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

[heisleyamor]

Do higher sample rates mean higher quality? I record at 44.1 normally...Also my latency is at 4.0 ms...I record with a firepod going into my sony vaio through firewire with 1 gig hard drive...if things are skipping a little bit, should I just put the latency to 8.0 ms or higher? Let me know...thank you!

- Jeff

[heisleyamor]

I'm trying to get the best sound I can while using my shitty firepod...so let me know what sample rate you think would be best for a rocky/indie sound with crappy a/d converters

[Jonboy79]

If you can't make it sound good at 44.1 then you shouldn't worry about going any higher. To be honest, there are tons of threads on different sample rates and arguements as to why you should or shouldn't go higher than 44.1. Best bet though is to just do some recording at higher sample rates and compare them with the lower ones. If you like the way 48, 88, or 96 sounds over 44 then go for it. You also really shouldn't sweat your converters, while they aren't great they aren't bad and again, if you can't make the recording sound decent with what you got then it isn't the equipment.

[orksnork]

yep...double the strain on your pc going from 44 to 88...

i tried that once...had to convert the whole thing to finish up

[Matt Hepworth]

Please search samplerate - you'll find more than enough to fill a year's worth of encyclopedias.

[Bob Olhsson]

The real issue is what a sample rate sounds like with your converters. As converters get better, there are fewer differences.

[LeeStoker]

My feeling is we are still ending up on cd 16bit 44.1k so I'll stick to 44.1k until things change. Does one sound better?? who cares it ends up on cd then to mp3 at this time. As you know it all gets squished to hell in mastering so I guarantee you will not hear a difference and your DAW recources will drop considerably. Specs are just that specs there where and still are many records made at lower bit and sample rates and are wonderful, made by talented people. If your mixes are not up to snuff to your ears at 44.1k study and practice more it is not the sample rate.

[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 frequence (and in a bad way). So, the weired 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 beter.

[heisleyamor]

so if i have a firepod...using a higher sample rate might be better? just want to hear what you have to say...I'll experiment with it still...

[Melodeath]

Originally Posted by Don.SolarisSuck

Fact #2. Highs over 10KHz suck with 44.1Khz.
becouse the Nyquist theorem its wrong,

the diference between a sine waveform, square or saw waveforms its the harmonics, sines dont have harmoincs.

any square/saw signal over 10KHz needs harmonics that go over 22050Hz, if those harmonics are gone, becouse the jitter or becouse the Nyquist limit of 44.1KHz those Square or Saw become distorted sines mixed that look like unstable triangles.

at 44.1kJHz, all the highs sound "the same" distorted sinewaves & brighter becouse the harmonic foldback, like a harmonic exiter included for free at 44.1KHz.
but at 44.1KHz theres no diference between harmonic shapes in highs.
everything sounds plastic & unreal over 9KHz at 44.1KHz.

The Nyquist theory is not wrong. However, even if that's not what you're saying, your details are moot points. We can't hear over 20kHz, so that's why it doesn't matter if a square wave at 15KHz loses harmonics. We couldn't hear them anyway.

Almost all converters hugely oversample and then downsample to your SR choice. Thus, I imagine what sounds best would depend entirely on what converters you're using.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by Don.SolarisSuck

Fact #1. higher sample rate needs better clock, low phase noise, low drift & ultralow jitter under <10ps.

Fact #2. Highs over 10KHz suck with 44.1Khz.
becouse the Nyquist theorem its wrong,

the diference between a sine waveform, square or saw waveforms its the harmonics, sines dont have harmoincs.

any square/saw signal over 10KHz needs harmonics that go over 22050Hz, if those harmonics are gone, becouse the jitter or becouse the Nyquist limit of 44.1KHz those Square or Saw become distorted sines mixed that look like unstable triangles.

at 44.1kJHz, all the highs sound "the same" distorted sinewaves & brighter becouse the harmonic foldback, like a harmonic exiter included for free at 44.1KHz.
but at 44.1KHz theres no diference between harmonic shapes in highs.
everything sounds plastic & unreal over 9KHz at 44.1KHz.

