The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
who runs at 96000 permanently? Audio Interfaces
Old 3 weeks ago
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Acidizer's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
who runs at 96000 permanently?

when comparing 44100 to 96000 the difference seems massive.

but if i recorded something in 96000 but dropped back down to 44100 in preferences, would the audio quality drop when playing back the recorded piece?

cause that is what i am hearing. is that even possible? obviously there is placebo, but i don't think that is the case.

96000 seems sharp and clear and 41000 is muffled and soft.

who works in 96000 permanently? do you need a beast pc - or what is the most important factor?

when running a few frozen audio clips my sound starts to distort and doesn't seem like a volume issue (if i turn the volume down no difference). i thought freezing took away the CPU load?

i need to run at 41000 but with a synth that does 96000 that seems a big waste, especially considering the massive difference i think i am hearing.

i know 41000 is considered high quality, but wasn't that like 20 years ago?!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
If you run 96k audio material at lower sample rate, and DAW doesn't implement on the fly resampling, you WILL get distortion due to skipped samples, or it would play at a lower pitch.

44.1k is still high enough quality for nearly the whole listening population.


If a synth internally oversamples, there's not much benefit in running your whole project at 96k really. Unless you really have a beast of a CPU.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Acidizer's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
im on ableton and can flip between 44100 and 96000 fine. only difference seems to be is the audio isn't crystal clear on 44100 like it is on 96000 - it seems to be a massive difference, but the clips play back fine otherwise.

i froze the audio when at 96000 but changing down to 44100 so i can play them all at once with no audio distortion/topping out (not sure technically what it is) really seems like a massive downgrade. i can't see this downgrade being acceptable on a place like gearslutz unless it is all in my head

44100 is fine until you hear 96000 - now i feel like i am sacrificing a LOT of sonic quality/detail... but go back up to 96000 and my system or whatever can't handle it. playing back individual clips is fine, but all at once and it craps out.

isn't using 44100 leaving a lot of what you paid for (audio quality) on the floor? like playing an mp3 of a wav?

i thought i could record at 96000 but then drop down to 44100 without the quality downgrading - it doesn't work like that?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
but if i recorded something in 96000 but dropped back down to 44100 in preferences, would the audio quality drop when playing back the recorded piece?
IMHO it depends on what’s converting audio back to that sample rate. Just changing prefs and relying on DAW’s own sample rate conversion might sound different than other ways of conversion etc.

It certainly is possible that the different rates sound different to you, but again, a lot of variables here. Some folks like the 44100 because they might say the 96000 is a bit too bright and things don’t sit, while some say the 44100 is muffled. Half full half empty.

P.S. I would say sticking with the recorded rate is better than changing the DAW prefs afterwards but that’s just me.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #5
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
i thought i could record at 96000 but then drop down to 44100 without the quality downgrading - it doesn't work like that?
You can do that but in that case it's better to use an external high-quality resampler like SoX. However I remember that Ableton actually DOES have SoX implemented since 9.1 (although not at insane perfect settings: Ableton Forum • View topic - Live 9.1 Resampling Improvements)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
isn't using 44100 leaving a lot of what you paid for (audio quality) on the floor? like playing an mp3 of a wav?

Not really, great majority of people will listen your stuff at 44.1k or 48k regardless, and you're supposed to provide your productions in those sample rates anyways...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #6
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
when comparing 44100 to 96000 the difference seems massive.

but if i recorded something in 96000 but dropped back down to 44100 in preferences, would the audio quality drop when playing back the recorded piece?
Depends on the sample rate converter algorithm, have a look: SRC Comparisons
You shoud not be able to hear any difference with recorded audiothough, I strongly doubt u a bat :P

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
cause that is what i am hearing. is that even possible? obviously there is placebo, but i don't think that is the case.

