96 khz and normal used 44.1 khz...

[luismars]

It's not only about how a single track sounds, it's also about the sum of all the "errors" on each track. So the higher samplerate you got the better.

Cd quality is 4416 NOW, but I'll like to have mi 2496 masters ready if a new standard comes in.

 

[Strachan of D]

^ yep for sound to be captured accuratly the nyquist point (sample rate0 must be atleast double the freq capture 44.1 = roughly double 20khz and so on

 

[Scottxx]

Thank Bormoleos, I agree with what you say too. I will test it. So I was asking you guys because I don't work on big projects. I started this thread because I was shocked by the 96 khz quality. I know it eats lot of resources. Just want to say I hear a real big big improvement in my ears. And I think if you can, is great to work at 88.2 or 96 khz although you must downsample it later.

 

[deLuther]

When I had experiments with own impulse capture, I preferred results with 96k, even it was resampled to 44.1 to work with usual project samplerate.
But not every impulse loader has good resampling, with SIR2 it works bad, Voxengo Pristine Space has great built in resampling, so result with 96k impulse was closer to micked than 44.1k impulse (comparing to 44.1k reference).

 

[Lasse Lammert]

haha, this AGAIN

in short: it might LOOK "square", but the sine (and other functions) is reproduced with absolute accuracy to half the sample rate, so up to 22Khz there's NO difference between 44.1 and 96k (search Nyquist theorem).
so the only "advanrages" you have from recording higher SRs it above 22k, but the disadvantages are plenty and grave: eventually it will be downsampled to 44.1 again (CD), so you'll loose all the advantages (it's not like with dithering 24 to 16 bit!), but you'll keep the disadvantages...for example: the higher the SR is you record in, the lower is the real bit depth/dynamic range.
even though your converter might be set to 24 bits, what you actually record can be far less (dynamic range)....if you record 192k for example you don't only have the noisefloor from 0 to 22kHz, but from 0 to 96kHz....that's quite a bit more (the seconf "pro" in Cory's list is actually a "con")
here's a perfect read btw:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...KQK5_0IvQ&sig2=xWmWe2JLAEaXjFVIJ_5_yg&cad=rja


it might actually one of the best reads for any audio engineer

 

[Scottxx]

Lasse, I'm not an expert. I respect and learn from all the great guys like you that know a lot about audio. I was reading audio stuff for years and I'm an addicted but I'm not a pro and I don't have super pro gear. So this forum is a gem for me at least. What I want to say too is that putting all the theory aside I hear that at 96 khz, for example an amp sim, sounds so much closer to the real thing and everything sounds so crisp and alive. So it is great if you guys hear what I say and if some of you are using higher sample rates than 44.1 khz and what are your experiences.

 

[DigitalMetal]

sorry to go off on a slight tangent but this thread just totally reminded me of this: