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.
Topic Tags
Comments
Like all things in audio, it is as much as a difference as the w
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.
You are gonna lose any sub harmonic qualities you capture as soo
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.
It is not a matter of who told me it is a matter of scientific f
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.
It is not a matter of who told me it is a matter of scientific f
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
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.
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
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.
-Duardo
96K can sound better for two reasons that I subscribe to: 1. Ny
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,
Erik