Does 44.1k matter or should I do 96k?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DAS19
  • Start date Start date
D

DAS19

New member
I was wondering if the difference in quality was really a difference and if I should recording in 96khz. Will it bulk my recordings up becuase they sound kinda dry and lofi on 41.1k

Thanks
Dave
 
you should definitley search on this matter. it has been discussed in depth, with charts, graphs, negative rep, fights, and bloodbaths.

there is a killer thread somewhere, and the verdict was, dont waste your time if you are doing it at home.. it really cant benefit you all that much, if at all, (at this level anyway)
 
It will certainly bulk up your hard drive with all the extra space it will eat up!
 
Sample rate isn't the reason you're not satisfied with how your recordings sound.

It could be many things, but if a recording sounds poor at 44.1, it isn't going to sound any better at 96 or 192 for that matter.
 
I have to agree that with the level of most home recordings, I don't think 96k is worth the extra horsepower you will need to mix.
 
Yeah I realzied that it makes the wav files really big. Alright idk im thinking about just paying to get my stuff recorded becuase my stuff isnt good enough for how I want my album to sound. Sometimes I can get relaly good recordings and sometimes I cant. lol I get so fustrated.

Edit: Does everyones recording sound really raw and bad before mixing it?
 
DAS19 said:
Edit: Does everyones recording sound really raw and bad before mixing it?
Click to expand...
Here's a useful acronym you need to absorb right now: GIGO.

It stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out.

One of the keys to getting good results it to make the initial recording sound as good as it can. There's only so much you can do to a bad recording. Getting the initial capture sounding like you want it to is key in the final result.
 
It's funny my boss was doing some experimenting with this last week with some mastered mixdowns one at 24 bit/44.1khz and the other at 24 bit/192khz.


He had given me and serveral other people a copy for opinons of a in both formats using all the same setting on the effects and processors were identical and compatible at both 44.1khz and 192khz.

Guess which one had better quality sound. Everybody involved had pick the 44.1 khz. For some reason it sounded more detail and felt better then 192khz.


I was totally surprise at the result, but when you think about it carefully it wasn't that surprising at all.

The problem is that everything was recorded at 44.1khz and then finally one copy was mixdown at 44.1khz and the other 192khz. We think basically the reason why 192khz didn't sound better was because of double sample conversion one to upsample from 192khz to have all the master effects applied and a downwards conversion back 16 bit 44.1khz so it could be heard back on red book audio format.

Pershaps the only way to truly benefit from a high sampling rate is to record and mix everything at that higher rate. Otherwise once you start upsample and downward sample it can really start bluring the fine details of a composition alot.

It kinda like watching HDTV on a channel that not HDTV compatible the image start looking choppy instead of smooth and crispy with lots of detail.

Does that help?
 
Maybe I just have high expectations. I want to get that pro studio sound in my home studio lol maybe im just unrealistic.

I envy this other guy that has 2 isolation rooms in his house and does amazing recordings I dont knwo hwo he does it. Hes not even really into recording that much. Maybe he gets a good sound becase of his isolation rooms maybe he just knows waht hes doing lol hes 17 and his recordings are sooo good.

Listen to his music www.myspace.com/goot www.myspace.com/gooterrecords
 
DAS19 said:
Maybe I just have high expectations. I want to get that pro studio sound in my home studio lol maybe im just unrealistic.

I envy this other guy that has 2 isolation rooms in his house and does amazing recordings I dont knwo hwo he does it. Hes not even really into recording that much. Maybe he gets a good sound becase of his isolation rooms maybe he just knows waht hes doing lol hes 17 and his recordings are sooo good.

Listen to his music www.myspace.com/goot www.myspace.com/gooterrecords
Click to expand...

It's certainly a combination of things that makes good sound.

1. Having a good arrangement. If you're making electronic type music such as rap/trip hop/dance beats etc. Good tracking/editing/arrangement skills are essential.

If your recording a rock band and recording with alot of mics then you need to develop good recording techniques. Ideally everything instrument should have it's own track like guitar on one channel and bass on another. Except for maybe drums you could end up using alot of different mics.

2. Which brings me to my next point. Is having reasonably good recording equipment I think most people use digital nowadays so you need a sound card with good ad/da converters.

There are probably a ton of good quality sound cards for relatively cheap now. I just happen to use an Aardvark 24/96 card and I like it alot. Unfortunely Aardvark has gone out of business since I bought one.

24 bit / 44.1khz is pretty standard these days it shouldn't be hard to find one.


If you're using mics you should have a good set of reasonably good quality mics to use and good micing techinques.
http://www.yourfriendpaul.com/MicPrime/MicrophonePrimer.html
http://www.nickspicks.com/faq-stereoplacement.htm


3. Having a good mixing room with flat monitors with and a good set of ears for mixing. Is definite a plus and will undoubly make you life alot easier when you actually start mixing more.

Here's a list of books that have help me alot in the past:
Modern Recording Techniques, Sixth Edition by David Miles Huber and Robert E. Runstein

The Mixing Engineer's Handbook, Second Edition by Bobby Owsinski
The Mastering Engineer's Handbook (Mix Pro Audio Series) by Bobby Owsinski

Mastering Audio: The Art and the Science by Bob Katz

Master Handbook of Acoustics by F. Alton Everest
Sound Studio Construction on a Budget by F. Alton Everest

Sound on Sound - good music subscribition

Dance Music Manual: Toys, Tools and Techniques by Rick Snoman

If you look on the web you can find a ton of material on all these topics. I just perfer to read from books easier on the eyes I think.


There difinitely alot of things that go into a good recording these are usually consider the most important things to cover in my opinon.
 
Last edited:
jmarques said:
We think basically the reason why 192khz didn't sound better was because of double sample conversion one to upsample from 192khz to have all the master effects applied and a downwards conversion back 16 bit 44.1khz so it could be heard back on red book audio format.

Pershaps the only way to truly benefit from a high sampling rate is to record and mix everything at that higher rate. Otherwise once you start upsample and downward sample it can really start bluring the fine details of a composition alot.
Click to expand...

BINGO! :)
 
Beck said:
If you can’t make a hit record with a Tascam or a Fostex,
then you’re not going to able to do it with a Studer or Otari!
-David Mellor
Sound on Sound - JAN 1993
Click to expand...
Ah, Beck, I've been waiting for you to come back with that sig quote, I just forgot who used it in their sig.

I have been wanting to paraphrase it for this very topic, in fact....

If you can’t make a good recording with a sample rate of 44.1k,
then you’re not going to able to do it with a sample rate or 88k, 96k or 128k.

There are so, so many far more important things in the audio production process than sample rate that it's not worth even worrying about. Once one can absolutely push the recording quality to the point where it's actually being limited by sample rate - where everything else is done so extremely well that the sample rate is actually the main culprit holding the quality back, then you can worry about increasing sample rate.

But there is not a person on this entire BBS - including the most experienced of the pros with the best of gear - who can confidently claim to be able to hit that level of performance on a regular basis. There's almost always some other weak variable somewhere else in the long, long equation that renders the effect of sample rate completely academic.

And even in the perfect world where such a summit is reached, even the absolute best engineers and producers in the industry can't agree on whether higher sample rates actually sound any better anyway. The arguments back and forth are legendary.

So, add it all up, and what's the point of even worrying about it? Just record at 44.1/24, be done with it, and move on to something more important like getting the performance right and the tracking technique right.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Ah, Beck, I've been waiting for you to come back with that sig quote, I just forgot who used it in their sig.

I have been wanting to paraphrase it for this very topic, in fact....

If you can’t make a good recording with a sample rate of 44.1k,
then you’re not going to able to do it with a sample rate or 88k, 96k or 128k...
Click to expand...

Well said... :)
 
Technolust and bigger is better syndrome strikes!!!! :p

Probably the only thing helped by mondo high sample rates is limiting and compression because of look ahead capabilities. And that is probably a very small difference. Allot of masterng engineers do seem to like up sampling things so there must be some benefit. That said, most people don't realize that during A/D and D/A there is oversampling taking place anyhow.
This is an interesting read on the subject......:

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_world_above/
 
DAS19 said:
I was wondering if the difference in quality was really a difference and if I should recording in 96khz. Will it bulk my recordings up becuase they sound kinda dry and lofi on 41.1k

Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

I have done the old try it method. I did recordings at 44.1, 48 and 96.

I mixed it and played it. No one including me could tell a difference between 48 and 96, but a few did notice the difference between 44 and 48. It is mainly in the cymbal sound.
I stick at 48 myself for tracking and mixdown to 44.1.

