regebro
Insane Genious!
Haha. *cough* *snort*Teacher said:
B
Bob's Mods
New member
What I'm hearing in my 96 kHz tracks is a more robustness in the high frequency content. Its almost too digital. It certainly is more crisp that at 44.1 where I need a small amount of eq to compensate. There seem to exist two different flavors or colors, one, a 44dot1 world and the other a 96kHz world. The 44 world sounds smoother to my ears where the 96 world really captures that higher range without compromise.
I should point out that there is another aspect to this and that is each person's hearing will differ some in the upper range too. Its just another factor in this equation which may or may not had been mentioned previously.
The only way to settle this question of the perceived subjective differences of 96 kHz recordings vs 44dot1 is view the result on a spectrum analyzer. I don't happen to have one handy.
Bob
I should point out that there is another aspect to this and that is each person's hearing will differ some in the upper range too. Its just another factor in this equation which may or may not had been mentioned previously.
The only way to settle this question of the perceived subjective differences of 96 kHz recordings vs 44dot1 is view the result on a spectrum analyzer. I don't happen to have one handy.
Bob
Reggie
PutsTheLotionOnItsSkin
I think I'm kinda with that guy that said around 55-60 kHz woulda been an optimal sample rate if things could be changed from the beginning. In my opinion, there is no doubt that 96K sounds better than 44.1k recordings. But I don't think it is necessary to go all the way out to 88.1 or 96k to keep the better sound I perceive. 44.1 comes up just short, but 96 goes way too far and eats up too much processing/disk space. If they had made the CD format 60kHz from the beginning, maybe we wouldn't have people bitching about the "digital sound" anymore. Hindsight is awesome.
regebro
Insane Genious!
nono, we'd just have a 120k debate instead. 
There IS 192k recording gear out there you know...
There IS 192k recording gear out there you know...
B
Bob's Mods
New member
Reggie said:
I agree. This could be the compromise. A way to meet in the middle.
Bob
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
apl said:
I agree with this. I've recorded at different rates than the final product, and mixed at different rates than the final product. in the end, I've always been unhappy with what it sounded like after the sample rate was converted to the final sample rate.
By that I mean it not only sounded worse to my ears, but *different*. It's the different part that bothers me. I do think that the reverb tails sounded different, and also there seemed to be a different eq curve to the whole mix. If I had mixed those projects at those sample rates I would have definitely done things a bit differently.
So, based on my own experiences, I think it is a good idea to mix at the sample rate of the final product.
Or, mix analog and then simply record at the bit and sample rate of the final product. So in that scenario you would record the initial tracks at whatever high resolution you wanted, then mix analog and record both high resolution and 16/44.1 versions.
In fact, I have been thinking about this a lot lately because I have grown tired of the whole digital format upgrading that has been going on for years now. I'm attempting to future proof myself by combining analog and digital gear in my studio. The concept is to record to digital, and mix analog. By doing that all you need to do over the years is basically upgrade or change the recorders you use for your final mixdown. If you want to change your multi-track recorder you can, but only the two track (or surround) recorder of the final mix need be changed.
R
robin watson
New member
You pipped me at the post on that point, SonicA. All this stuff about reverb tails being longer and affected EQ curves: doesn't this all imply that mixing at a different sampling rate is tantamount to mixing on innacurate monitors?
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
robin watson said:
I'm not *exactly* sure what you mean by "pipped me at the post on that point", but I'm hoping it's a good thing.
The analogy to inaccurate monitors is related, but not exact. My point is that by mixing at a different sample rate than the final delivery rate, you are hearing the music differently than it will sound in the finished product. So that will affect your mix decisions. In a way like inaccurate monitors, yes. But different perhaps in the subtlety of it.
I'm not sure about the business of reverb tails being longer. In fact, I have felt like the reverb dissappeared. But I forget exactly what project that was and what rate we were coming from and going to. That all matters.
B
Bob's Mods
New member
SonicAlbert said:
I have been considering the posts in this interesting debate and have come to the same conclusion as Sonic and Apl - that at least at this point in home recording technology its best to record in the final sample rate of the finished product. All the sample rates sound good, there are differences but they all sound good. The software and hardware is available to record DVD-A today but I can imagine the work and time to do it, not to mention the processing power. DVD-A is not yet in every home however. For the majority of us, 44.1 kHz 16 bit is the final medium. Certainly recording at 24 bit is worthwhile. I remember when posters where saying they couldn't hear the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. It took a little ear training and monitoring improvement and now that question seems to be resolved. I know I can hear it.
In conculsion, for us home studio types, if you expect to record DVD-A then your default is 96 kHz. For the current CD standard - 44.1 kHz is where its at.
Bob
Similar threads
