Sample rates....

[gabereding]

Hey,
I wasn't sure where to post this, so here goes....

If a CD runs at a sample rate of 44.1 khz, and a DVD runs at 48, why would anyone need to record at 96 or 192 khz?
Well, thanks in advance!
-Gabe

 

[sixways]

To have the highest quality possible going in.

6

 

[Dr Biscuits]

It's kind of like shooting on film for a movie that's only going to be shown on television... ok, actually that's a bad analogy for a lot of reasons, but still...
You keep everything as high a quality you can for as long as you can so that any effects you apply, bounces you do, etc stay at a high quality... and the other bonus is that you will have a high quality master to un-archive when popular media raises it's standards... we won't be using to 44.1/16 for ever!

 

[Massive Master]

Keeping in mind that somewhere around 80% of full-time professionals record at the target rate in 24-bit.

You can argue word lengths forever - I wish *everything* was in 24-bit.

But if you can't get 44.1kHz to sound amazing, going up to 192 isn't going to help.

 

[Dr Biscuits]

True, 48/24 is definitely the norm in TV/film, at least....
And MM is right - more samples of a crappy sound to begin with is just... more samples of a crappy sound....

 

[cpl_crud]

The theory goes that if you record at higher sample rates, then you will capture some of the ultrasonic harmonics that make the music "feel" better.
However, considering that 90% of microphones and speakers are designed to fall off above 20kHz, you're probably not going to notice. But, as others have said, you may as well have a higer sample rate if you can, and those extra samples better be of good material.
And recording at the target rate negates the need for dithering.

 

[gabereding]

Thanks guys!

Hey,
thanks for the answers guys!
I guess I understand the general idea.
Thanks again!
-Gabe