The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
96K really sound better? Studio Monitors
Old 6th August 2008
  #31
Lives for gear
 
theblotted's Avatar
 

pro here, 99% 44.1/48kHz. the very rare occasion 96kHz.

the day gig for Television, almost all 48kHz. quite often 16bit too, believe it or not.
Old 6th August 2008
  #32
Lives for gear
 
peeder's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
The only gotcha with 88.2K is that sometimes some plugs don't support it. So make sure that's not the case before you get way into it and find you can't use some key plug.
Haven't heard this, other than bugs on Duende.

Let's make a **** list.
Old 6th August 2008
  #33
I hit one when I went up to 96K as an experiment on my latest piece. I can't remember if it was BFD (1.5.x) or Amplitube or Ampeg now. But I think that one of those guys wouldn't load at 88.2, so I went on up to 96K and it was happy.
Old 6th August 2008
  #34
Lives for gear
 
norman_nomad's Avatar
For all those 88.2 er's out there thinking that it's an easy shot to 44.1k (the computer just divides by 2)... just know that most DAWs will upsample to the lowest common multiple of your destination sample rate before converting which should give equal results across all captured sample rates.

So might as well go 96k if you're running into plug-in troubles.
Old 6th August 2008
  #35
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by norman_nomad View Post
For all those 88.2 er's out there thinking that it's an easy shot to 44.1k (the computer just divides by 2)... just know that most DAWs will upsample to the lowest common multiple of your destination sample rate before converting which should give equal results across all captured sample rates.
If you're working entirely in the box I would agree... for those of us who do outboard summing... I do indeed prefer 96k to 88.2... but as always, YMMV.

Peace.
Old 6th August 2008
  #36
Lives for gear
 
mac black's Avatar
96k/24 is pretty much the standard for me.
Old 6th August 2008
  #37
Will it make any difference when you output to MP-3?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 6th August 2008
  #38
Lives for gear
 

I've been doing 96/24 for a little over a year. Drive space is cheap and the SAW have more than enough power to handle it.

I wouldn't say the difference is anywhere close to night and day or anything. I doubt I could tell comparing 1 mono track against another. I do hear a difference when mixing 24+ tracks done at 96 vs older tracks @ 44.1.
Old 10th December 2008
  #39
Gear Head
 
Rev. JimBo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Williams View Post
Will it make any difference when you output to MP-3?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Yes -- it will be like the difference between a 1 day old or a 2 day old Dog Turd .
I prefer the 2 day old ones myself . Take your pick .
Old 10th December 2008
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
For me it's not contest, 88/96 sounds better in the high end, and many plug ins including Waves IR1 were done at 96, so they will sound best at that sample rate. However when you dither down you loose some quality in the high end, and when it is put on a CD, how much improvement is there? I would say not much, but perhaps some...depending on what you use to convert the 88/96 down to 44.
Old 10th December 2008
  #41
Here for the gear
 
Kam Phullar's Avatar
 

If you were to believe the Nyquist Theory and ideas around over sampling, logically you don't need to go over 44.1kHz ... who here can hear 22.05kHz?? However the problem with 44.1kHz is that the anti-aliasing filters blocking everything above 22kHz are very steep. Filter this steep have a great deal of phase shift as it nears the cut-off point. Also many people believe that the phase distortion of the upper audio frequencies is not a good thing.
So if we had a higher sample rate to begin with, we would be able to have a more gentle anti-aliasing filter. I found a nice paragraph on a website to support this:

"Now, what if we had sampled at a higher rate to begin with? That would let us get away with a cheaper and more gentle output filter. Why? Since the reflections are wrapped at the sampling frequency and its multiples, moving the sampling frequency that far up moves the reflected image far from the audio portion we want to preserve. We don't need to record higher frequencies—the low-pass filter will get rid of them anyway—but imply having more samples of our audio signal would be a big help."

Personally I find that 88.2kHz is very reliable. There are a few reasons for this, firstly it takes into account the 'over sampling' that I referred to. Secondly if your final output is CD (44.1kHz), there is less chance of rounding errors when converting 88.2kHz to 44.1kHz. Where as 96kHz to 44.1kHz is not so strait forward.

That's my 2 pence on the matter
Old 10th December 2008
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Seamus TM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by masterblaster View Post
This is a question for pro (full-time) music engineers only.
I prefer 88.2k, but only part of the time.
Old 12th December 2008
  #43
Old 12th December 2008
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
No!
Old 12th December 2008
  #45
Gear Maniac
 

ive been testing my converters and different clocks.
96k does sound more open and detailed to me, while at the same time it sounds softer with out the need of eq to make it sound soft and smooth.

ive never had a chance to record at 192 and do really care to even with 3TB of drive space.
i like 96 though it takes up more space and cpu power...
i might try 88 since the math works better when going down to 44
Old 12th December 2008
  #46
Lives for gear
 

I like 88.2...haven't done a real record (lots of tracks) at this rate yet, but I like it on small counts...seems to have less buildup from 90- 140 Hz...and mixes seem more focused..probably just my ears telling me that though.

Nick
Old 12th December 2008
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Easy test: record in 24/96. Make a copy of the file and downconvert to 16/44 with proper dithering. Upconvert back to 24/96. Try to tell the original apart from the 16/44 resolution 24/96 file in a blind test.

(splice these files together to be able to play them at one go with same converter settings)

I certainly can not tell the difference.

But as HD space is cheap, I use 24/96 for originals in case someone wants it that way sometime in the future for some reason. Why not?
Old 13th December 2008
  #48
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus View Post
Easy test: record in 24/96. Make a copy of the file and downconvert to 16/44 with proper dithering. Upconvert back to 24/96. Try to tell the original apart from the 16/44 resolution 24/96 file in a blind test.

(splice these files together to be able to play them at one go with same converter settings)

I certainly can not tell the difference.

But as HD space is cheap, I use 24/96 for originals in case someone wants it that way sometime in the future for some reason. Why not?
Except for the 16bits, that was the Bob Katz panel test!
Old 13th December 2008
  #49
Gear Head
 

I don't think anyone can tell the difference between 44.1 and 96. Not worth one iota of stress.
Old 13th December 2008
  #50
Right, especially if you have a decent converter with a good filter design.

On the other hand I don't lose sleep over people insisting on working in 96 kHz as long as they're wasting their own hard disk space ;-)

Getting a 80 track 24 bit 96 kHz electronica project for mixing is a bit of a nuisance when it really isn't better sounding than a 44.1 kHz project but takes up sooo much more space and processing power (unless you SRC down first - which makes the whole point moot).
Old 13th December 2008
  #51
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

My experience has been that 96k definitely kicks the final 44.1 sound up a notch.

My guess is that less crap gets folded back into the midrange or possibly it gets folded back to different frequencies in the midrange making for less noticeable generation loss. An old analog trick was to always mix to a different brand of tape than you tracked to. It may be the same sort of issue.
Old 13th December 2008
  #52
Lives for gear
 

Audio Ease is working on 192K support for Altiverb.
Old 20th December 2008
  #53
Gear Head
 

still waiting for 384.
Old 20th December 2008
  #54
Gear Head
 
Clairaudience's Avatar
 

I remember Dan Lavry from Lavry Engineering elaborate on the samplerate theory here a while back.

He stated that samplerates between 24 Bit/48 KHz and 24 Bit/96 KHz is "best" due to the current PCM converter technology...

He also said that the algorithmic math involved in the conversion from one samplerate to another does NOT rely on even/odd samplerate "numbers".

Read the white papers (PDF): Lavry Engineering - Unsurpassed Excellence



Tim de Paravicini said that at a PCM samplingrate of 24 bit/ around 400 KHz, the human ear would be unable to distinguish between digital and analogue processing...
We're simply not there yet with regard to the 1-bit/384 KHz stuff...

Last edited by Clairaudience; 20th December 2008 at 08:42 PM.. Reason: I just remembered...
Old 22nd December 2008
  #55
Old 22nd December 2008
  #56
Lives for gear
 

One of those misleading, pointless graphs again.

Who feeds 48 kHz system with a 333333 Hz signal (3 microsecond pulse)? It is filtered out before hitting the AD and even if not, nobody, not even bats, can hear it. Besides, no microphone in the world can resolve such frequences, they do not exist in real life.
Old 22nd December 2008
  #57
Gear Addict
 

I guess it all depends on the piece of gear we're talking about. I know on the Ensemble, the 44k and 96k settings were completely night and day, there's simply no way you could get them mixed up. 96k had a lot more definition and detail to the notes that you may or may not want. After trying it out one day, I decided not to go back to the 44k. I don't know if this means it uses poor converters, but it was worth mentioning. YMMV.
Old 22nd December 2008
  #58
Gear Head
 

In my experience I don't know if I hear a ton of difference in the final product, but working at 96 always makes mixing alot easier-I mix almost entirely in the box. Everything seems to sit better without me having to work as hard.
That said, you have to balance it against the limitations of your system, 96 uses twice as much DSP as well as storage.
If I know that the song will have a low track count I will work at 96-or 88.2. A pop song with lots of tracks and plugins-44.1.
All being equal I would work at 96 all the time.
Old 22nd December 2008
  #59
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petrus View Post
One of those misleading, pointless graphs again.

Who feeds 48 kHz system with a 333333 Hz signal (3 microsecond pulse)? It is filtered out before hitting the AD and even if not, nobody, not even bats, can hear it. Besides, no microphone in the world can resolve such frequences, they do not exist in real life.
I don't know much about those graphs, but, I cant hear not so big difference between 44.1 / 96, than I can hear, when I once tried my Otari MX 5050 vs. apogee mini-me (at 96).

I had then 2 x tlm103 + flamingo. First played (guitar + singing) something to otari, then with same settings, moved wires to mini-me and record to logic. Difference was so big, Otari so much better, stereo image, everything ... Everybody who listend those was was clear that otari sounded
Old 22nd December 2008
  #60
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by peterwild View Post
I don't know much about those graphs, but, I cant hear not so big difference between 44.1 / 96, than I can hear, when I once tried my Otari MX 5050 vs. apogee mini-me (at 96).

I had then 2 x tlm103 + flamingo. First played (guitar + singing) something to otari, then with same settings, moved wires to mini-me and record to logic. Difference was so big, Otari so much better, stereo image, everything ... Everybody who listend those was was clear that otari sounded
With my Radar I can tell no real difference between 48 and 96.
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
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
nexxoussone / So much gear, so little time
3
jax72 / Low End Theory
8
not_so_new / Music Computers
8

Forum Jump
Forum Jump