from 44.1 to 96

[rdfuze]

Is there really an audible difference going from 44.1/24bit to 96khz /24 bit...thinking about making the move..

 

[noisewreck]

Depends on your converters. I'd say a quality 44.1/48kHz converter sounds much better than a crappy 192kHz one.

 

[Monkey Allen]

What do you mean by converters? Converters in your software/ recording ap?

 

[noisewreck]

I mean the AD converters (hardware), either standalone or the ones built into the soundcard/audio interface.

 

[bennychico11]

Is there really an audible difference going from 44.1/24bit to 96khz /24 bit...thinking about making the move..

if you can't record quality stuff at 44.1kHz, 16 bit....you ain't gonna do shit at 92kHz/24 bit.

set it at 48kHz, 24 bit...and just forget it.
I can't believe how much people worry about this sample rate stuff.

 

[rdfuze]

i would say apogee converters for all conversions...how bout then

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Worry about the music, not the hardware.

Think of it like a digital camera. What good is a 10Mpix, tripleCCD camera going to do you when you're taking a picture of your fat, pimpled sister in overalls in the fog? None. You just get a nice detailed reproduction of a fat pimpled chick in overalls that doesn't have enough sense to come inside and no one wants to look at.

Yet people will stare at an extremely low-resolution Jpeg of Anna Kornikova in a see-through bikini so long they'll put it on their OS dektop. The resolution of the picture is irrelevant in that regard.

But take the original Anna K image taken through a Nikon pro digital camera, and you have quality good enough to sell millions of dollars worth of posters.

The stuff above 48kHz is only worthwhile on recordings that already sound fantastic at 48kHz. An increase in sample rate it not going to make a crappy recording sound any better.

G.

 

[rdfuze]

ok....but are you really competing if everything on the radio sounds recorded at 96khz and you are at 44.1

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

ok....but are you really competing if everything on the radio sounds recorded at 96khz and you are at 44.1

Yes. Why? Because there are too many far more critical points in the recording process than sample rate that will keep one from "competing." Sample rate is far less important, for example, than microphone selection, microphone placement, preamp quality, gain staging, outboard processor quality, signal chain quality, A/D converter quality, and - most importantly - engineering and production technique. If one is lacking in those areas, the difference between 48k and 96k is going to be negligable.

Let me simplify my earlier analogy. Even if you were to get Anna in her infamous see-thorugh bikini and found the perfect location and lighting to shoot the pic, if you are taking the picture on a hazy day with a less-than-steller lens, the fact that you are using a 10Mpix pro digita camera to take the picture will not change the fact that the picture will come out blurry and hazy. In audio, the sample rate is like the resolution of the camera. It will only take a good sharp picture if the light hitting the CCDs are good and sharp. Otherwise it's just taking an accurate picture of a hazy, out-of-focus subject.

There are some here who have in the past said they use 96k and are happy with it and can hear the difference. I put it to them that they can hear the difference in the same way that one can see the difference between the fuzzy picture taken at 10Mpix and one at 6Mpx. Yes, you can see the difference; but who cares?

There is an additional and far more practical matter if you're using a computer workstation and not a dedicated DAW device: 96k is a huge resource hog. Only the highest speed, highest capacity, best configured computers will handle 96k without rapidly bogging down somewhere along the process. At some point one has to ask themselves is it worth it? The answer - until one gets the rest of their signal chain and tecnique up to snuff - is almost always "no".

G.

 

[Lt. Bob]

plus ...... ultimately if it's intended for the masses ...... it's gonna end up 44.1/16 bits anyway

 

[apl]

plus ...... ultimately if it's intended for the masses ...... it's gonna end up 44.1/16 bits anyway

Exactly. The process of converting to 44.1kHz introduces artifacts, so if your final product is going to be a CD anyway, there is no advantage to a higher sampling rate. Using 24 bits is handy because you can record with plenty of dynamic range and not worry about clipping, and changing bit depth is pretty easy for 32bit floating point processors.

Here is a useful article (part 1 of 3, follow the links) on digital signal theory, and here is a great paper explaining that D/A converters don't connect the dots, negating the errant intuitive guess as to how the D/A process works.

