![]() | All Advertisers |
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Merch | Tips & Techniques | Video Vault | Books & DVD's | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 241
| Downsampling from 96kHz and Tracking Is there a big difference? Tracking at 96kHz - Converting then (processing if needed) Tracking at 96kHz - (processing if needed) then converting Tracking at 44.1kHz How much difference is 32-Bit Float than 24 bit? And what are people using to down sample? The reason I ask is I would like to track at 96kHz but it shoots up the CPU when using Plugins as you will know if you have tracked at 96kHz so Ideally the first option would be best but don't know if this is pointless (do plug ins work better at 96 or do they work the same regardless of the sample rate?) does it just depend on the quality of capture? Thanks in advance!
__________________ "It is ridiculous claiming that video games influence children. For instance, if Pac-man affected kids born in the eighties, we should by now have a bunch of teenagers who run around in darkened rooms and eat pills while listening to monotonous electronic music." If the opposite of a pro is a con, then look beyond this, the opposite of congress must be progress! |
| | |
| | #2 |
| Lives for gear Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 646
| Definitely quality of capture. If it doesn't sound good going into the box, a high sample rate will do nothing to improve things.
__________________ ____________________________________________________________________ "Stop crying about how it used to be. We live in an ever-changing world where opportunities are brief. Claim them while they still exist!" - Bob Lefsetz "If you make everybody big and fat they won't fit all into the elevator." - joeq |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 218
| If you can reliably tell the difference between 96khz and 44.1khz in a blind test, then go 96k. Otherwise, go 44.1 and call it a day. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about 96k sounding better, but unless it's a blind test it's just pointless. |
| | |
| | #4 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 423
| Quote:
Its nuts to use less than the best rates available to you. WHether you think its necessary or not today, you don't know what will come in the future.
__________________ I am on Twitter now - http://twitter.com/AudioWonderland http://www.myspace.com/rusticgem & http://www.myspace.com/orionsodyssey | |
| | |
| | #5 |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Derby, UK
Posts: 241
| Thanks for the replies, much appreciated Yes in an ideal world I would be using 96 all the time (maybe on a HD 3 system through a 64 channel duality) lol but..... Unfortunately this is not the case :-( but with regards to processing Is there a big difference? Tracking at 96kHz - Converting then (processing if needed) Tracking at 96kHz - (processing if needed) then converting And what are people using to downsample? is there any better way than using your DAW? thanks again!
__________________ "It is ridiculous claiming that video games influence children. For instance, if Pac-man affected kids born in the eighties, we should by now have a bunch of teenagers who run around in darkened rooms and eat pills while listening to monotonous electronic music." If the opposite of a pro is a con, then look beyond this, the opposite of congress must be progress! |
| | |
| | #6 |
| Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,824
| try it an it will tell you this topic is discussed to death here and people slaughtered each others in discussions try it and youŽll know, just like on most other topics here this topic is very famous, cause everybody got a computer... be carefull ;-) |
| | |
| | #7 | |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 218
| Quote:
Well... because there is science on this, and the science has already spoken. If you want to do this because in the future maybe it will make a difference... well, more power to you. If you want to do this because of lower latency, that's cool! But before you decide it makes an audio difference... have a listen for yourself, that's all... | |
| | |
| | #8 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 423
| Quote:
I have listened for myself which is why I do it and why I recommend it. CD will not always be the medium and shitty MP3 will not always be the audio format of choice
__________________ I am on Twitter now - http://twitter.com/AudioWonderland http://www.myspace.com/rusticgem & http://www.myspace.com/orionsodyssey | |
| | |
| | #9 | |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 218
| Quote:
But again, I ask what appears to be a stupid question... have you done blind testing? Can you reliably tell the difference in a level matched blind test? There are sensible arguments to be made for recording at 96k... "just in case?" Maybe! But because of audio quality? You don't know unless you test it. We all know that moving your ear 1/2" in any direction changes the sound drastically, MUCH more so then the difference between two sample rates (provided they are above 44.1). So to be intellectually honest, if you haven't tested with blind a/b/x testing... you really don't know it sounds better. | |
| | |
| | #10 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 423
| Quote:
I have done the test so quit blathering on about it. It sounds better.
__________________ I am on Twitter now - http://twitter.com/AudioWonderland http://www.myspace.com/rusticgem & http://www.myspace.com/orionsodyssey | |
| | |
| | #11 |
| Lives for gear | the biggest difference is when you use plugins, both effects and softsynths. nobody seems to care about this factor when discussing this issue.
__________________ Web: http://www.associatedminds.com Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/associatedminds Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/P_Leezy |
| | |
| | #12 | |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 218
| Quote:
No need to get all agro and defensive. I'm sure you have listened, but I question whether you have done a blind level matched a/b/x test... if so, please describe the setup, I'd love to understand your methodology. The reason I'm "blathering" is because I have done this test, with other people, using good converters and good monitoring. None of us could reliably tell the difference. That doesn't mean you can't, but I'm curious about how you tested it. Maybe you have better hearing then I do? Who knows? | |
| | |
| | #13 | |
| Gear interested Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6
| Quote:
I am interested in this topic as well, a pro engineer just told me that most pros he knows track/mix at 44.1/48 and there's really no point in anything higher. I would think more detail would be better, but I can't say I've ever heard an audible difference. I would like to know because if it makes no audible difference I could really use the extra CPU resources. Like the OP I'd also like to know what the most highly regarded sample rate converter is. | |
| | |
| | #14 | |
| Lives for gear | Quote:
I would love to know. | |
| | |
| | #15 |
| Gear addict Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 358
| Indeed, this topic has been widely debated and discussed here, but I have a question a previous poster brought up.... For those of us that use softsynths / samplers in our productions mixed with live recording inputs, what's the consensus? I have a pretty jacked-up 8core mac pro (raid arrays, 12g of ram, etc etc), and I still can't run most of my software instruments reliably above 44.1k... surely others have noticed this as well? I called East West Quantum Leap, who makes one of my frequently used instruments, and they told me that their products were designed to be used at 44.1, and may or may not (ie, unsupported) work at higher sample rates, and that's an industry standard for hollywood orchestral stuff etc. Sure I could print a mix of my instrumentals and track vox etc in a new session at 96k "just in case" and then keep two sessions, one with editable softsynths at 44.1, and one with printed instruments and vox at 96k, but boy oh boy that workflow sounds painful... What are people doing on this front? Thanks! |
| | |
| | #16 | |
| Gear addict Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 358
| Quote:
tee e e | |
| | |
| | #17 |
| Gear maniac Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 218
| Personally, I'm getting music done. Meaning, going through hoops to work at 96k might be OK if you're engineering a recording for someone else, but that's a freakin' nightmare workflow for someone making music. Even if there really was a major difference when it comes to 96k, it wouldn't be worth it if it sucked the creativity out of you by creating a terrible workflow. |
| | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| 2:1 downsampling | ed_wave | Mastering forum | 0 | 21st March 2006 07:20 AM |
| downsampling to 44.1/16 | audiomastermind | High end | 2 | 15th June 2005 09:15 PM |
| downsampling | lowswing | High end | 2 | 1st April 2004 09:01 PM |
| Downsampling | jbuntz | Music computers | 2 | 28th January 2004 11:25 PM |
| Downsampling from 88.2KHz vs 96KHz | licendrivr | So much gear, so little time! | 17 | 22nd September 2003 03:43 PM |