24 bit 96khz vs 24 bit 48 khz (final round)

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:10 pm

I have heard a lot of guys say the music being recorded today punk, rap, pop etc will not take advantage of 96 kHz sample rate.
I tried a few projects at 96k and things sounded better to me
but my machine was overloading.

Makes me want to build a super computer!

What do you guys think, is 96 khz worth it?

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 6:42 pm

24/96 is awesome... I can easily tell the difference. Recording at 44.1 or 48 tends to kill a lot of the presence due to phase shifting caused by frequencies above 20kHz. If you're mixing one or two sources, 48 is fine. But when it comes down to 20+ digital audio tracks being mixed into one stream, the double sample bandwidth allows for more harmonics and more accurate sample values. It's a step closer to analogue. 192 is even better, but it's another one of those this that's is heavily affected by how and what you are mixing.

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 7:10 pm

Most of the studio owners say it's not worth it for them at this time.

I find it makes the difference between digital recordings I can stand and digital recordings that thrill me Smile

, at least with the work I'm doing and the converters I can afford (RME ADI-8 DS).
I record lots of bells, chimes, pianos, vibraphones, fine cymbals, woodblocks, etc., with nice mics and pres, and the difference I'm hearing is tremendous. At 48khz I like my Manley pres, at 96khz I love them.

Although the high end is perhaps the most radical difference, I hear an increase in articulation and texture at all frequencies.
BTW, really I am working at 32:96 in Cubase Wink

If you have really really choice super spendy A/D converters, you may find 48 khz to be more desirable than I find it to be.

The trick is finding quality downsampling if mixing in digital. This can be a problem.
If you're mixing to analog, a good mastering engineer will be able to sample the analog at 44.1 with some amazing converters, and things can sound great.
I'll be sending my analog tape or 24:96 files to Bob Katz, who can handle either with aplomb. :p
Ted

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2002 7:53 pm

Present session storage technology makes running 96k a no-no for me, add to that, much higher back up costs and I am off the "96k fence" and wandering round a free man again, on the 44.1/48 side. For the time being..

Smile

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 8:15 am

Hi guys,

I am a bit of a newbie, so please be gentle!
I am about to aquire a tascam Mx-2424, very exciting, and I was just wondering, given that I will end up on 44.1 anyway (CD) then is there really any overall benefit to 96khz recording except for the engineer mixing down Cool

I ask because I will be recording a jazz group soon, and could do it at 96Khz, but don't want to tie up the extra space if it the improvement does not translate though to the final product

Thanks guys!

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 7:07 pm

How will it be mixed is the important question..

On an analog desk or a digital one?

Only some digital desks can handle 96k.

Let us know...

:w:

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2002 10:44 pm

If you're mixing it on an analog board I would try a test recording at 48k and 96k and decided which I prefer. If you're mixing on digital you may not have much choice but if given the opportunity, I'd do as above but comparing 44.1k and 88.2 instead.

Have fun! :w:

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 12:54 am

Quote:

But when it comes down to 20+ digital audio tracks being mixed into one stream, the double sample bandwidth allows for more harmonics and more accurate sample values.

No it doesn't. There is nothing within the range of human hearing that can be captured at 96kS/s that can't be captured just as accurately at 48kS/s.

I defy anyone to tell the difference between 96kS/s and 48kS/s. Can you hear a difference? Probably, but this isn't because of the difference in sample frequency. It's because of the filters. Brickwall anti-alias filters are very difficult and expensive to impliment at 48kS/s or lower, whereas it's much cheaper to create good filters @ 96kS/s. So at the cheaper end of the market expect to hear a significant improvement running at 96kS/s over 48kS/s. The high end of the market, Prism or DB Tech converters for example, have quality filters @ 48kS/s so don't expect to hear much if any difference between 96kS/s and 48kS/s.

