Is recording at 96k/192k with UA 2192 Worth It?

[audioman]

Hey fellas I usually record at 24/48k with my UA 2192.. would be worth jacking the sample rate up to 96k or 192k?

[jrod9900]

Short answer... No.

[O.F.F.]

I'd go up to 24/96 or 24/88.2 (depending on release format) but not to 192.

[Fezzle]

Absolutely yes, like the guy above said though, no need to go beyond 96. Actually alot of people miss the point with why you should sample higher.. that is your clocking and samplings performance are often better at higher rates, so in theory less jitter less errors etc. I think its good practice and to be honest, if Dan Lavry and George Massenburg swear I should, I will. They build the bloody things so Ill listen!

[tomwatson]

No. I haven't found that it is. It will just use more of your hard drive space. However, doing a project at 96khz, especially for vocals can sound great.

[jrod9900]

I have definitely proven that a great performance and great sounding instruments and amps are way more important than converters and sample rates. 24/48 will suffice for me. There are too many downsides for my with hard drive space and computer performance at 96k.

Just think of it this way: If you record a sh*tty sound at 96, its still gonna sound sh*tty.

I went to a remote studio in I'll a couple weeks ago and was let down when using an 002R. I'm used to HD 96 or 192 i/os and my Apogees... I was pleasantly surprised when I got home and the tracks sounded great.

Bottom line, if you have a great performance and great instruments and your tracks still sound sh*tty, guess what...it aint the converters or sample rate.

It is nice to use it as a crutch or excuse though. ;-)

Just my $.02.

Jrod

[jrod9900]

And trust me... I wanted to believe that better converters and higher sample rates would make me sound instantly better!!! Lol

Now I actually have to say its me when I can't get good sounds through an 002 or 003. Lol

Jrod

[robertshaw]

96k on the 2192 is much wider than 44/48
it is worth it

[kstackm]

Originally Posted by audioman

Hey fellas I usually record at 24/48k with my UA 2192.. would be worth jacking the sample rate up to 96k or 192k?

If there is any "Cardinal Rule" that any GS member could give you it would of course be "trust your ears".

A little less than 5 years ago (plus or minus a few years) there were people who swore that it was effectively 'senseless' to record at 96K and even supported it with alleged scientific and mathematical 'proof' to the effect that it did not make much of a difference.

I personally would 'chuckle' (privately) as I recorded my 96K sessions (and higher) and printed it to 2" in 'blissful glee'.

Based on how you phrased the question, only you can decide that one.

Years ago converter tech and DAW/V.I./Soft Synth coding was not as efficient as it is today. So has technological advancement such as 64 bit O.S. architecture, converters, etc. changed the foundation of the discussion ? Yes.

With today's superior audio interfaces and corresponding converter tech, operating at higher sample rates has increasingly become 'more desirable' by many while some still think it's a bunch of hog wash.

I personally love recording and programming at 96K and even higher and have done so for a while but of course much depends on your needs, setup, interface, intent or purpose and taste.

As a final point, the 2192 sounds really good at pretty much any sample rate as I'm sure you already know.

[filipv]

Get someone to help you blind-test yourself. Then go with whatever sample rate sounded the best to you during the blind test. If it all sounds the same (as I suspect it will), then stick with 48/24 - no need to waste disk space if it sounds the same.

[kennybro]

Declaring that someone can't hear something they claim to be able to hear is an exersize in futility. To each, their own.

OP, don't listen to Slutz and decide: Listen to your recordings and decide.

[toneguru]

Originally Posted by jrod9900

Short answer... No.

Not quite as short an answer... yes.

If your computer can handle it, I would do it.

[jrod9900]

I take that back...

I totally remember twice where someone said to me "Oh my gosh, that must have been tracked at 48k cause it sounds awful."

So, yeah, true...

Haha...

I would like to see how many people could pick correctly between a 96/24 and 48/24. I would definitely wager on that one.

I'm gonna be the bigger person and say to each their own. I really don't care either way. I just think its bogus when people say you HAVE to track at 96k to be high quality when 50% of the music is going to be listened to as a 128 mp3 on laptop speakers. But hey, this is Gearslutz...

JROD

[jrod9900]

If anyone wants to send me a 44.1/24 or 48/24 vs 96/24 comparison, I'll be glad to take a listen. I will happily admit if there is a big difference. I can admit when I'm wrong.

JROD

[Gear Queer]

yes and no

[audioman]

fellas thanks for the responses they really help!! so I maybe have been missing out or yet havent missed out at all..

[toneguru]

The better your ear the more 96k will matter.

The better your gear, the more the dif 96k makes will be revealed.

I've always felt everything makes a difference.

About a year ago, I participated in a double blind test. Not everyone in the room could pick out the dif from 48 to 96 but some could. To those that could, we appreciate the dif. Its a very small dif but still better sounding to my ears.

