable) things you have to worry about (especially in the homestudio environment) that will affect the sound of your recordings... like take a close look at your signal chain/ front end. For what it's worth... I track at 24bit 44.1.

Let your ears be the judge. :)
good luck
ls
 
Last edited:
I still track at 24/44.1, too. I like having high bandwidth capability should I ever want to use it, but for now I'm just not willing to give up the track and plug counts. Or the harddrive space.

It comes down to tracking technique. You do realize that 24/44.1 or 48 was *great* stuff not too long ago? I'd bet that most home recordists (and maybe even a significant portion of the pros) aren't tracking to the capability of their recording medium. There are TONS of other variables. For me, its just easier and more productive to go after those other variables (room sounds, mic choice and placement, input signal chain, etc.) than to sink a lot of money into brute processing power.

I'd use it if I had it, but the people who buy my CD's and the clients I've recorded have never once said anthing like "Gee, this sounds too digital. Couldn't you have recorded it at a higher sampling rate or something?"

Take care,
Chris
 
The thought that recording at 44.1 is a misconception is odd. The fact is that unless you are using a program that can handle conversions like 96 or 192 then you should record at a multiple of 44.1. This thought is held by the engineers at Digidesign, Apogee (a company that was founded to research the problems with digital audio) and many top rated schools and engineers.

The only person I know of that does not agree with the multiple of 44.1 is Bob Katz. Of course that is only if you are sending your tracks to Bob to be mastered, simply because DigiDo has the equipmant and know how to bring your tracks to 44.1 without any problems.

Later,
musik
 
...still track at 24/44.1, too. I like having high bandwidth capability should I ever want to use it, but for now I'm just not willing to give up the track and plug counts. Or the harddrive space.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda at that crossroad right now. I do a lot of 2trk transcriptions of cassette/VHS/reel mixes for re-mastering, re-balancing (whatever you want to call it) and transcribe at 24/96 but downsample so that I'm working at 24/44.1 mainly because some of my plugs and apps get real cranky with 96KHz at this point.

Also before I worry too much about 96KHz I need to take care of my front end or be in an environment where it matters more.

I'm just kinda planning a roadmap for the not too far distant future...for now a final product of 16/44.1 on CD can sound pretty good out of this DIY Palace ! :cool:

kylen
 
the biggest immprovement in sound is thru better converters not sample rate....after converters would be a very good word clock...then higher sample rates, bit rates etc.

i just recently purchased a word clock for my rig and now 48khz sounds at least as good as 96khz w/o word clock

to Paraphrase Brad Blackwood:

'i was told by people much wiser then me on the subject that now a day the SRC in programs are so good that it doesn't matter...'

which would mean 96khz is better but also bigger resource hog...now you have to judge if the extra space that 96khz takes over 88.2 is worth it...

can yall honestly say that you hear distortion or whatever when you downsample cuz i sure as hell don't...if you do what program are you using? i use samp 7 or wave lab for SRC both very good programs IMO
 
Teacher said:
the biggest immprovement in sound is thru better converters not sample rate....after converters would be a very good word clock...then higher sample rates, bit rates etc.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%!!

Teacher said:

'i was told by people much wiser then me on the subject that now a day the SRC in programs are so good that it doesn't matter...'
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct! Saying that a home computer can't make the calculations necessary for the algorithms used to downsample non multiples rates without distortion is complete bullocks!!! That's just ridiculous. Not to mention that it doesn't even matter what the computer is... it's a matter of how the audio application's SRC algorithm is written. I'll restate.... take a good look at your front end (and converters/ wordclock as teacher has mentioned)... I'm sure there's many more problems that can affect your sound than worrying about downsampling.
 
I don't hear distortion, but I can definately hear a difference in the final version. I mean, when I'm mixing at full 24/44.1 or 48, it just sounds HUGE in the monitors. A simple bounce to disk and burn to CD later and it sounds...good, but...

MAybe its psychosematic (or however you spell it, but I hear it. Its getting better as my equipment and technique gets better, but I still notice it.

Take care,
Chris
 
hey bradthefattest...you SHOULD try it. see if you get better results.

oxox
 
therage! said:
Yeah, I'm aware of those but those are proprietary right? What I would like to see is a stand alone unit that runs "all" DirectX or VST plugs independent of your application.
Click to expand...

Kinda late to the party :eek: But to get what you need is a cubase setup and a second computer running system link with all your plugs.

Raaen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top