|
sample rates 44.1 or 88.2?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krispy Kreme |
Hey what do you guys work with 44.1 or higher rates?
I usually stick with 44.1 , 24 bit of course however I have been reading about higher sample rates and studying the nyquist theorem. High quality plugins supposedly pick up ultra sonic frequencies from high sample rates which translates into a smoother and more open sound, thus creating more headroom.... Pretty interesting to say the least. |
|
|
| Krispy Kreme |
| Also the other problem is that when working with a higher sample rate such as 88.2 or 96 I can really tell the difference as it is more dimensional.. however when doing the final bounce, it pretty much sounds the same since it all goes back to 16 / 44 . So its pretty much a waste in my opinion. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Yes, Nyquist theorem, 44 kHz can reproduce rates of up to 22 kHz which is well above the range of human hearing. If you think you can hear a "smoother and more open" sound at an 88.2 sampling rate then you're deluding yourself.
We've been over this on this forum a thousand times. The only reason you'd want to work at a high sample rate is to avoid losing fidelity if you're mixing together tons of sounds, and even then, most people consider it to be well past the point of diminishing returns. |
|
|
| floyd741 |
| How about 48000? Not to actually hear a difference but just to feel special. |
|
|
| Lucidity |
| I can hear a difference when working 96 vs 44, even when I finally dither down to 44, sometimes it sounded better, sometimes it was way different than when I was mixing, in the end, it was more hassle than help. There is a major cpu usage when workin at 96, had to freeze all the time, which was annoying, so now I just always work and keep the master copy at 32bit 44.1khz. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Actually I should have clarified: it is possible to hear a difference, but most likely it's actually lower quality that you're hearing, due to aliasing distortion from the 88 kHz signal being truncated to 44 kHz at some point in the chain.
As for 48 kHz, that's perfectly fine, just make sure you remember to convert to 44 kHz at the mastering stage, otherwise half of the recipients won't be able to play it. |
|
|
| Eldritch |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Actually I should have clarified: it is possible to hear a difference, but most likely it's actually lower quality that you're hearing, due to aliasing distortion from the 88 kHz signal being truncated to 44 kHz at some point in the chain. |
Don't forget, some vsts also malfunction at higher sample rates. Envelope and effect timings go all wrong. V-Station and Synth1 are examples of this. This could be the reason for the more "open" sound alot of people refer to. |
|
|
| palm |
aaaaahhhhhhhh not again.
stick with 44,1 16bit to avoid problems. That little quality u might get from increasing doesnt matter in 99% of the time. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Actually I should have clarified: it is possible to hear a difference, but most likely it's actually lower quality that you're hearing, due to aliasing distortion from the 88 kHz signal being truncated to 44 kHz at some point in the chain.
As for 48 kHz, that's perfectly fine, just make sure you remember to convert to 44 kHz at the mastering stage, otherwise half of the recipients won't be able to play it. |
True but do you realise that with analog tape, you actually only have 60db (10bit) of usable range? (i know it's a not a bit depth discussion again but I'm making a point about coloration). Everything above that is just distortion and the higher you go the more you get. Of course it's a "good" type of distortion you get but even though we've all been over this a million times, the one point FOR higher sample rates is true, is that if your system can handle it (great monitors, great soundcard, treated room etc.) then the benefit of mixing, soundesigning and composing at that higher sample rate are indeed noticeable, and therefore still of consequence even when going to a lower standard.
But if you can;t make sweet music at 44.1 then you aint going to magically do it at a higher sample rate.
Krispy - you really shouldn'y have started this one.....:D |
|
|
| palm |
| quote: | Originally posted by floyd741
How about 48000? Not to actually hear a difference but just to feel special. |
best reason so far. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
True but do you realise that with analog tape, you actually only have 60db (10bit) of usable range? (i know it's a not a bit depth discussion again but I'm making a point about coloration). Everything above that is just distortion and the higher you go the more you get. Of course it's a "good" type of distortion you get but even though we've all been over this a million times, the one point FOR higher sample rates is true, is that if your system can handle it (great monitors, great soundcard, treated room etc.) then the benefit of mixing, soundesigning and composing at that higher sample rate are indeed noticeable, and therefore still of consequence even when going to a lower standard. |
Haha I know, but we aren't talking about analog tape here, we're talking about moving from a sampling rate that already faithfully recreates the entire range of the human ear to a higher sampling rate that... recreates the entire range of the human ear... and causes a lot of to slow down and/or break. So I'll stick with the lower rate. :p |
|
|
| Magnus |
| After many threads on this forum and years of trying this and that, I write in 44khz, 24bit. Used to do 48khz but then I ran into issues with degrading quality when converting down. It all ends up at 44khz in the end anyway. Plus even with a beefy machine, I tried recently to produce at 88.2khz just to check it out and couldn't get very far without the CPU getting killed. When you go up to those levels it just really rips your CPU a new one. This is something I've always been curious about. What kind of computer would you need to comfortably produce at 96khz or the ungodly 192khz?!? My soundcard can do 192khz but I've never even bothered. I can't imagine the filesizes at that level. What purpose does such a high rate serve? I'm curious does anyone here ever use 192khz? |
|
|
|
|