I might add I only do 24 bit recording which does sound better that 16 bit for everything.
 
DAS19 said:
Edit: Does everyones recording sound really raw and bad before mixing it?
Click to expand...
Sometimes mine does yeah. Its all about taking alot of time to test record different mic set ups/tone controls for amps etc. Just try out every possible way and record them all. Im sure you will find what works and what doesnt after a while.

Eck
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Ah, Beck, I've been waiting for you to come back with that sig quote, I just forgot who used it in their sig.

I have been wanting to paraphrase it for this very topic, in fact....

If you can’t make a good recording with a sample rate of 44.1k,
then you’re not going to able to do it with a sample rate or 88k, 96k or 128k.

There are so, so many far more important things in the audio production process than sample rate that it's not worth even worrying about. Once one can absolutely push the recording quality to the point where it's actually being limited by sample rate - where everything else is done so extremely well that the sample rate is actually the main culprit holding the quality back, then you can worry about increasing sample rate.

But there is not a person on this entire BBS - including the most experienced of the pros with the best of gear - who can confidently claim to be able to hit that level of performance on a regular basis. There's almost always some other weak variable somewhere else in the long, long equation that renders the effect of sample rate completely academic.

And even in the perfect world where such a summit is reached, even the absolute best engineers and producers in the industry can't agree on whether higher sample rates actually sound any better anyway. The arguments back and forth are legendary.

So, add it all up, and what's the point of even worrying about it? Just record at 44.1/24, be done with it, and move on to something more important like getting the performance right and the tracking technique right.

G.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with that other than the fact that equipment does not make great recordings, people do. Equipment is just the tools to do so. Great equipment exists for a reason and to deny that reason would be foolish.

TASCAMS or Studers don't make hit records, people do. People choose the tools to make hit records period. It just so happens that hit records are played on the radio, sold in stores with advertising backed by record companies that go to pro studios who have all the pro equipment to make a hit record.

So, in the home recording scenario, it is unlikely a hit record will come out of your bedroom, so use what you can afford and have fun. Fun is what it is all about, is it not?

You can sit around saving money for your whole life and never record one single note waiting for that great studio.
 
In a perfect world, with the perfect equipment, and the perfect performance, 96khz would be better than 44.1. It's just basically like resolution of a picture or taking a picture at 1 megapixel or 6 megapixels. Sure some of us cannot tell the difference. however you'll probably end up starting to hear more of some a poor performance etc. Of course at the studio we record actually at 24/44.1 for music, and for film we go higher, for more detail or resolution of course. The subject is really arguable by all sides, and there's really no absolute correct answer. Some would say downsampling from 96khz to redbook 44.1 you still keep "something" there that you had at 96khz. Others say that it's better to record at 88. I personally could care less because of what SouthSide said is true. The top engineers that go for high sample rates, are basically arguing that the human ear, can only hear 20-20khz right, and of course double that for Nyquist, and you'll still be prone to some aliasing, at 192khz, you get a VERY detailed picture of sound... well very detailed in this day and age, that includes all the things that we can't hear, but regardless, it was part of the 'perfect' performance. and they want to preserve that. Something like that....
 
MadAudio said:
Here's a useful acronym you need to absorb right now: GIGO.

It stands for Garbage In, Garbage Out.

One of the keys to getting good results it to make the initial recording sound as good as it can. There's only so much you can do to a bad recording. Getting the initial capture sounding like you want it to is key in the final result.
Click to expand...

This is Fact! Pay attention.
 
Mindset said:
In a perfect world, with the perfect equipment, and the perfect performance, 96khz would be better than 44.1. It's just basically like resolution of a picture or taking a picture at 1 megapixel or 6 megapixels. Sure some of us cannot tell the difference. however you'll probably end up starting to hear more of some a poor performance etc. Of course at the studio we record actually at 24/44.1 for music, and for film we go higher, for more detail or resolution of course. ....
Click to expand...
It's more like taking a picture with a range from 100 to 1000 nanometers. Since the Rho, Gamma and Beta sensors in our eyes can't detect anything outside the visual spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers), using computer power to record any of the infrared or ultraviolet information is flapping your wings in a vacuum. In simpler words, a waste.

Humans cannot hear above 20,000, so recording above 44.1 is also flapping your wings in a vacuum. It's all about whether or not you believe the science or the bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top