96000 seems sharp and clear and 41000 is muffled and soft.
100% placebo or you are indeed a bat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
who works in 96000 permanently? do you need a beast pc - or what is the most important factor?

when running few frozen audio clips my sound starts to distort and doesn't seem like a volume issue (if i turn the volume down no difference). i thought freezing took away the CPU load?
i need to run at 41000 but with a synth that does 96000 that seems a big waste, especially considering the massive difference i think i am hearing.

i know 41000 is considered high quality, but wasn't that like 20 years ago?!
When talking about software tone generators, I think higher sample rate can be beneficial to avoid aliasing.
The disadvantage is that you get more intermodulation distortion - and very interesting sound effects if you record FM sounds from e.g. a Minimoog and pitch it down so you can hear all the ultrasonic content :D
44.1kHz is good enough. Have a look at the specs of vinyl or tape and be surprised
Modern audio interfaces oversample internally anyways...

Edit: the obligatory videos and articles for every converter discussion ever :p
24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed
YouTube
Old 3 weeks ago
  #7
Lives for gear
 
Soothing Sound's Avatar
Same here, Antelope Orion sounds better at 96k.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #8
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soothing Sound View Post
Same here, Antelope Orion sounds better at 96k.
Placeboplaceboplacebo jehova
Old 3 weeks ago
  #9
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soothing Sound View Post
Same here, Antelope Orion sounds better at 96k.
Sounds better for what? Acoustic recording, or playback, or real time software synths? These are three completely different topics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
96000 seems sharp and clear and 41000 is muffled and soft.
Throw away your junk soundcard and get a decent one. Most of the new ones come with a brick wall filter near or close to Nyquist/2.

Your soundcard is obviously cutting to early on the freq and as a result you get muffled sound when recording audio.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Acidizer's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
thanks guys, some good food for thought. i feel ameliorated

as always i can't see the forest for the trees i will try concentrate on what is more important for now but that just seemed way off.

i just remembered there was one track not recorded from the synth but running from ableton triggered by MIDI notes. must have been a sample though, could that sound considerably improved at the higher rate? i will isolate it and see.

plus mixing/mastering/limiting... when(if) i get to that stage, no doubt that will help a lot with the sound quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
Throw away your junk soundcard and get a decent one. Most of the new ones come with a brick wall filter near or close to Nyquist/2.

Your soundcard is obviously cutting to early on the freq and as a result you get muffled sound when recording audio.
i am using the soundcard in the S8. is that my problem?

can't chuck that away!

seems fine though for one track at a time @96k. guess that's all it was designed for?

i like using the S8 for audio and USB. very simple and straight forward, even i was able to set it up!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #11
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
i just remembered there was one track not recorded from the synth but running from ableton triggered by MIDI notes. must have been a sample though, could that sound considerably improved at the higher rate? i will isolate it and see.
LOL No. Let's just say that whoever tells you a recorded sample played back above 44 kHz will sound "better" is just full of sh1t.

It is like those retro Beatles and Stones recordings that are now popular to be listened at 96 kHz because they sound "better" that way. Snake oil, nothing more.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #12
There's a difference between the mathematical theory, and the subjective experience of people. While it might be better in theory, for the vast majority it'll make no difference. That doesn't mean we get to tell you what you experience, but you should consider that it's unlikely, that anyone else will experience it the same as you.
In practical terms, the less changes and conversions you subject material to, the better the end result. So consider what samplerate you want it to end up as, and record it as such.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #13
Nexialist
 
Stephen Bennett's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc_the_Darc View Post
....While it might be better in theory, for the vast majority it'll make no difference...

It's not even better in theory. I blame the semantics.

People (who should know better) talk about post 44.1kHz as 'high resolution' audio which immediately makes people think of video monitors and TVs. 4K is better than VGA, right? But increasing the sample rate is more like having a TV that can reproduce ultra violet.

Stephen
Old 3 weeks ago
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Acidizer's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
why do people say the system-8 definitely sounds better than the boutiques?

is that a different thing?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #15
Lives for gear
 
usedtohaveajuno's Avatar
.... and down the rabbit hole we go
Old 3 weeks ago
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Pale Pyramid's Avatar
You can drop the zeros and and add a k

96000=96k
44100=44.1k

It’s easier to type/read and is the Lingua Franca at this point.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #17
Lives for gear
 
drockfresh's Avatar
When I was a musician practicing my instrument (before Gearslutz ruined everything) the last thing on earth I wanted to do was read about sample rates. I kind of still feel that way.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #18
Lives for gear
 
Soothing Sound's Avatar
Plugins...plugins...

