96k or 192k?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Purple Pig
  • Start date Start date
TimOBrien said:
You might want to try 88.2khz IF you are doing sound with extremely wide dynamic contenct - very soft jazz or quiet orchestral or choral pieces.
Click to expand...

The sample rate has nothing to do with the dynamic range. You're thinking bit depth. The bit depth represents the total number of volume possibilities, thus determining your level of dynamic range.

The sample rate represents the number of data points for each frequency. The reason 44.1 is common is because of the Nyquist Theory that states you need at least 2 data points to accurately represent a waveform, a peak and a valley. So at 44.1, you would get at least 2 data points for frequencies around 20khz which is the highest anyone can hear. Theoretically the higher the sample rate, the more accurately the digital device can represent that frequency and the "better" it will sound. But 192khz is just a pain in the ass to work with and most people can't tell an audible difference.

Personally, I like 88.2 because you get 4 data points on the highest frequencies and it's easy math on the converters to bounce down to 44.1 for a redbook cd. But the more important question is 16 bit versus 24 bit. That makes a huge audible difference and I ALWAYS record at 24 bit.
 
Can you say Dither...

No matter what the fidelity at your raw tracks phase... it's the final output for the CD that is presented to the market.

Down converting is a mathmatical calculation the injects noise to make everything add up... you're only as good as your weakest link... 88.2 does simplify the math and makes the dithering process more transparent... but it's not buying you much...

Like anything else, some converters have a better dithering algorithm than others... but when working with Pro-sumer converters you're probably much better off recording at your target frequency.

If you're analog summing to your master... never mind
 
Massive Master said:
Upon further investigation, even with the obscenely high sample rates available and incredibly cheap digital storage, you'll still find that around 70-80% of full-time industry professionals record at the target rate -- 44.1k for audio, 48k for video.

With good converters, if you can't make an absolutely stellar recording at 44.1kHz, upping your sample rate isn't going to help - I guarantee it.
Click to expand...

44.1kHz is the target rate for a good reason. Now I don't have a ton of knowledge in the recording field (but I'm learning fast) - but I do have a decent physics background.

The Nyquist sampling theory states that an analog signal can be reproduced without error (i.e. perfect reproduction) if the sampling rate is at least twice the highest frequency in the signal. Since the human ear can't hear frequencies above 20kHz sampling audio using a sampling rate above 40kHz will provide a perfect copy.

Why use more than the ear can hear? You're just wasting cpu and hard drive space.
 
Read the links posted above and you'll realize that there is useful DETECTABLE information above 20 kHz.

Also, look up the Geoff Emerick story on how he detected a 54kHz peak due to miswired transformers on a console.
 
lumstar said:
...Since the human ear can't hear frequencies above 20kHz sampling audio using a sampling rate above 40kHz will provide a perfect copy...
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100% but you are being real generous with what the human ear can hear. I just went through a bunch of audio tests with an audiologist and found out they only test you up to 8 kHz.

I still record and process at 24/44.1 for the extra headroom though.

Mofo Pro - I can say dither but it don't mean didley :D
 
MOFO Pro said:
Can you say Dither...

Down converting is a mathmatical calculation the injects noise to make everything add up... you're only as good as your weakest link... 88.2 does simplify the math and makes the dithering process more transparent... but it's not buying you much...

Like anything else, some converters have a better dithering algorithm than others... but when working with Pro-sumer converters you're probably much better off recording at your target frequency.

If you're analog summing to your master... never mind
Click to expand...

Dithering is for reducing bit depth, not sample rate.
NYMorningstar said:
I agree with you 100% but you are being real generous with what the human ear can hear. I just went through a bunch of audio tests with an audiologist and found out they only test you up to 8 kHz.
Click to expand...

Didn't investigate the Geoff Emerick story, eh?

Also, has anyone read Bob Katz work during which he talks about the filtering of supposedly inaudible frequencies creating noise at audio frequencies?

There are many other studies that indicate that frequncies above the human range of perception interact with audible frequencies in a percievable way.
 
craigmorris74 said:
Didn't investigate the Geoff Emerick story, eh?
Click to expand...

Actually, I went and looked it up. There are a couple of alternate theories as well. It is also possible that there was some sort of "placebo" effect happening here that Emerick though it sounded better after the 3 channels had been terminated simply because his mind tricked him.

Continuing on this path (for the sake of argument) do your monitors or the average home speaker or amplifier reproduce signals at 50kHz? Will your mics pick them up at a level above the noise floor in order to record them? With current technology there is no real need to record above 44.1 from what I have seen. When we can record and reproduce sounds above 20kHz accurately, then it will be time to sample them.
 
One thing is certain - If you can't make an absolutely stunning, stellar, award-winning, world-class audiophile recording at 44.1kHz, it isn't going to make a darn bit of different if you switch over to 384kHz.

If you can't get the "human range" stuff down incredibly well, no one is going to care about the dog-whistle and bat stuff.
 
Massive Master said:
One thing is certain - If you can't make an absolutely stunning, stellar, award-winning, world-class audiophile recording at 44.1kHz, it isn't going to make a darn bit of different if you switch over to 384kHz.

If you can't get the "human range" stuff down incredibly well, no one is going to care about the dog-whistle and bat stuff.
Click to expand...

I think that is a statement we can all agree with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top