|
Question regarding samplerates (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by ezet
I like the clarity higher samplerates gave, now I just need to figure out exactly what rate suits my needs. |
44.1 16bit should do fine for everyone. I really dont believe you could hear a diference between 44.1 and 48kHz. I have a good ear and Ive tried on really good speakers without being able to tell the diference. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by palm
I really dont believe you could hear a diference between 44.1 and 48kHz. I have a good ear and Ive tried on really good speakers without being able to tell the diference. |
You can't. When man was fighting the sabre tooth tiger, this was not a useful skill in survival, so it didn't make the gene pool. |
|
|
| palm |
| through evolution we might get better hearing though as our eyes will eventually shut down beacuse of too much computer viewing and our ears will have to improve (see blind people). or maybe the next generation will have super eyes with filters? |
|
|
| ezet |
| Thanks for clearing this up, I thought something could be wrong since I heard such a difference. Must be a problem with the Tension synth in Ableton which is where I programmed the strings.. atleast I hope that's the troublemaker, else it would be my hardware :( |
|
|
| RichieV |
huge difference in quality when sample rate is concerned. This is why the hole bit depth issue raised prior made me a little mad. It is sample rate that really affects perceived quality of sound.
The sample rate is important for many reasons but i suppose the largest benifit has more to do with internal mathematics that lower the audible articfacts for each process you have in a digital chain. I mix at 96 despite the fact that the end product is 44 . |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
huge difference in quality when sample rate is concerned. This is why the hole bit depth issue raised prior made me a little mad. It is sample rate that really affects perceived quality of sound.
The sample rate is important for many reasons but i suppose the largest benifit has more to do with internal mathematics that lower the audible articfacts for each process you have in a digital chain. I mix at 96 despite the fact that the end product is 44 . |
Same here in regards to sample rate, (here we go again...:D )...but that small amount of extra data space that 24bit takes up (compared to 16bit) is worth it. Don't forget the 16bit audio has a dynamic range of 96dbfs and 24bit has 144dfs of dynamic range meaning it's relative noise floor is higher. It's not going to make an earth shattering difference but it is a difference at a very small price (storage space).
Quiet passages will be less likely struggling to stay above the noise floor on your system. You can record without any compression. You can record at lower levels, with more relative headroom. This means that the occasional peak is not truncated at the top and it will give converters some room the breathe. Because you are not pushing the limits of your bandwidth, any real instruments will sound clearer, and vocals may sound "cleaner", the song will mix better and there will be less inherant noise. Even more so, If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there and quite noticeable. |
|
|
| RichieV |
| i mix at 24 bit but then again i dont' make EDM and noise floor is very important. And even if i did , i still would mix at 24 but i wouldn't ever claim that it made things sound better. More of a habit. It was really just a rant about people using terms without the slightest clue about what those terms actually mean.You clearly aren't one of them! |
|
|
| Eldritch |
| quote: | Originally posted by RichieV
The sample rate is important for many reasons but i suppose the largest benifit has more to do with internal mathematics that lower the audible articfacts for each process you have in a digital chain. I mix at 96 despite the fact that the end product is 44 . |
Any decent plugin will do internal oversampling where it is needed, so oversampling the whole project isn't a good idea. And those plugins that don't use oversampling are likely to malfunction at higher rates anyway.
There is no benefit to mix at any higher rates than 44.1kHz when your target medium is CD/MP3/Vinyl. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eldritch
Any decent plugin will do internal oversampling where it is needed, so oversampling the whole project isn't a good idea. And those plugins that don't use oversampling are likely to malfunction at higher rates anyway.
There is no benefit to mix at any higher rates than 44.1kHz when your target medium is CD/MP3/Vinyl. |
Here we go, again! :sadgreen: :confused: :mad: :whip: ;) |
|
|
| RichieV |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eldritch
Any decent plugin will do internal oversampling where it is needed, so oversampling the whole project isn't a good idea. And those plugins that don't use oversampling are likely to malfunction at higher rates anyway.
There is no benefit to mix at any higher rates than 44.1kHz when your target medium is CD/MP3/Vinyl. |
Bob Katz would disagree but i can't post a link to his book. He does a pretty good job at explaining why there are benifits. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eldritch
There shouldn't be any audible difference at all. You probably have a faulty VST. I know Synth1 behaves weirdly at 96kHz for example.
You shouldn't hear a difference unless you're a dog or a bat. |
96kHz doesn't pertain to the audible spectrum of sound. It's referencing the number of cycles a processor takes per second. The higher the resolution of the initial recording, the better it's able to withstand processing and conversion down to CD quality without producing aliasing artifacts.
It has nothing to do with canine or human hearing. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
how many samples can the human ear hear in any moment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_threshold
it actually does relate... as the tighter a sound wave gets.... if you understand wave mechanics.. |
Per the context of the discussion, 96,000 cycles per second pertains only to the rate at which a computer processor calculates sound. It has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the frequency spectrum heard by any animal, including the human being.
The argument to which I had replied was:
| quote: | | You shouldn't hear a difference unless you're a dog or a bat. |
Essentially speaking, a sound-wave at 8000 Hz could be encapsulated in a 96,000 Hz sample. The human ear would be able to hear the 8000 Hz wave. Conversely, with proper speakers, a dog could hear a 44,000 Hz sound wave encapsulated in a 96,000 Hz sample - a human would not be able to hear it, however. |
|
|
|
|
