44.1khz or 192 khz?! Read & Comment

MR NINE

MR NINE

Member
Jan 25, 2004
262
0
16
Portugal
www.putfile.com
Hi everyone!
I know there's a lot of talking about this issue, but nevertheless I think it's always worth to mention the subject. besides that there are always new people around here and since this is a subject often not very clear to a lot of people when I read this article I think it's a good subject for discussion.

Read article Why we need super-high frequencies, even if we can't hear them


Then my question for all is : Do you still recording at 44.1khz?!:Spin:
 
MR NINE said:
Hi everyone!
I know there's a lot of talking about this issue, but nevertheless I think it's always worth to mention the subject. besides that there are always new people around here and since this is a subject often not very clear to a lot of people when I read this article I think it's a good subject for discussion.

Read article Why we need super-high frequencies, even if we can't hear them


Then my question for all is : Do you still recording at 44.1khz?!:Spin:
Click to expand...

Yep! It all ends up at 44.1 at the end of the day and I've never been fond of most SRC'ers.
 
it gets truncated to 44.1 anyways (at least on audio cd) and other than with wordlength you don_'t gain anything by "dithering" samplerate, it just gets truncated, that would mean you'd mix in a different sound-environmant as you're listening to later...
for ex you'd perhaps not boost highs on the vox, cause due to the hight samplerate they're crispier, but when truncated down to 44.1 perhaps semm to be a bit muffeld?
other than that i often heard that if you're using higher samplerate at all you should use double, 4x the samplerate etc.
cutting down fom 96 to 44.1 sounds worse than from 88.2 to 44.1...
i'm not sure bout that, coz i've never tried it, but many people say it's best to record and stay in that samplerate you're gonna use for the final product which is 44.1 for audio cd
 
More importantly, Cds nowadays sound fine/great anyway so it doesn't really bother me.

I'm currently tracking a band at 44.1 as it's all gonna end up there in the mean time. Might as well get it sounding good at the target samplerate.
 
yea i always wondered about 96 or 88.1 or whatever. I used to never care cause my digi001 would not go that high but now with the 002 I'm able too. I know it eats up way more disc space but I'm yet to even bother with it. Also when i had my digi001 i tried using 48khz i think it was and then inport a reference song and it played way slow and sounded real funny and I'm guessing the same thing would happen with digi002 at 96k sample rate?

I also have a behringer ada8000 and that only goes to 48khz so i think I'm stuck with 44.1 anyways if I'm gonna use that piece of gear!
 
I find it more important to record at higher bit rate (24 bit) than 96k..... granted it gets pushed down to 16 but it's definatly worth it.

Infact i will not work with 16bit anymore.

C
 
I'm recording at 48khz - 24 bits, by the way.

Ok in the end it all goes at 44.1k/16 bits for CD purposes, but after a few tests I can note some differences in the low/high end freqs; more clear and defined, but I think it all depends on what kind of ad/da converters you're using and also the sample rate converters too.
 
OK, what happens when, in the future, when we laugh at lame cds. Our music is mastered to a new digital medium which is 96k? 192? All these projects in 44k will sound lame.:heh: Just a thought.:Smokin:

It's kinda like 16:9 vs. 4:3 aspect ratio for video. Since, not everybody NOW can afford high def, video is still shot in 4:3, and we still watch lame 4:3 TV sets. But the technology is already here.:err:
 
I'd care for higher bitrate when everything else is perfect :rolleyes:

+ I think the majority of people wouldn't hear nor feel the difference when the track is played back on their setup.

A crappy amp will sound crappy even in 192 and a nice one will still sound great in 44, IMO
 
cd's sound insane these days i don't know how much beter it really can get??

But shit there is albums tracked 20 years ago that still sound great. So to say that 44.1 will just sound like crap compared to everything is 96khz is just :puke:

Just my opinion nothing personal..............
 
I'm pretty sure DVD is 48k, but not enough to argue about it.
I dont have the horsepower to do 96k so I don't. Also given that most music now is digested through Ipods and radio, it's pretty much pointless anyway.
One band I recorded recently didn't even pick up the final 24/48 data disc. They thought the MP3s I sent them were good enough........sadly I think most people do
 
yes, dvd is 48k.

but again:
48k, 192k or whatever might sound better directly compared to 44.1, but once you truncate 192 to 44.1 you won't have ANY advantage of that previously higher samplerate!!

it's not the same as with dithering 24bit to 16 where you still have an improved dynamic range and stuff.
a 192kfile truncated to 44.1 will def. NOT sound better than a 44.1 recording!!
so save your discspace unless you're producing for DVD or SACD...

(let me assure you, there's no thing like dithering with bit-depth..
converting to 44.1 means nothing but just cutting (truncating/mutilating) it down to 44.1. period.
 
Gnash said:
OK, what happens when, in the future, when we laugh at lame cds. Our music is mastered to a new digital medium which is 96k? 192? All these projects in 44k will sound lame.:heh: Just a thought.:Smokin:

It's kinda like 16:9 vs. 4:3 aspect ratio for video. Since, not everybody NOW can afford high def, video is still shot in 4:3, and we still watch lame 4:3 TV sets. But the technology is already here.:err:
Click to expand...
Won't happen because after conversion everything above 22.05 Khz gets hacked off, so if you convert it back it sounds exactly the same.
 
I believe the future (next 5-10 years or so) holds online distribution of 96khz+ lossless audio compression. as storage and bandwidth become cheaper more people will migrate to higher sampling rates naturally. Just as they will with TVs. many people I've talked with who were thinking about getting an HD TV said they want to wait til more channels take advantage of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JoeJackson
Noob-Alert: 1.5 kHz
Replies
4
Views
1K
F.O.H.
JoeJackson
J
The Front Studio
Triggers vs the real deal (mics)
Replies
26
Views
3K
Backline
The Front Studio
T
H-evolve
Typical garbage frequencies on my guitar tone
Replies
7
Views
2K
F.O.H.
allanqa
A
ricochet
Do aliens exist?
Replies
42
Views
2K
Opeth (Archived)
Obyeybyeogone
O
Steno
24bit/48kHz vs. 16bit/44.1Khz
Replies
6
Views
4K
F.O.H.
Hopkins-WitchfinderGeneral
H
Top Bottom
Back