Reverb...delay...

Clarity in reverbs, delays, do the test...

Also software synths...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Pale Pyramid's Avatar
Now you are a musician/engineer/producer.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #20
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acidizer View Post
why do people say the system-8 definitely sounds better than the boutiques?

is that a different thing?
Yes, that's an entirely different thing and has nothing to do with the audio interface of the S-8.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #21
Gear Addict
 
A.I. Batule Chee's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
It is like those retro Beatles and Stones recordings that are now popular to be listened at 96 kHz because they sound "better" that way. Snake oil, nothing more.
If the 96 khz recording is from the original tape source then it should sound better, no?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #22
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soothing Sound View Post
Also software synths...
If a softsynth doesn't do oversampling, yes, it helps to run a DAW project on a higher sample rate.

If a softsynth DOES do oversampling, in a good amount of cases it's smart enough to scale its oversampling demands, so you don't really need to run your DAW project at a higher SR. I.e. if at 48k it runs at 2x oversampling, that means that in a DAW project at 96k it won't run with oversampling at all - or if it ran at 48k with 4x oversampling, it would run at 96k at 2x oversampling.

Well at least that's how u-he does it, but they're not the only ones.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #23
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
LOL No. Let's just say that whoever tells you a recorded sample played back above 44 kHz will sound "better" is just full of sh1t.

It is like those retro Beatles and Stones recordings that are now popular to be listened at 96 kHz because they sound "better" that way. Snake oil, nothing more.
These two examples are not the same. The original Beatles and Stones recordings would have been done to tape and the signal chain would have been analogue from input all the way through to the recorder. Transferring that to digital would most definitely translate better at a higher sample rate. Check out the recent transfer of the Ryan Adams Heartbreaker record. It was done in analogue completely (input to recorder; Neumann mics---> Neve desk--->Studer A800 at 30ips 2" tape.). Transfer was 96/24. There is a marked difference between this and the CD that was released.

But that has nothing to do with up-sampling a recorded sample.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #24
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevernamed View Post
There is a marked difference between this and the CD that was released.
Of course because mastering processes for tape and CD are also markedly different!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #25
Lives for gear
 

even 48k sounds starkly better than 441.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #26
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilDragon View Post
Of course because mastering processes for tape and CD are also markedly different!
I'm not sure you understood. Transferring from tape to digital is the point. Tape is the master in this case and you'll have to work off of that to transfer it to digital if you want a digital copy. Transferring to WAV for CD at 44.1/16 or transferring to WAV at 96/24 is not equivalent at all. Have a listen to a vinyl transfer (all analogue) in comparison to CD and then again the recent transfer done at 96/24. 44.1/16 is audibly inferior.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #27
Lives for gear
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
I'm not at all interested in vinly "sound quality" (which I find inferior in pretty much every case).
Old 3 weeks ago
  #28
Lives for gear
 
drockfresh's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Pyramid View Post
Now you are a musician/engineer/producer.
100% musician (grade A-)

Became:

25% musician (grade B-)

25% engineer (grade B-)

25% producer (grade B-)

25% forum poster (grade B+/A-)*

*self graded you can judge

I also know a TON about what is *wrong* with every piece of gear
Old 3 weeks ago
  #29
Lives for gear
 

Always at 96k except for film (then 48k).

Don’t need a crazy computer to do it. You may have in 2002 but these days no.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #30
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevernamed View Post
Transferring that to digital would most definitely translate better at a higher sample rate.
How?

This 22 kHz sinewave (which your ear most likely can't even hear) is defined by two sample points when sampled at 44,1 kHz:



-- What exactly would you achieve by defining it with 4 sample points, instead of 2?

Please explain.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump