my sample rate is at 44.1 right now...how does raising the rate change your sound?

[Zep Dude]

You should try a listening test at 48k vs 44.1k. On my system the highs are a bit more open while still retaining mid range punch. I do hear some degradation using SRC but I always use an external bus compressor so I use that opportunity to convert to 44.1k (capturing into a different system).

For recordings that mean something, they will sound better to the listener in the future when higher sample rates become the standard. For me 88/96 rates sound a bit thin in the midrange, but we all have our preferences...

[notwa]

Originally Posted by Franz

A common theory is this: It´s not the higher samplerate itself that makes it sound better, but the fact that the lowpass filter in your A/D kicks in at a frequency so high that you can´t hear it work. If you record at 44.1 kHz with cheap equipment, the filters will most likely start sloping at an audible frequency (and in a bad way). So, the weird thing is, the better equipment you have, the less reasons you have to go for higher samplerates, since the lowpass filters in a good A/D sounds a lot better.

Then would it to be wise to record at 88.2kHz and downsample the audio to 44.1kHz afterwards? Ideally you'd keep everything at 88.2kHz until mastering, but not everyone has the CPU for that.

[TurboJets]

Originally Posted by notwa

Ideally you'd keep everything at 88.2kHz until mastering, but not everyone has the CPU for that.

Honestly I don't see how the CPU has anything to do with it. A CPU manufactured in 2001 (for example) handled 96kHz just fine with much slower FSB speeds, half the RAM, lesser capable DAW hosts than today, older versions of Windows (Win 98SE/2k/ME), etc., etc. Primarily the issue is do you have the HD space? Most people do as storage is so affordable these days. Converters are much better these days but jitter is still an audible issue, compounded when you introduce the effects of reverb, echo, or delay.

Get a box with excellent ADAC and using higher sample rates start to make much more sense IMO. But there's still no doubt that higher sample rates like 96kHz are something you can easily fall in love with and become addicted to...only to shed a tear when you hear the loss of resolution after conversion back down to 44.1kHz for the final mix. It's just damn disappointing once your ears get used to hearing your mixes at such beautiful resolution.

[notwa]

A CPU manufactured in 2001 (for example) handled 96kHz just fine with much slower FSB speeds, half the RAM, lesser capable DAW hosts than today, older versions of Windows (Win 98SE/2k/ME), etc.

I assume you're not referring to cache sizes when you say RAM, and that processors have DAWs and OSes built into them.[/smartassery]

You're right though, I didn't think through when I said. I mean you can always flatten/freeze tracks if you can't process the mix in realtime. But that doesn't answer my question... Let's just say you HAD to work at 44.1kHz. Would it make that much of a difference if you recorded at 88.2kHz and downsampled it afterwards than if you recorded it at 44.1kHz? With said cheap equipment in either case.

[dodittydada]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Honestly I don't see how the CPU has anything to do with it. A CPU manufactured in 2001 (for example) handled 96kHz just fine with much slower FSB speeds, half the RAM, lesser capable DAW hosts than today, older versions of Windows (Win 98SE/2k/ME), etc., etc. Primarily the issue is do you have the HD space? Most people do as storage is so affordable these days. Converters are much better these days but jitter is still an audible issue, compounded when you introduce the effects of reverb, echo, or delay.

Get a box with excellent ADAC and using higher sample rates start to make much more sense IMO. But there's still no doubt that higher sample rates like 96kHz are something you can easily fall in love with and become addicted to...only to shed a tear when you hear the loss of resolution after conversion back down to 44.1kHz for the final mix. It's just damn disappointing once your ears get used to hearing your mixes at such beautiful resolution.

One potential fix is just to master to tape! Then recapture with high quality A/D D/A. Bang! SRC done.

[Showcase]

Even if I can hear slightly "better" results using higher SR, there are other things far more important than trying to get better sound just changing SR forth and back!
Like converters, preamps...

[RoyJeeBiv]

i don't know that it makes a difference in this situation, but wouldn't one want to use 48k if they are recording for TV/film...?? haven't seen any mentioning of that yet...

[TurboJets]

Originally Posted by dodittydada

One potential fix is just to master to tape! Then recapture with high quality A/D D/A. Bang! SRC done.

Absolutely true.

@notwa, I don't have any experience tracking at 88.2, then downsampling; only 96kHz, so I can't say.

As someone else suggested earlier, it's totally worth anyone's time and effort to track at those higher resolutions to hear for yourself and make your own determinations. Even if it's just a few short tracks, nothing beats experience and hearing for yourself. Your is studio is your lab; no need to take anyone else's word for it. There's not much in this world I believe until I see it or hear it for myself.

