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

Is 96K that good?

Discussion in 'Recording' started by therecordingart, Oct 6, 2004.

  1. therecordingart

    therecordingart Well-Known Member

    Jul 28, 2004
    All of the bands I've recorded have been 44.1 expect one. I recorded this band at 96K and I noticed a difference, but it's hard to say because it's a completely different band with completely different gear. Is it worth it to record at 96K? What exactly is the difference? I searched to see if this has been tackled but didn't come up with much.
  2. soundfreely

    soundfreely Guest

    96K can sound better for two reasons that I subscribe to:

    1. Nyquist frequency is moved way up. That allows for a gentler filter slope and could lead to better high end.

    2. When processing at 96k sub-harmonics are created that fall into the audible spectrum. Although, if the frequency combinations occur ahead of the AD converter than they will be captured at 44.1. Those sub harmonic frequencies are like what you hear when two slightly out of tune higher pitch notes played together and you hear a lower frequency oscillation.

    Just my thoughts,
  3. mikE@THECAVE

    mikE@THECAVE Guest

    well what was the difference you thought you heard --was it more highs more detail and crispness
  4. djui5

    djui5 Guest

    I usually track at 88.2....but occasionally do sessions at 44.1......there's a difference...but it's not night and day either........
    If you got the drive space then go for it...no reason not to..
  5. AudioGaff

    AudioGaff Distinguished Member

    Feb 23, 2001
    Silicon Valley
    Like all things in audio, it is as much as a difference as the weakest link in the audio signal chain. Yes, there is a differences. That difference is not always better and is usually not always better enough to justify the extra cost it entails. But with all things being equal. I would rather prefer 96k all the time.
  6. Duardo

    Duardo Guest

    It depends on the converter you use. Some sound better at 96kHz, and some sound the same. There are a few that sound worse.

  7. RAIN0707

    RAIN0707 Guest

    You are gonna lose any sub harmonic qualities you capture as soon as you dump it down to 44.1 for CD anyways, don't forget about that. I would record at 88.2 - makes the downsampling easier and more accurate as well. Only reason to record at 96k IMO is for DVD audio which requires it.
  8. shezan

    shezan Guest

    wth is Sub-Harmonics?
  9. Mario-C.

    Mario-C. Active Member

    Nov 17, 2002
    Mexico City
    Home Page:
    I do hear a difference when tracking @ 88.2 khz, especially with real acoustic instruments but man it really slows down my mac
  10. mikE@THECAVE

    mikE@THECAVE Guest

    who told you that Rain
  11. RAIN0707

    RAIN0707 Guest

    It is not a matter of who told me it is a matter of scientific fact, info from manufacturers and tests run by those manufacturers. It is much easier to downsample from 88.2 to 44.1 then it is from 96 to 44.1 - there really is no benefit logically to use 96k unless you are going to use the audio for DVD format or Super CD format. You are just wasting more memory and processing power.
  12. Thomaster

    Thomaster Guest

    yeah thats true
    but youre not gonna lose the subharmonics if you downsample after recording..
    those are in there already so they get converted as all the other frequencies in the signal
  13. Duardo

    Duardo Guest

    It's actually not scientific fact in every case. Most sample-rate converters these days don't just downsample from one sampling rate to another. They upsample to a much higher rate that's divisible by both frequencies, filter digitally as necessary, and then downsample to the target frequency.

    True...and that's actually one of the drawbacks to recording at higher sampling rates. When frequencies we can't hear combine acoustically we don't hear the subharmonics that are created. However, if those frequencies are combined electronically and the subharmonics fall into the audible range, we will hear them...not a natural occurrence.


Share This Page