Audible difference 44.1kS/s vs 96kS/s? (files included) - Page 4

excLOUsiv · 23rd March 2010

I use an MPC 1000 which is a 16 bit 44.1k sampler. When I'm recording into Logic, for example, does it really make a difference if I record that sampler into Logic at higher resolutions?

I have read about such things as recording at higher resolutions gives more headroom, captures sound more accurately, etc. etc.

Do these benefits still happen when you are recording a source that outputs a 16 bit source, or anything for that matter that is a lower resolution, for example?

I have tried recording at different resolutions, but fail to notice a real difference. At the same time I don't really have a great set-up and room, so it's not the easiest thing for me to judge.

Audiop · 23rd March 2010

That unit has digital and analog out, do you use analog out?

If so why?

And if so (using the analog out) at least it makes sense to capture at 24bit resolution and possibly at higher sampling rates as well (depending on the ADC, DAW and plugs used).

/Peter

excLOUsiv · 25th March 2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audiop

That unit has digital and analog out, do you use analog out?

If so why?

And if so (using the analog out) at least it makes sense to capture at 24bit resolution and possibly at higher sampling rates as well (depending on the ADC, DAW and plugs used).

/Peter

I use the analog outs cause I like the sound, and it makes more sense to me to do it that way with the equipment I currently have.

I'm wondering why it makes sense to capture at a higher rate especially if I'm using the analog outs in this particular context?

Lately I've been recording at anything from 96-48k and comparing to my recordings done on 44.1. All of the free material that I put out was recorded at 44.1 and wasn't meant to be of highest quality. I'm of course willing to put out better quality in the future especially for material that isn't free, but I'm failing to notice a real difference in the recordings besides file size.

I'm also wondering if this is something that is primarily only a concern if the material is played on really high end equipment, and the reason I'm not really noticing a difference is because I do not have access to high end equipment?

Also, is the argument that capturing at higher rates increases headroom when mixing in a typical DAW a valid argument and a good reason to capture at a higher rate?

Suade · 26th March 2010

Hi excLOUsiv,

If you want more headroom it's greater bit depth that you need (24-bit) rather than a higher sample rate (which will allow you to record higher frequencies).

Just my perception but it looks to me like the recording world is moving away from pursuing ever higher sample rates (192kHz anyone?) and a growing number of people are settling down to work at 44.1kHz, 24 bits deep for music production. That's where I'm happy working though once in a while I do get asked for higher sample rate files by some record labels

As to your question about whether there can be justification for recording a 44.1kHz/16-bit sampler at higher resolutions I'd say the answer was in your post... You said that you liked the sound of the analog output from the MPC, so Yes. That sound is no longer digital - capture it in high resolution and you'll have captured fine details of the sound of the MPCs analog components. The extra resolution will show the most benefits when you come to subject the sound you've captured to further processing which might expose these details more fully.

I sometimes use an SP1200 which is only 32kHz and 12-bit but when I record it I stick with my usual project settings at 44.1/24 to make sure I get all of the richness of the SP's SSM analog filter chips from its output. Kind of like recording a grunge band with great microphones to get the most grunge...

excLOUsiv · 27th March 2010

Suade, thanks for clearing up my confusion on the topic. It helped sort me out. You're right I did get bit depth and sample rates a bit confused. I've been recording strictly at 24 bit depth, but switching the sample rates. That could be the reason why I'm not noticing much difference.

Out of curiosity when asked to provide files with higher sample rates, what rates are they commonly asking for? 48, 88.2, 96, 192?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
any audible difference among popular splitters?	hollywood_steve	Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording	17	21st May 2010 03:59 AM
Does external clocking make an audible difference?	The Marrvel	So much gear, so little time!	9	14th July 2009 10:10 PM
Audible Difference?	ocelot12	Electronic Music Instruments & Electronic Music Production	3	14th May 2008 11:46 PM
Audible difference upgrading converters with my gear?	Brian Scherzer	So much gear, so little time!	1	2nd April 2008 05:36 AM
Audible difference between sm57 & sm58?	mortlar	Low End Theory	15	3rd August 2007 10:41 PM

23rd March 2010	#91
excLOUsiv Gear addict Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 359	I use an MPC 1000 which is a 16 bit 44.1k sampler. When I'm recording into Logic, for example, does it really make a difference if I record that sampler into Logic at higher resolutions? I have read about such things as recording at higher resolutions gives more headroom, captures sound more accurately, etc. etc. Do these benefits still happen when you are recording a source that outputs a 16 bit source, or anything for that matter that is a lower resolution, for example? I have tried recording at different resolutions, but fail to notice a real difference. At the same time I don't really have a great set-up and room, so it's not the easiest thing for me to judge.

23rd March 2010	#92
Audiop Lives for gear Joined: Mar 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 3,960 Thread Starter	That unit has digital and analog out, do you use analog out? If so why? And if so (using the analog out) at least it makes sense to capture at 24bit resolution and possibly at higher sampling rates as well (depending on the ADC, DAW and plugs used). /Peter

26th March 2010	#94
Suade Gear maniac Joined: Dec 2009 Posts: 155	Hi excLOUsiv, If you want more headroom it's greater bit depth that you need (24-bit) rather than a higher sample rate (which will allow you to record higher frequencies). Just my perception but it looks to me like the recording world is moving away from pursuing ever higher sample rates (192kHz anyone?) and a growing number of people are settling down to work at 44.1kHz, 24 bits deep for music production. That's where I'm happy working though once in a while I do get asked for higher sample rate files by some record labels As to your question about whether there can be justification for recording a 44.1kHz/16-bit sampler at higher resolutions I'd say the answer was in your post... You said that you liked the sound of the analog output from the MPC, so Yes. That sound is no longer digital - capture it in high resolution and you'll have captured fine details of the sound of the MPCs analog components. The extra resolution will show the most benefits when you come to subject the sound you've captured to further processing which might expose these details more fully. I sometimes use an SP1200 which is only 32kHz and 12-bit but when I record it I stick with my usual project settings at 44.1/24 to make sure I get all of the richness of the SP's SSM analog filter chips from its output. Kind of like recording a grunge band with great microphones to get the most grunge...

27th March 2010	#95
excLOUsiv Gear addict Joined: Jan 2009 Posts: 359	Suade, thanks for clearing up my confusion on the topic. It helped sort me out. You're right I did get bit depth and sample rates a bit confused. I've been recording strictly at 24 bit depth, but switching the sample rates. That could be the reason why I'm not noticing much difference. Out of curiosity when asked to provide files with higher sample rates, what rates are they commonly asking for? 48, 88.2, 96, 192?