96kHz versus 41.1kHz

  • Thread starter Thread starter ecktronic
  • Start date Start date
ecktronic

ecktronic

Mixing and Mastering.
I recorded at 96kHz (24bit) today for the first time. I wasnt sure if I could notice a difference as I was recording drums and was using a better drum kit than usual.

I used a Yamaha 02R 96 with a Digi 192 unit.
I used 57s, 58s, NT2s, C414s, D112s to mic the kit.

Should I get a better quality, recording at 96kHz. Also I can only mix at 64kHz max. What should I listen out for?

Sorry for all the silly questions, but im intreaged.
And do the big pros use higher sample rates?

Eck
 
You probably won't hear much of a difference. I can only hear a very slight difference (sometimes) when I A/B things that were recorded both ways. I don't bother with it.

I figure that if it's debatable (and it is hotly debated), it can't be a big enough difference to justify The hard drive space and processing hit.

There isn't a big debate about the difference between a hamburger and a garden hose because there is an obvious difference.

BTW 24 bit makes a big difference over 16 bit.
 
At least on mine converter (M audio audiophile 192), I have a better sound on high sample rates.
I did some tests, playing an acoustic guitar (line), and changes sample rates(44.1 to higher samples). More clean and better stereo image on 88, 96, 176 and 192 Khz.
No technical explanations, sorry, I´m not an engineer. And the difference I felt are not only in frequencies above 22khz (´cause I can´t hear it).
My ears were the " judge " , it simply works better to me.

Ciro
 
The real test is whether there's a sonic benefit after converting to 44.1 to burn CDs, assuming that's your end media. The SRC process tends to taketh back what the higher sample rate giveth. But that's not an absolute, opinions and experience vary on this. I suggest you do a search on the subject as it has been thoroughly debated, and also that you do your own test that includes the sample rate conversion down to 44.1 vs just going with 44.1 throughout the process.
 
ecktronic said:
Should I get a better quality, recording at 96kHz. Also I can only mix at 64kHz max.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhhh....I don't get it. :confused:
 
CIRO said:
At least on mine converter (M audio audiophile 192), I have a better sound on high sample rates.
I did some tests, playing an acoustic guitar (line), and changes sample rates(44.1 to higher samples). More clean and better stereo image on 88, 96, 176 and 192 Khz.
No technical explanations, sorry, I´m not an engineer. And the difference I felt are not only in frequencies above 22khz (´cause I can´t hear it).
My ears were the " judge " , it simply works better to me.

Ciro
Click to expand...

Nothing magic at play there, very high frequencies (18-20kHz) are slightly attenuated at 44.1, that could affect your perception of the clarity of a stereo image. Somewhere there is a long thread were I documented sample rate differences . . . but I'm kind of tired tonight :o
 
The real question you have to ask yourself is: "Is the tiny bit of perceived improvement worth massive file sizes, far reduced plug-in ability and massive computer bog-down???"

I'll stick with 24/44.1.....
 
mshilarious said:
Nothing magic at play there, very high frequencies (18-20kHz) are slightly attenuated at 44.1, that could affect your perception of the clarity of a stereo image. Somewhere there is a long thread were I documented sample rate differences . . . but I'm kind of tired tonight :o
Click to expand...

I´m tired too... :D
Glen proves me (and all here),with numbers that i´m "technically wrong", but I still trust my ears ..

(and even with "downsample", is better to record on high sample rates... to me...)

Nite

Ciro
 
with mics that only record up to 20K and speakers that only play up to 20k...not a whole lot.

i don't have anything that exceeds 20..so i stick to 88. i don't want to go to 192 for the reasons already mentioned about space and playback
 
By far, the greatest benefits of a high sample rate are when you originally encode at that rate. Up sampling from a lower to higher rate will not create anymore information than was encoded at the original rate. It will however, spread that same originally encoded data out into more discrete steps, which can be very usefull in applying dynamic processes which use look ahead in there side chain detector.



How do I know this , you ask? Because I slept at a holiday inn last night!!!!! :D :p
 
Farview said:
BTW 24 bit makes a big difference over 16 bit.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. IF you are going to apply DSP to the track, then I agree. If not, I doubt the average person could tell the difference.
 
Woah. Nice response. Some good points in there.
I didnt actually notice much of a jump up in my file sizes, from 44.1 to 96. But I suppose at 192 or above, the files seizes would start to get pretty big and eat up alot of cpu.

Eck
 
Ford Van said:
Well, sort of. IF you are going to apply DSP to the track, then I agree. If not, I doubt the average person could tell the difference.
Click to expand...
You would be hard pressed not to apply dsp to a track. Plus you don't have to worry about running your recording levels as hot.
 
ecktronic said:
Woah. Nice response. Some good points in there.
I didnt actually notice much of a jump up in my file sizes, from 44.1 to 96. But I suppose at 192 or above, the files seizes would start to get pretty big and eat up alot of cpu.

Eck
Click to expand...
Your files should be a little over twice the size. You might want to look again.
 
IronFlippy said:
Is it bad if I can actually understand all of that? At 3 in the morning? Should I change my major from Sound Recording to physics? (please tell me the answer is no)
Click to expand...

please teach it to me! :eek:
'cause that paper gives me headaches everytime I try and work through it. Not only that, but the Fourier and similar formulas just confuse me. But it's been a long time since I've even touched stuff like that and I think I'll have to start from the beginning again to just remember what the symbols mean.

Somewhere there is a long thread were I documented sample rate differences . . . but I'm kind of tired tonight
Click to expand...

https://homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=188330
starting on page 2
still one of my favorite threads I like to refer back to :)
 
1 minute of 44.1kHz/16 bit stereo audio takes up roughly 10 MB of space
1 minute of 44.1kHz/24 bit stereo audio takes up roughly 15 MB of space
1 minute of 96kHz/24 bit stereo audio takes up roughly 33 MB of space.

Math is fun.

Like Cello_pudding pointed out, your monitoring setup can be a limiting factor in your comparison as well. It's like trying to test your hearing on computer speakers and thinking you can't hear anything below 50 Hz (just throwing that number out there) except the real problem is the speakers can't reproduce anything below that anyway.
 
IronFlippy said:
Is it bad if I can actually understand all of that? At 3 in the morning? Should I change my major from Sound Recording to physics? (please tell me the answer is no)
Click to expand...


In my program, we had to take a lot of physics and could get minors from the physics (microelectronics) department. Most people did, including me. Music and Sound and Physics and Math are all very related.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top