lumpong_bayag
New member
can somone please send me a short guitar tracks recorded at 192khz? cause im planning to buy m-audio delta 192khz, dunno if its wort
thanks
thanks
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
??????
Lemme let you in on a little secret (which is anything but a secret)...
Probably 98% of people that have the capability of recording at 192kHz don't actually record at 192kHz.
Around 80% of full-time industry professionals tend to record at the target rate (44.1kHz for audio, 48kHz for video).
Add to that the fact that the converters are probably going to have the *least* sonic impact (or at least, they *should* have the least sonic impact) of anything in the chain.
Lemme let you in on a little secret (which is anything but a secret)...
Probably 98% of people that have the capability of recording at 192kHz don't actually record at 192kHz.
Around 80% of full-time industry professionals tend to record at the target rate (44.1kHz for audio, 48kHz for video).
Add to that the fact that the converters are probably going to have the *least* sonic impact (or at least, they *should* have the least sonic impact) of anything in the chain.
Last edited:
antichef
pornk rock
- meaning only 2% of those who can actually do record at 192kHz - and that number might be high
- most "prosumer" grade equipment allows for 192 these days - not sure why - maybe because the underlying chips support it, and the vendors don't want to get lost in the hype storm. You'll put a *big* load on your system and hard drives that won't be associated with a noticeable improvement in quality over the lower rates, imo. That said, I use 96kHz, but that's just because I have multiple converters that for some reason only work together well at that rate.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Yikes - Corrected my last - I have a problem with the board on my MacBook where the cursor can jump on you...
98% *don't* record @ 192kHz.
98% *don't* record @ 192kHz.
acidrock
GO PACKERS!
But what about the people who can hear the difference?
mattr
Resident moody teenager
But what about the people who can hear the difference?
P.l.a.c.e.b.o.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Here's where some of this stuff gets people in trouble --
I've done blind tests with a lot of people using high quality converters with typical results (50/50 at best).
Last week, I had a client in (won't mention any names - he might be here - I don't remember) who swore his ("eh" quality) converters sounded much better at 96kHz than they did at 48kHz. Without getting into the audio vs. video rates, I more or less brushed it off - UNTIL I had to open a spectrum editor to get out a couple errant clicks & pops...
Visually - it was amazing. An almost unbelievable, freakish amount of distortion above 24kHz. With most converters, you just don't see much of anything at all above 20-ish kHz. With these, there was almost as much going on above as below.
I didn't have the opportunity to "A/B" these - But I'd bet that with that much "schmutz" going on above, there could very easily be artifacts in the audible range as well.
Argument would decide if it was "better" or not -- But I'd imagine there could very well be a difference. Granted, in this case, that "difference" would likely be artifacts of an insane amount of distortion...
I've done blind tests with a lot of people using high quality converters with typical results (50/50 at best).
Last week, I had a client in (won't mention any names - he might be here - I don't remember) who swore his ("eh" quality) converters sounded much better at 96kHz than they did at 48kHz. Without getting into the audio vs. video rates, I more or less brushed it off - UNTIL I had to open a spectrum editor to get out a couple errant clicks & pops...
Visually - it was amazing. An almost unbelievable, freakish amount of distortion above 24kHz. With most converters, you just don't see much of anything at all above 20-ish kHz. With these, there was almost as much going on above as below.
I didn't have the opportunity to "A/B" these - But I'd bet that with that much "schmutz" going on above, there could very easily be artifacts in the audible range as well.
Argument would decide if it was "better" or not -- But I'd imagine there could very well be a difference. Granted, in this case, that "difference" would likely be artifacts of an insane amount of distortion...
Paulie Jay
New member
Could I just ask a n00b eq question regarding this point (rather than starting a new thread). Would there be any benefit, in this situation, in cutting everything above 24kHz? I'm guessing that we don't hear anything that high, but would it free up some processing bits if it wasn't there? If YES, should I low-pass from 24kHz as I'm recording a track to prevent it from being captured? Or does it not matter so much because it won't be heard?
B
BrentDomann
Has a Dedicated Member.
Paulie Jay, I'm certainly no expert, but as I understand it the technology involved in recording and reproducing CD-quality sound (specifically low-pass filtering for anti-aliasing and the use of a 44.1kHz sampling rate) compensates for artifacts above the audible range. Whatever your sample rate, half of that rate is the frequency beyond which a digital recording cannot capture. This is called the Nyquist frequency. Just to make things more certain and avoid aliasing, your hardware has a lowpass filter set to filter out frequencies above the Nyquist frequency. In other words, it's built into the hardware and the specs for the medium.
