MessianicDreams
New member
So here's the deal:
I track and mix at 48khz. I do this because it offers a slightly better detail to the sound, as well as allowing for slightly lesss brutal digital filtering, as you can now have frequencies up to 24khz instead of 22khz with 44.1khz SR.
But are there added benefits to recording at higher sample rates? I've heard that certain people can hear a difference up to about 96khz, but above that not really. I can hear people asking "but why, MD? why would you ever want to record higher than 48khz?". Well, recording up to 96khz allows for more higher frequencies (by that i mean >24khz, as 96khz allows recording freqencies of up to 48khz), and so less brutual digital filtering needs to be applied.
Why record frequencies that you cannot hear? Well, what about phase and frequency relationships? Surely all the HF information is going to have some sort of effect on frequencies in our hearing range, right? so by recording at 192khz, you'd be included a lot more HF information, which although they can't be heard or reproduced will have some sort of effect on what we are hearing.
I heard someone once say that a higher sample rate offers a better representation of the analogue signal, and whilst this is true, it does not offer a better representation of analogue recording mediums, which are actually pretty poor at recording HFs (the domains, due to their small size, can sometimes magnetically "cancel" each other out, which results in a lower HF content and adds to why tape feels "warm").
That's my thesis so far. Can anyone comment on this? is there some major factor which i have not thought about?
I track and mix at 48khz. I do this because it offers a slightly better detail to the sound, as well as allowing for slightly lesss brutal digital filtering, as you can now have frequencies up to 24khz instead of 22khz with 44.1khz SR.
But are there added benefits to recording at higher sample rates? I've heard that certain people can hear a difference up to about 96khz, but above that not really. I can hear people asking "but why, MD? why would you ever want to record higher than 48khz?". Well, recording up to 96khz allows for more higher frequencies (by that i mean >24khz, as 96khz allows recording freqencies of up to 48khz), and so less brutual digital filtering needs to be applied.
Why record frequencies that you cannot hear? Well, what about phase and frequency relationships? Surely all the HF information is going to have some sort of effect on frequencies in our hearing range, right? so by recording at 192khz, you'd be included a lot more HF information, which although they can't be heard or reproduced will have some sort of effect on what we are hearing.
I heard someone once say that a higher sample rate offers a better representation of the analogue signal, and whilst this is true, it does not offer a better representation of analogue recording mediums, which are actually pretty poor at recording HFs (the domains, due to their small size, can sometimes magnetically "cancel" each other out, which results in a lower HF content and adds to why tape feels "warm").
That's my thesis so far. Can anyone comment on this? is there some major factor which i have not thought about?
higher sample rates. Work on getting the most out of the more that reasonable technology we have now and quit worrying about scoring the "wonder tool" "magic bullet" sample rate thingy. 