- Cheers

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by robertshaw

96k on the 2192 is much wider than 44/48
it is worth it

Hmm.

Width come from panned non-correlated channels in a mix and the ambient interaction of the two. How does a dual discrete channel converter increase or decrease width? I'd be concerned if it did.

Depth, presence or focus I can understand. Width, not so much.

[mixermarkb]

I don't care to debate width and so on, but I've been working at 88.2 since doing an acoustic piano/tabla/native American flute project a few years ago.

I mix OTB, and in my world, the difference is far from subtle on harmonically rich sources. Rock guitars sound MUCH better to my ears, for example. Breakups are more distinct, the high end of stacked guitar tracks doesn't turn into a wall of fizz as easily, but it's way worth higher sample rates for me.

Drive space is cheap.

YMMV

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by mixermarkb

I don't care to debate width and so on, but I've been working at 88.2 since doing an acoustic piano/tabla/native American flute project a few years ago.

I mix OTB, and in my world, the difference is far from subtle on harmonically rich sources. Rock guitars sound MUCH better to my ears, for example. Breakups are more distinct, the high end of stacked guitar tracks doesn't turn into a wall of fizz as easily, but it's way worth higher sample rates for me.

Drive space is cheap.

YMMV

I'm not sure anyone can disagree that 88.2 or 96k isn't discernibly better for recording and mixing nuanced and harmonically complex sources. Though, with lots of music it doesn't matter so much, a matter of diminishing returns.

[RightOnRome]

Originally Posted by travisbrown

Hmm.

Width come from panned non-correlated channels in a mix and the ambient interaction of the two. How does a dual discrete channel converter increase or decrease width? I'd be concerned if it did.

Depth, presence or focus I can understand. Width, not so much.

i thought it had more to do with clocking then sample rate

[mixermarkb]

Again-

Hard drive space is cheap, compared to anything else we use.

People spend a couple grand on a converter, then use it at 44.1 or 48k?

How much is a 1TB drive these days?

Why not capture audio the best it can be captured?

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by RightOnRome

i thought it had more to do with clocking then sample rate

Right. But standard clock rates are just multiples and factors of each other. I don't think there is any indication that 96k sounds wider (or any other dimension) than 48k because clocking is somehow better at one rate over another. I'd consider a clock that clocked better at 96k broken.

[filipv]

Originally Posted by toneguru

About a year ago, I participated in a double blind test. Not everyone in the room could pick out the dif from 48 to 96 but some could. To those that could, we appreciate the dif. Its a very small dif but still better sounding to my ears.

Could you please describe the blind-testing technique?

How many samples did you listen to?

[Highphi]

Isn't a good converter supposed to sound the same at all sample rates? I think that is Lavry's rule of thumb.

[Mr. Light]

Originally Posted by mixermarkb

Again-

Hard drive space is cheap, compared to anything else we use.

People spend a couple grand on a converter, then use it at 44.1 or 48k?

How much is a 1TB drive these days?

Why not capture audio the best it can be captured?

This.......yes, why not?

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by mixermarkb

I don't care to debate width and so on, but I've been working at 88.2 since doing an acoustic piano/tabla/native American flute project a few years ago.

I mix OTB, and in my world, the difference is far from subtle on harmonically rich sources. Rock guitars sound MUCH better to my ears, for example. Breakups are more distinct, the high end of stacked guitar tracks doesn't turn into a wall of fizz as easily, but it's way worth higher sample rates for me.

Drive space is cheap.

YMMV

Drive space is not the issue for me. Processor power and drive speed is.

Most of the time I work at 44.1 - occasionally higher if it's a low track count project, particularly acoustic material.

I'd love to try working at 96k permanently, but on the last project I worked on like that, I maxed out an HD4 and had to bounce tracks to get the project to play back off the drive. 100+ tracks at 96k isn't fun.

[filipv]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

100+ tracks at 96k isn't fun.

I appologize for the off-topic, but why on earth would you need 100+ tracks??

[minipoodle]

Try the higher rates and listen. Much more constructive than asking for subjective opinions from people with different ears. I own a 2192 and found that tracking at the 192khz rate made a massive difference, even over the 96khz rate. The results may or may not be the same for you.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by filipv

I appologize for the off-topic, but why on earth would you need 100+ tracks??

Vocal stacks.

Multi-tracked string overdubs.

Multi-miked guitars.

Lots of drum mics.

Not my preferred way of tracking a session - the client didn't exactly make any commitments along the way, and I didn't even track most of it, just mixing and the string overdubs. But that's what I had to deal with.

This wasn't even pop either. With modern pop, you can easily have 100 vocal tracks when every line is quadruple tracked and harmonised, and there's different treatments for verse and chorus.

May not be to your taste, but you work as a pro engineer, you have to be prepared for it, which means the studio you book has to have a rig that can handle it.