Thus you'd only need to worry about extra filtering if you had more detail in the high-end that if not filtered by hardware, would simply not be captured at 44.1kHz. If you're recording at a much higher sample rate than 44.1kHz, you'd be capturing what little escapes the normal hardware filters but would ordinarily not make it to your digital file because of the [intended] limitations of the CD sampling rate. Maybe some of the companies who produce 192kHz converters (especially the crappy ones) expect such a sampling rate to so far exceed the audible range that they build in absolutely no anti-aliasing filters, and so they just let the quantization errors from signals exceeding the Nyquist frequency happen. In that case, you might want to add a filter, but it's probably not necessary in terms of what you hear. The problematic distortion Massive Master mentioned might be from quantization error or it might just be too much activity. I'd blame quantization error but I'm not sure how much activity there really is above 92kHz. That's an insanely high audio frequency! Hell, I don't even know where you'd get a low-pass filter that could be set that high.
To address your question about bits, it's not going to save you any bits. The word-length (bit size) only gives you your resolution between mimimum and maximum signal, and is tuncated by whatever your noise floor is. So if your you're in 16-bit, you theoretically have 2^16 possible "readings" of signal amplitude (not sound pressure). That's 65,536 (in practical use it's half of that because you store signals representing rarefaction as well as compression in sound waves). In 24-bit, you have 16,777,216 possible readings. Whether you're recording silence or white noise up to the maximum frequency you can, every word your computer stores will have 16 or 24 bits. The signal level only will determine which ones are ones and which are zeros.
Recording above 44.1/48 is almost always a waste of resources.
Thus you'd only need to worry about extra filtering if you had more detail in the high-end that if not filtered by hardware, would simply not be captured at 44.1kHz. If you're recording at a much higher sample rate than 44.1kHz, you'd be capturing what little escapes the normal hardware filters but would ordinarily not make it to your digital file because of the [intended] limitations of the CD sampling rate. Maybe some of the companies who produce 192kHz converters (especially the crappy ones) expect such a sampling rate to so far exceed the audible range that they build in absolutely no anti-aliasing filters, and so they just let the quantization errors from signals exceeding the Nyquist frequency happen. In that case, you might want to add a filter, but it's probably not necessary in terms of what you hear. The problematic distortion Massive Master mentioned might be from quantization error or it might just be too much activity. I'd blame quantization error but I'm not sure how much activity there really is above 92kHz. That's an insanely high audio frequency! Hell, I don't even know where you'd get a low-pass filter that could be set that high.
To address your question about bits, it's not going to save you any bits. The word-length (bit size) only gives you your resolution between mimimum and maximum signal, and is tuncated by whatever your noise floor is. So if your you're in 16-bit, you theoretically have 2^16 possible "readings" of signal amplitude (not sound pressure). That's 65,536 (in practical use it's half of that because you store signals representing rarefaction as well as compression in sound waves). In 24-bit, you have 16,777,216 possible readings. Whether you're recording silence or white noise up to the maximum frequency you can, every word your computer stores will have 16 or 24 bits. The signal level only will determine which ones are ones and which are zeros.
Recording above 44.1/48 is almost always a waste of resources.
Last edited:
Paulie Jay
New member
Cool - that makes sense.
I too have the capability of going all the way up to 192kHz, but I haven't really bothered with it yet, chiefly because of the things I've read here on this forum.
I too have the capability of going all the way up to 192kHz, but I haven't really bothered with it yet, chiefly because of the things I've read here on this forum.
TheGuitarMan
New member
To put it simply, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Higher sample rates don't necessarily sound better. All converters are different in that regard.
Don't waste the hard drive space.
lumpong_bayag
New member
i need 192khz audio to try in heavy time stretching if it will minimize the digital artifacts. I saw some video tutorial he convert the audio to high sample rate before doing 10x audio stretched, and i read somewhere that 44,100 means snapshot per second, so im thinking about sample rate=fps in video
Whatever it is im going to A/B it...
or can someone please put a 192khz and 44khz audio stretched by 2x so we can all A/B it...
Whatever it is im going to A/B it...
or can someone please put a 192khz and 44khz audio stretched by 2x so we can all A/B it...
lumpong_bayag
New member
anyone?