Fact #3. better external clock needs better cables & clean stable power.

Fact #4. SADLY!!!
if you EQ at 44.1KHz, and press the 96KHz or 88.2KHz button,
or...
if you EQ at 96Khz and press the 44.1KHz button or 88.2Khz or 48Khz,

most digital algorithms inside plugins dont work the same at diferent sample rates with same settings, becouse the harmonic and jitter diferences between sample rates, and you will have to re-do everything again.

thats why some people think that 88.2KHz or 96khz does not sound better, but it does, and a lot better for highs, the mids sound more crystal becouse thers no harmonic foldback from the highs.
at 44.1Khz sounds dirty.

Fact #5. the SRC algorithms, most suck,

http://src.infinitewave.ca/ SRC Comparisons

Fact #6. most internal clocks suck.

Fact #7. some DACs sound better at double sample rate.
becouse the anti-aliasing filter design.

Fact #8. You need twice the CPU or DSP at X2 Sample Rates..

Fact #9. Latency gets half with same buffer size at double sample rate.
"converters work faster"

Fact #10. working at any sample rate with a bad clock sounds worse = darker and blurr.

Isn't it time for you to be out there with your cardboard sign?

[AlexK]

Fact #11. Sample rate conversion from non-divisble sample rates (48 to 44.1 as opposed to 88.2 to 44.1) is actually pretty destructive at higher frequencies (over 10k, and much more destructive than just recording in 44.1 to start off with).

[digitrax]

Originally Posted by AlexK

Fact #11. Sample rate conversion from non-divisble sample rates (48 to 44.1 as opposed to 88.2 to 44.1) is actually pretty destructive at higher frequencies (over 10k, and much more destructive than just recording in 44.1 to start off with).

I'm glad I'm not the only one who hears this! I've long been a proponent of recording at 88.2 (if your converters sound better there) or 44.1, unless it's for video.

[Captain Proton]

Nah the newer sample rate convertors apparently find a feq that both can devise into .... probably into the megahetz area (I have no idea), Voxengo's R8Brain does this I think.

Hey is that the Spaced guy posting under a Don Solaris piss take?

[Konketsu]

Originally Posted by Don.SolarisSuck

Fact #1. higher sample rate needs better clock, low phase noise, low drift & ultralow jitter under <10ps.

Fact #2. Highs over 10KHz suck with 44.1Khz.
becouse the Nyquist theorem its wrong,

the diference between a sine waveform, square or saw waveforms its the harmonics, sines dont have harmoincs.

any square/saw signal over 10KHz needs harmonics that go over 22050Hz, if those harmonics are gone, becouse the jitter or becouse the Nyquist limit of 44.1KHz those Square or Saw become distorted sines that look like unstable triangles.

at 44.1kJHz, all the highs sound "the same" distorted sinewaves & brighter becouse the harmonic foldback, like a harmonic exiter included for free at 44.1KHz.
but at 44.1KHz theres no diference between harmonic shapes in highs.
everything sounds plastic & unreal over 9KHz at 44.1KHz.

Fact #3. better external clock needs better shielded cables & clean stable power.

Fact #4. SADLY!!!
if you EQ at 44.1KHz, and press the 96KHz or 88.2KHz button,
or...
if you EQ at 96Khz and press the 44.1KHz button or 88.2Khz or 48Khz,

most digital algorithms inside plugins dont work the same at diferent sample rates with same settings, becouse the harmonic and jitter diferences between sample rates, and you will have to re-do everything again.

thats why some people think that 88.2KHz or 96khz does not sound better, but it does, and a lot better for highs, the mids sound more crystal becouse thers no harmonic foldback from the highs.
at 44.1Khz sounds dirty.

Fact #5. the SRC algorithms, most suck,

http://src.infinitewave.ca/ SRC Comparisons

Fact #6. most internal clocks suck.

Fact #7. some DACs sound better at double sample rate.
becouse the anti-aliasing filter design.

Fact #8. You need twice the CPU or DSP at X2 Sample Rates..

Fact #9. Latency gets half with same buffer size at double sample rate.
"converters work faster"

Fact #10. working at any sample rate with a bad clock sounds worse = darker and blurr.

You just don't quit, do you?

[Melodeath]

Originally Posted by Don.SolarisSuck

i agree with the Black letters.

but disagree with the Red Letters.

one thing its the Ear, another thing its digital audio.
Digital audio still needs those harmonics to know the diference between a sine or square or saw.

You are saying we hear a 15kHz square wave differently from a 15kHz sine wave?

[RARStudios]

Why is anyone even responding on this?

As mentioned above. There are 10,000,000 threads on this (To be exact ).
Go use this nifty thing called a search button!


If you don't want to do that, test it!


Please.
-Ev

[RARStudios]

also, did you say a 1 GIG hard drive? Wtf? they make those?....This post doesnt even make sense.

[digitrax]

Originally Posted by Captain Proton

Nah the newer sample rate convertors apparently find a feq that both can devise into .... probably into the megahetz area (I have no idea), Voxengo's R8Brain does this I think.

Not the issue. No matter what number you divide the number into, you still have to interpolate between two samples that are not equidistant when you run 'em back down. Not a problem mathematically as you "pro-rate" the % of each sample according to its distance from its eventual destination point, but it involves more math than simply dividing by two, thereby introducing potential error (which is there even on even Fs multiples). The higher the precision, the smaller the error, but the smallest possible error (mathematically) is straight point-to-point/2 averaging.
That said, the difference is TINY (almost as tiny as the difference between 88.2 and 96)

BTW, many ME's (Bob Katz comes to mind) preferred submission format (for digital) is 88.2 (or 44.1)

[Iggy Poop]

I'm so worn out on this subject. All I know is I can make it sound good at 44.1 khz. Less HD space too.

[digitrax]

Originally Posted by Iggy Poop

I'm so worn out on this subject. All I know is I can make it sound good at 44.1 khz. Less HD space too.

Amen!

[Space Station]

I just bought a Studer 24tr A80 so I dont care

[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?

[Pazuzu]

Bad science is bad. From what I can tell, the problem is the incessant torrents of inaccurate spiel that litter his posts. I find it amusing, and you can always just close that tab on your browser and go elsewhere, it's pretty harmless. I say he should be allowed to stay, but enforce a word ban such that he cannot use the words: timing, jitter and clock.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Bad science is bad. From what I can tell, the problem is the incessant torrents of inaccurate spiel that litter his posts. I find it amusing, and you can always just close that tab on your browser and go elsewhere, it's pretty harmless. I say he should be allowed to stay, but enforce a word ban such that he cannot use the words: timing, jitter and clock.

Not "litter" - "jitter"! Pure jitter.

[Don Solaris]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

I find it amusing, and you can always just close that tab on your browser and go elsewhere, it's pretty harmless.

Don't worry, he won't trouble you for long.

He's just being handcuffed and soon to be sent from where he came from.

[Don Solaris]

Done.

[digitrax]

Originally Posted by Captain Proton

Why is this guy always banned?

Someone got banned?

[TRANQUILO]

I use 88.2 or 96khz all the time. I have left the 44.1khz in the dust. My ears tell me the re-production from higher resolutions have batter bass and treble response. and the mids are still exciting. Sometimes I do 48khz for twice the inputs.

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by heisleyamor

Do higher sample rates mean higher quality? I record at 44.1 normally...Also my latency is at 4.0 ms......

- Jeff

if you have a low jitter clock then increasing the sample rate will improve the sound as shown at an AES convention where you could hear the same music recorded and played back at different rates and bit depths.

but if you pc cant handle taht then your otehr problem may become worse.