Anyone recording at 96K or higher?

[Glenn Fricker]

Ok, I know this can be a real can of worms, but I am curious if anyone's using higher sample rates these days.

I was messing around with some overhead miking techniques today, much in part due to Mr. Murphy's prodding and thought I'd give the 'hi def' sample rates a whirl.

What was really cool was that I had the same kit, drummer, pres & mics, on this recording as I did a couple weeks ago with the same guy done at 44.1

I've heard a lot of different opinions about hi res, but while A/Bing a couple of takes between 44.1 & 96k, especially on the cymbals, i was hearing a difference. Bob Ludwig suggested this has to do more with sounds above 22khz creating overtones in ranges we can hear. Another theory has to do with how clean a AD converter's cutoff filter is. (I'm using an RME Fireface, BTW)

Any opinions?

-0z-

 

[KeithRT99]

i prefer higher sampling rates. i can definately hear a difference from 44.1. i tend to use 88.2.

 

[silverwulf]

I'd be curious to know what everyone here is recording at also. There seems to be so much division on the matter. I think I've heard 24/44.1 or 48 more than anything.

 

[axeman720]

theres no doubt that higher sample rates capture more of whats really goin on. i definetly like the high end on higher sample rates...it is sweeter to me, but its not a record maker or breaker for that matter. the main reason i stay in 44 or 48 is because of processing, with HD i just get the power i need with the lower sample rates.

 

[cobhc]

i always found the higher sample rate i use the lower latency i get for some reason unless my DAW is lying when i switch it up

 

[Gomez]

44.1/24 bit fopr rocky or metal stuff.

48 for bands with strings, brass, or jazzy stuff.

I don't feel the need to use anyhting higher than 48K.

It's all going to go 44.1/16bit in the end.

96K onwards is very useful if you're making music for dogs.

 

[cobhc]

96K onwards is very useful if you're making music for dogs.

*barks*

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

Hey Oz,

Did you try to downsample your 96KHz recording to 44.1 and then compare it with the one recorded at 44.1 directly ? Should be interesting and might probably explain why there's no use in recording this high for the CD format. Could you post some samples ?

Cheers

 

[~BURNY~]

The only real benefit I can see in using higher SR is when you want to go back analog at some point (mixing or mastering)... Multiple conversions should be less destructive.
Another thing is that Hi res supposedly allow more accurate processing... But it's more heavy on cpu and require a huge amount of disk space.

 

[Razorjack]

I've done a lot of work on sample rates and found that using anything higher than 48k is a waste of resources.

At 48k nyquist is 24k, thus we have around 6-8k more than most people hear. Then it's all going down to 16/44.1 anyway? Also most people are listening to music in compressed formats that work only with information below CD quality nyquist (22.05kHz) even if they are compressed from a 24/192 source.

 

[Gomez]

The only real benefit I can see in using higher SR is when you want to go back analog at some point (mixing or mastering)... Multiple conversions should be less destructive.
Another thing is that Hi res supposedly allow more accurate processing... But it's more heavy on cpu and require a huge amount of disk space.

Correct.

I like to master at higher sample rates (normally no more than 48), because yes, you can work more accurately.

I have to say though that last year I was sent an album for mastering that was at 96K/24 bit. It was great to work on it. Going down to 44.1/16 was an anti-climax.

If you're mastering, you'r dealing with 2 tracks (most of the time) so high sample rates won't toast your CPU. I can't really imagine what would be like to record a band at 192...

 

[Gomez]

I've done a lot of work on sample rates and found that using anything higher than 48k is a waste of resources.

At 48k nyquist is 24k, thus we have around 6-8k more than most people hear. Then it's all going down to 16/44.1 anyway? Also most people are listening to music in compressed formats that work only with information below CD quality nyquist (22.05kHz) even if they are compressed from a 24/192 source.

Nicely put.

 

[silverwulf]

Did you try to downsample your 96KHz recording to 44.1 and then compare it with the one recorded at 44.1 directly ? Should be interesting and might probably explain why there's no use in recording this high for the CD format. Could you post some samples ?

Cheers

That's what I'd be interested to hear. The comparison once everything is stripped down to 16/44.1 - Seems like it would be the best way to compare. I guess one could argue that by recording at 96K, then you could actually hear more of what's going on while you're mixing/mastering, and therefore the end product would be "better" as a result. But, it's hard to tell if that would give any audible differences over something that was straight 44.1 from the start. I can't imagine the end product would be so much more significant that it would be worth the trouble or disk space. I'd be curious to hear comparison samples if anyone has any...

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

The reason I asked this is because according to many pros (incl. Andy), recording directly in 44.1 gives better results than recording at 48 or 96 and then downsampling.

 

[Gomez]

The reason I asked this is because according to many pros (incl. Andy), recording directly in 44.1 gives better results than recording at 48 or 96 and then downsampling.

I'm not sure if this is true, but look at it this way: if you work at 44.1 you'll know what's it going to sound like all along.

If you record say at 96, and then downsample, the result might be a bit different... for better or worse.

 

[black sugar]

This forum (James in particular) steered me back to 44.1 when I was thinking about recording at 48k and possibly higher.

Unless you're planning on releasing in some "hi-def" format at some point, it just doesn't make any sense to record at sample rates higher than 44.1k, since you'll just have to mangle all those great dog frequencies at the end with SRC anyway.

Check out this SRC comparison. No guarantees as to it's validity, but it's food for thought at least. There are some surprising results.

If you understand it, you get a cookie:

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

I'm not sure that I totally get it, but you have to do SOMETHING with the frequency information above 22.05k when you SRC down to 44.1k, so hopefully, you're not aliasing them at an audible level.

IMHO, the 16/44.1 standard, along with 128bit .mp3's uke:, and ludicrous mastering practices have really helped to level the playing field for project studios. All those nice rooms and nice gear are kind of going to waste until something changes.

 

[silverwulf]

I think a lot of people have a big misconception over the the issue. I knew a guy that was looking heavily into getting a Presonus Firepod a while back. He thought it would be perfect for him, but he was opting out of getting it because it only went up to 96K and not 192K. So, I asked him what he typically recorded at, and he said "24/44.1"...so I begged the question..."Why would you not buy it, considering it goes up to 96K and the most you ever use anyway is 44.1K?"

 

[wishtheend]

I'm almost exclusively track at 44.1/24-bit. I did work with the 48/24, but after having to dither/downsample, I was never pleased with the results. I agree, it's always best to track with the target sample rate in mind.

 

[Disconnekt]

I think a lot of people have a big misconception over the the issue. I knew a guy that was looking heavily into getting a Presonus Firepod a while back. He thought it would be perfect for him, but he was opting out of getting it because it only went up to 96K and not 192K. So, I asked him what he typically recorded at, and he said "24/44.1"...so I begged the question..."Why would you not buy it, considering it goes up to 96K and the most you ever use anyway is 44.1K?"

Yeah, that's pretty stupid. I can understand how a higher sample rate converter might have a higher quality clock, but nitpicking between 96k and 192k doesn't make much sense when the recording sample rate is that much lower.

And about downsampling: correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that artifacts are only introduced when the target sample rate can't be divided evenly into the source sample rate (i.e. 48/96/192k -> 44.1k). 88.2k/176.4k -> 44.1k should not introduce any artifacts due to downsampling errors.

 

[Brett - K A L I S I A]

I correct you, this is wrong