Greg

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 1:21 am

Greg, wouldn't you happen to be a disciple of that hairy weirdo named John Watkinson??? Very Happy

His articles in Studio Sound issues of yore used to be really enjoyables! Wink

:w:

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 5:37 am

Hi guys, thanks for the replies,

I will be mixing down throungh an analogue desk (probably a Midas). But my main question is really more fundamental, surely it does not make any difference what sample rate you take the recording at if it is going to end up at 44.1
:confused:

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 9:02 am

"There is nothing within the range of human hearing that can be captured at 96kS/s that can't be captured just as accurately at 48kS/s.
I defy anyone to tell the difference between 96kS/s and 48kS/s. Can you hear a difference? Probably, but this isn't because of the difference in sample frequency. It's because of the filters. Brickwall anti-alias filters are very difficult and expensive to impliment at 48kS/s or lower, whereas it's much cheaper to create good filters @ 96kS/s. So at the cheaper end of the market expect to hear a significant improvement running at 96kS/s over 48kS/s. The high end of the market, Prism or DB Tech converters for example, have quality filters @ 48kS/s so don't expect to hear much if any difference between 96kS/s and 48kS/s."

Hey Greg.
This is what I've been hearing from Nika Aldrich and others as well, but of course not what I've been hearing from my humble RME box.
I'm hit a ceiling with my PowerBook system where I can only get 10 simultaneous tracks of playback at 32/96 (Cubase 5.1/32). Any less on the bit rate or the sample rate ( I guess I could do 88.2) and the sound suffers quite a bit. This on all those lovely percussion beasties, cymbals gongs pianos vibes especially.
It's the disc that's getting overwhelmed first. I use a PowerBook for reasons of the low power draw (I'm on solar/hydro) and secondarily portability. Doesn't seem like I can gain significantly by doing anything but going to a desktop, and in my situation, that would use as much juice as everything else combined, and not portable.

So I really have to wonder, what kind of money does a person have to spend on converters to get ones that sound at 44.1 better than the RME ones sound at 96? When you mention dB do you just mean the Gold ones or also the modular dealies?
I really need at least 6 A/D converters minimum to be able to deal at all. $9000 a stereo pair is out of the question, for me.
$5000 for 6 or 8 channels of A/D would just about bust the budget, for a few other things as well... but maybe within the realm of possiblity.

Is something like a Mytek still in that maligned category of converters that don't sound as good at 48 as they do at 96?

This is all still so far from the sound of the instruments in the room, it's pitiful. Still I am getting the first really sonically enjoyable digital recordings of my life, but only at 32:96.
Thanks!
Ted

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 10:50 am

Ted,

Are you really recording 32 bit sound files with Cuebase 5.1? Or are you just refering to the internal processing depth that then comes out your converters as 24 bit sound? You keep talking about this awsome 32/96 set-up and I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Steve

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 11:08 am

Quote:

I defy anyone to tell the difference between 96kS/s and 48kS/s.

Greg, I can easily tell the difference between 48k and 96k on my PSX-100SE. How much more money do I have to spend to get "better" filters?

Whatever. I've already decided that as soon as I can afford to, I'll be going 96k. The difference is worth it.

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2002 10:57 pm

If mixing on analog, I would do the live jazz session at 96k.

:w:

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 10:12 am

"Are you really recording 32 bit sound files with Cuebase 5.1? Or are you just refering to the internal processing depth that then comes out your converters as 24 bit sound? You keep talking about this awsome 32/96 set-up and I don't have a clue what you're talking about."

Yes Cubase VST/32 5.1, Nuendo, and the just-announced Cubase SX will record 32bit wordlengths, if desired, rather than truncating to 24 bit. This sounds quite a bit better, even when processing is minimal.

I just finished a 29 page thread on 96 from the Massenberg forum archives, and found this from Hutch at Manley Labs:

"we can push the 48K button, and store at 48K rates, if and only if we have great filters, until then, use what sounds best with your gear."

So where are the great filters?
Other than the very spendiest boxes?
Ted

This topic sponsored by: