1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Audible difference between sample rates??

Discussion in 'Recording' started by golli, May 28, 2003.

  1. golli

    golli Active Member

    Since manufacturers are updating their gear and that means sample rates go higher, I would like put that before the recording veterans here if you guys hear substancial difference between: 44,1 - 48 - 88,2 - 96 - 192 khz??
     
  2. doulos21

    doulos21 Member

    i hear diffrences in all but 192 k since i havent heard 192 k yet but the real diffrence is warmth.
    You can tell the warmth factor of 96 k over 44.1 or 48k real quick, also think of the processing diffrence if its gettin knocked down to 44.1 you can do a lot more processing on 96k and it still sound less processed then 48k in other words retains more of the quality of the mix without compermising signal loss, or if your a pretty pure recordist or do classical recordings or symphonic work of any kind the diffrence is near amazing.
     
  3. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    I have never worked in 96 k but I have heard it. In a side by side comparison the difference is pretty obvious. But the cost of working in these higher rates in terms of storage and processing power is not worth it IMO. I work in 24 bit 44.1 and the stuff I put out sounds fine. It's all coming down to 16 bit 44.1 anyhow..
     
  4. golli

    golli Active Member

    doulos21 I was just replying to you on another thread. The reason I started this thread, is because I'm thinking of this 002r thing to, well seems we are on the same boat. So, you say it is worth it to go 96.
     
  5. golli

    golli Active Member

    Kurt, you're online. If 96 is 2x48 then you are doubling the workload on the CPU?? (and using more storage)
    Is 48 vs 96 comparable to 15ips vs 30ips on tape??
     
  6. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Golli,
    Yes and on the memory too. Storage also.. Kurt
     
  7. sheet

    sheet Well-Known Member

    I work in 48kHz alot, because most other studios that I interface with work at 48kHz.

    For my in-house work, I do 96kHz and 192KHz sessions. I max out the channel count on the DAW too. The problem for me is not storage, it is the fact that there aren't as many cool plug ins available for 96k and even less are available for 192k. There are meat and potato plugs, but the cool ones that I use (some of Wave's, etc.) are not there yet.

    Just because we can sample that high, doesn't mean that we should. The differences between 96 and 192 are more subtle than you would imagine. The differences are stereo depth and imaging related. It is my experience that classical, chamber, etc. style music should get the 192 sample rate. Pop/Rock music should not. That music has little dynamic range comparitively, and less bandwidth.

    Do it both ways and listen for yourself. Your music may warrant 24-bit/44.1 possibly.
     
  8. jdsdj98

    jdsdj98 Active Member

    So more and more lately we're all hearing about 96k becoming the next standard sampling rate at the production level, while audio CD will remain the most widespread end product for the masses for the foreseeable future.

    I remember going to a demo put on by the big DAW manufacturer out there about a year and a half ago and the presenter emphasizing the importance, in terms of SRC quality, of working in 88.2k or 176.4k when it is known that audio CD is the end product, due to the easy mathematical fold down to 44.1.

    It makes perfect sense to someone like me, who doesn't have the capability of working at higher rates than 44.1k (or 48k, but why work at 48k when delivering to 44.1k?). But for those of you working at higher rates, why would one choose 96k (as opposed to 88.2k or 176.4k) when delivering to CD, due to the more complex SRC required to get to your final medium?
     
  9. jdsdj98

    jdsdj98 Active Member

    One more thing.......

    I've raised this point in several other arenas without ever receiving a fully satisfactory answer.

    Simply put, how can the benefits of extended frequency response afforded by higher sampling rates be realized in any way when 95% of off the shelf monitors and microphones in use in studios now only offer 20-20k response? As Kurt points out, transducers constitute the ends of the recording chain, but if you increase your capability (frequency response) in the middle of that chain, the end product is still dumbed down by the ends of the chain.

    I've long argued that while the capability to CAPTURE those extended frequencies may exist, they still haven't made their way into a DAW via a microphone, and even if they have via a synth or oscillator, we still don't have the monitors (although I realize there are more and more exceptions here as of late) that can reproduce them for us to hear.

    This question is only meant to address frequency response specifically, not the benefits derived from higher resolution, which are readily apparent.

    Hope I'm not steering this thread off topic........
     
  10. jdsdj98

    jdsdj98 Active Member

    accidental double post
     
  11. Alécio Costa - Brazil

    Alécio Costa - Brazil Well-Known Member

    I also work at 44.1k/24 bits. avoiding SRC is a must. Record at 96k/192k is pretty pricey. While we are still delivering the final products at regular Cds to me there is no big eal moving that high ( storage, obsolescence planned). When DVD-Audio arrives... then, it will be a completle different approach.
    :)
     
  12. golli

    golli Active Member

    Well put Jamie. You are allways one step ahead of me.
    Since we are both considering the 002r, besides the 96k issue staying in 44.1/24 bit there is still room for improvement. In the 002 there is better A/D-D/A and better pres, balanced l/O's. two birds with one stone :roll:
     
  13. MindMeld

    MindMeld Guest

    Although manufacturers only spec out to 20-20 (due to the nyquest rate of cd audio being 22.05k) mics and analog gear can easily go above that...

    I remeber rupert neve talking about some of his gear going well about 100k and that distortion in the 50k range on one of his pieces was problematic.


    You may not hear above 20k but the modulation and the transient response of higher sampling rates is apparent even as you drop down.

    The problem lies in how much processing power it takes to do such high end stuff.

    Maybe we should start tracking things like drums, vocals and acoustic instruments at 88.2 or 17blah.blah blah and keep things like bass and distorted guitar at 44.1

    I'm gonna try that on my next project.


    Marsh
     
  14. golli

    golli Active Member

    Keep us posted.
     
  15. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Nice stuff there guys! Kurt :)
     
  16. jdsdj98

    jdsdj98 Active Member

    Marshall - I'll be curious to hear how that works out for you.

    Again, though, Mr. Neve's console/pre sits/sat in the middle of that chain. I'm still not convinced that the mic's and monitors at the ends of that chain are capturing and producing those frequencies at levels substantial enough to make an audible difference to the listener.

    It is my understanding that manufacturers (mic and monitor manufacturers specifically) didn't just start limiting their specs to 20-20k when digital hit the market. And if any mic or monitor offered/offers significant extension of response, wouldn't that manufacturer do all they could to tout their product? To impose the limitations of 44.1k on their spec sheet would be like Porsche saying "With our new (insert model here) you can reach speeds of 100 mph," when in actuality the car can hit 160 mph. It just doesn't make sense to me. I remember a former moderator here saying that he had mic's that had response out to 40k, +/-, but he said that out there they were WAY down, in the neighborhood of -20db. I don't see how the benefits of capturing a frequency that far out of our range, that far down, with maybe one or two mic's on a given project, can be all that beneficial in the end. And then we get back to monitors.......

    I'm just asking someone to convince me that the capabilities are FULLY IN PLACE to capture and play back these extended frequencies. I JUST DON'T BUY IT YET.

    This is fun. Keep 'em coming.
     
  17. Kurt Foster

    Kurt Foster Distinguished Member

    Even 20 down the difference is audible. I have a set of Tannoy DMT12 that respond flat to 35K.. mmm kay?
     
  18. falkon2

    falkon2 Well-Known Member

    You know, the Nyqist theorem states that a sample rate can capture frequencies that are half the total samples per second.

    What I've never understood was that different phases for the frequency in question could radically alter the values being sampled by the ADC.

    Take for example - an ADC running at 48kHz samples a 10V cosine wave (first sampled value will be 10, next -10, third 10, etc). What if this component hit the ADC at a 90' phase? That would make it a sine (or inverted sine), which means the ADC would be sampling a whole row of zeroes.

    Or do ADCs actually compensate for this phase problem and automatically shift these high freqs so that the max amplitude is sampled?

    A related problem also exists for frequencies that approach the Nyqist limit - A signal with a frequency slightly below half the sampling rate will appear to be that with a frequency of exactly half of the sampling rate, with fluctuating volume. (It's hard to explain this - it's better if one can get ahold of a signal-generation program and try it out).

    Now, no matter how good nth-order DA converters are at making that kind of data sound like the original, unadulterated signal, amplitude-dependant algorithms are going to have a fun time butchering the heck out of the signal.

    Of course, these problems only become significant as frequencies approach the Nyqist - but I'm going to take the plunge and say that even my unprofessional ears can hear subtle differences between 44.1 and 48 - contradictory to what the textbooks say about 44.1 being able to sample up to 22.05 and human hearing being able to go up to 20 on a good day. As has been brought up many times in the thread - it might not matter when there are cymbals and dive bombs flying all over the place, but the added depth and warmth it gives to acoustic recordings make the extra space and processing power required for at least 48kHz a justified compromise for me.
     
  19. golli

    golli Active Member

    This is what I was thinking of, please read:
    Taken from:
    http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/files/4AE9C107C78E706886256688000FBE08
    If this is true then it's worth it?
     
  20. Alécio Costa - Brazil

    Alécio Costa - Brazil Well-Known Member

    Oka. I can accept that 96k is much better than 44k or so.

    However, I think that one inch at the mic placement is much more important than all this stuff.

    a) what about the SRC down to 44.1k/16?
    There would be 2 conversions: 96k/24 to 44k/24 then to 44k/16k. so?
    I would direct this to PT guys.

    b) why don´t they start working with bigger wordlenghts, let us say moving to 32 bits?

    It is much better to record at 44k/24 bits than at 48k/16 bits, agree?

    c) now will plugins doing fine at high frequencies and working at 48 bits. Still there happens lots of truncation. Imagine truncation at several tracks. so?

    How many times have you tried doing a fade out and having it sounding horrible? Sems will be entering the Dithering Wars again...
    lol
     

Share This Page