[Zep Dude]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Absolutely true.

@notwa, I don't have any experience tracking at 88.2, then downsampling; only 96kHz, so I can't say.

As someone else suggested earlier, it's totally worth anyone's time and effort to track at those higher resolutions to hear for yourself and make your own determinations. Even if it's just a few short tracks, nothing beats experience and hearing for yourself. Your is studio is your lab; no need to take anyone else's word for it. There's not much in this world I believe until I see it or hear it for myself.

If you have the capability, track some instruments to tape and pull them into your DAW at the various sample rates. That's the best way to hear exactly what you AD's are doing without other variables. Pro Tools can close and reopen a simple session (audio only) in a very short time so you can A/B the different sample rate sessions to each other. Cue each start time to the same place and set your faders the same. Under these conditions the differences are noticeable.

[tedpenn]

Originally Posted by Captain Proton

Why is this guy always banned? I know I'm new here... but he does seem to be arguing his point whether or not I agree with him.

Did he do something bad?

We'll never know, unfortunately. It has become the policy of this forum to delete posts and ban, machete style, with no explanation to the rest of us of what happened and why. What we're left with is a confusing looking thread with a bunch of guys scratching their heads asking "someone got banned? What happened? His posts seem ok to me?" (the ones that are left).

I have addressed this problem both publicly and privately with Jules, only to get a response each time of "I don't have time to deal with this".

I am requesting again that each time someone is banned (and/or threads deleted) that the reason for doing so is given. It's not even necessary to go into detail, a simple citing of the rule that was violated would suffice. It sure would prevent a lot conspiracy theorists and resentment towards the mods.

[tedpenn]

Getting back to the thread topic...

I'd recommend reading Dan Lavry's white paper on the topic (and why higher sample rates are not always "better").

It can be found here: http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

[pkole]

Originally Posted by dodittydada

One potential fix is just to master to tape! Then recapture with high quality A/D D/A. Bang! SRC done.

That's what i am hoping to test these days.
I want to print my mix from my MCI JH428 straight to a Revox a77.
I am hoping to skip the extra conversion and get some analog vibe to my mix.
I will then let the ME do his hocus pocus

[Raygun]

Get better and better with what you already have before investing your energy on theoretical questions like this. Record at 44.1, it'll be fine!

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by TurboJets

Honestly I don't see how the CPU has anything to do with it. A CPU manufactured in 2001 (for example) handled 96kHz just fine with much slower FSB speeds, half the RAM, lesser capable DAW hosts than today, older versions of Windows (Win 98SE/2k/ME), etc., etc. Primarily the issue is do you have the HD space? Most people do as storage is so affordable these days. Converters are much better these days but jitter is still an audible issue, compounded when you introduce the effects of reverb, echo, or delay.

Get a box with excellent ADAC and using higher sample rates start to make much more sense IMO. But there's still no doubt that higher sample rates like 96kHz are something you can easily fall in love with and become addicted to...only to shed a tear when you hear the loss of resolution after conversion back down to 44.1kHz for the final mix. It's just damn disappointing once your ears get used to hearing your mixes at such beautiful resolution.

Plugin power required goes up when you up sample rates. A project that plays back at 44.1k might not play back if it were at 96k. That's the CPU issue, nothing to do with streaming audio.

Why would you go back to 44.1k for the final mix? the master of course, but print your mix at your native sample rate, and leave the final conversion to the mastering engineer.

[TurboJets]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Plugin power required goes up when you up sample rates. A project that plays back at 44.1k might not play back if it were at 96k. That's the CPU issue, nothing to do with streaming audio.

Why would you go back to 44.1k for the final mix? the master of course, but print your mix at your native sample rate, and leave the final conversion to the mastering engineer.

Obviously you would down-sample back to 44.1k if you're mastering your own material, which quite a number of people are doing these days.

[Zep Dude]

You do take a hit in sound quality if you use software to down sample.

When I master I always go outside the box for certain outboard compression/eq etc and then bring it back at 44.1k on a separate system with the Lavry Gold. This, to my ears, is the purest way to get back to 44.1.

Last listening test I did using software SRC (Pro Tools, Tweakhead -which is rated quite well for this) compared to the above method I was able to hear the degradation. To keep things even, i went out of the box for both listening samples with the same external processing. Sample 1 was brought back through the Lavry AD at the native rate (either 48k or 88k -can't recall) then down sampled with SRC, Sample 2 was brought back at 44.1k. The SRC was not horrible, but was definitely degraded compared to the 44.1k Sample 2.