There is lots of anecdotal evidence that higher sample rates sound better, but no theoretical justification for that position.

 

[jonnyc]

Nice analogies glen. The simpler version is if the song kicks ass it doesn't matter what sample rate you use, and if the song sucks it doesn't matter what sample rate you use. The music matters not the numbers. At least thats how I always look at it.

 

[bennychico11]

ok....but are you really competing if everything on the radio sounds recorded at 96khz and you are at 44.1

why are you competing? this is music....not a competition. No consumer, listening to an FM signal on his arm radio while taking a jog or in the car during rush hour cares if you recorded at 44.1 or 96.

 

[noisewreck]

^^^ I agree. The same also goes for all the iTunes/iPod toting MP3 downloading masses. Obviously, the masses don't really care about pristine audio as much as your SACD/DVDA pushing marketing reps would have you believe.

 

[hueseph]

Do pro's really record at 96K? I thought that was a myth. Or it could be my ignorance showing.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Do pro's really record at 96K? I thought that was a myth. Or it could be my ignorance showing.

First, define "pro". Do you have to have a couple of platinum records with your name on them to be a "pro", or is a single gold record good enough to rate? Or do you just have to make a living at it to be a "pro" (the standard definition of "professional")? By the third definition, I and many on this board are "pros". But the first definition, the number of "pros" in this world would barely fill a school bus.

Second, whatever your definition, it's erroneous to lump them all into a single group that has only one way to do things. Many "pros" work at 96, yes. But some work at 48, while some even work at 192. Heck, for that matter, some don't even work in digital, they stay in the analog world all the way!

And also remember, in many cases it's not who is doing the work, its where the work is being done. If the studio selected for a project is not set up for 96, then it doesn't matter who's working it, they're not going to be working at 96.

G.

 

[hueseph]

No need to complicate things. What I'm asking is: "Is it common for a profiting studio to work in 96k?". I'm not asking the meaning of life. Just wan't a simple answer. I've never been to a studio that works in 96k.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

No need to complicate things. What I'm asking is: "Is it common for a profiting studio to work in 96k?". I'm not asking the meaning of life. Just wan't a simple answer. I've never been to a studio that works in 96k.

You want a simple answer? "Yes and no."

You want an answer that actually means something, keep reading.

Yes, many "profiting" studios operate in 96k and above. However, since the majorty of "profiting studios" today are smaller independant project studios like the ones that frequent this board, and most of those by far are working at 48k or below, I'd say that most "profiting studios" do not.

It's a complicated world. Simple answers to simple questions are usually wrong.

G.

 

[hueseph]

Well here's my take on it: I don't think I've ever been in a studio that worked at 96k even in larger studios. I think that a studio that supports major labels is more likely to go to 2" reel then do a conversion to masterlink using 96k rather than mess with recording to disc at 96k. The reason being that a studio audiophile will more than likely prefer the sound of tape anyway. The problems that can occur recording to a hard disc at high resolutions far outweigh the benefits of high res data conversions (this may not be true necessarily. Just a point of view). At least when multitracking.

Sure, a different story when mixing down to two tracks but again that would only be benificial if you originally tracked on to tape. Of course I can't exactly confirm this as I haven't nearly been to enough studios but none of the studio's I've been to work in 96k. Yes at least two of them have produced major label projects. Both still use tape. Digital and analogue as well as Protools and Logic.

Just my thoughts. I don't personally believe 96k is worth the hassle or disk space.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't personally believe 96k is worth the hassle or disk space.

On that we're in total agreement.

Any studio equipped with a ProTools HD system has the potential to go up to as much as 192k on the recording side, and by last count there were quite a few such systems installed in studios out there.

Of course just having the capability doesn't mean that every studio exercises it. Some do, some don't. It also doesn't take into account converter size and quality. (FTM, how would you rate a studio that has 96K pipes but records at 48K for some clients/projects and 96K for others with more money?)

Ah, but there I go complicating matters again...

Bottom line, what other people do (whether they're in some nebulous definition of "pro" or not) do has no bearing on anything I do, and it shouldn't have any bearing on what anybody else does either.

G.