Downsampling from 96kHz and Tracking

[PinnacleProdUK]

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!

[kooz]

Definitely quality of capture. If it doesn't sound good going into the box, a high sample rate will do nothing to improve things.

[psalad]

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.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by psalad

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.

The ability of the higher sample rates to handle processing better is not really anticdotal is it?

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.

[PinnacleProdUK]

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!

[Flying_Dutchman]

try it an it will tell you
this topic is discussed to death here and people slaughtered each others in discussions
try it and you´ll know, just like on most other topics here
this topic is very famous, cause everybody got a computer... be carefull ;-)

[psalad]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

The ability of the higher sample rates to handle processing better is not really anticdotal is it?

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.

Why don't we use billions of colors in digital photography? Because the eye can't tell the difference. Why stop at 96k, why not go up to 192k? Why stop there?

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...

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by psalad

Why don't we use billions of colors in digital photography? Because the eye can't tell the difference. Why stop at 96k, why not go up to 192k? Why stop there?

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...

Well, the best in the industry have said 44 is not enough based on the science of how the anti aliasing etc work. The science has indeed spoken.

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

[psalad]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

Well, the best in the industry have said 44 is not enough based on the science of how the anti aliasing etc work. The science has indeed spoken.

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

The reason why 44 is not enough, from what I understand, is that poorly designed steep filters have a negative impact on audio quality. Most experts I've spoken to suggest you really only need to go to ~60k to eliminate any issues.

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.

[AudioWonderland]

Originally Posted by psalad

The reason why 44 is not enough, from what I understand, is that poorly designed steep filters have a negative impact on audio quality. Most experts I've spoken to suggest you really only need to go to ~60k to eliminate any issues.

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.

You answered your own question. If the experts say you need ~60, what choice do I have other than 88 or 96 on most equipment?

I have done the test so quit blathering on about it. It sounds better.

[The Beatsmith]

the biggest difference is when you use plugins, both effects and softsynths. nobody seems to care about this factor when discussing this issue.

[psalad]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

You answered your own question. If the experts say you need ~60, what choice do I have other than 88 or 96 on most equipment?

I have done the test so quit blathering on about it. It sounds better.

:)

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?

[dbs]

Originally Posted by AudioWonderland

You answered your own question. If the experts say you need ~60, what choice do I have other than 88 or 96 on most equipment?

I have done the test so quit blathering on about it. It sounds better.

Yes please tell us the details of your test, it is really pointless to just say "It sounds better." You obviously believe it SHOULD sound better due to the "science" you point to, so unless it was a blind test your opinion is irrelevant.

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.

[Red 7]

Originally Posted by dbs

Like the OP I'd also like to know what the most highly regarded sample rate converter is.

+1

I would love to know.

[rcb4t2]

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!

[rcb4t2]

Originally Posted by dbs

Like the OP I'd also like to know what the most highly regarded sample rate converter is.

Amazon.com: Behringer SRC2496 24-Bit/96 kHz A/D-D/A & Sample Rate Converter: Musical Instruments

teeee

[psalad]

Originally Posted by rcb4t2

What are people doing on this front?

Thanks!

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.