The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Not Trying To Stir this Up Again, but...
Old 2nd November 2002
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Midlandmorgan's Avatar
 

Not Trying To Stir this Up Again, but...

Is the 96K fever for real or is it just my perception of the hype? What I mean is, seems that in certain circles anything less than 96 is passe , and it seems that some studios are reporting that their customers are starting to refuse anything of "old school" 44.1/48 rates anymore...

Are you finding this to be true? I have read that although the ear cannot reliably detect sounds over a certain frequency, the absense of inaudible frequencies (>22K kHz) has a psychological impact on the listener...so I understand SOME of the desire.

Currently we use a d8b, a bunch of external pres, and Samplitude running via RME lightpipe interfaces, giving a max of 48K sample rate. Maybe I am insane, but this sure seems more than sufficient to work commercials, demos, and the occassional master project.

So the questions remain: 1) besides saying that you have it, have you seen any REAL advantages to 96K? 2) If your clients didn't know, could they tell you are using the higher rate?

Thanks...and please forgive me if this has been beat to death already...I tend to live in the past (most of the time on purpose)
Old 2nd November 2002
  #2
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

I'm holding out for 384K...
Old 2nd November 2002
  #3
I want is ASAP.

I like the depth + extra high 'zing' & low subs.

I will probably only shift over to full 96k operation next Autmn.

See what the state of 'DAW Wars' is then.

Jules
Old 2nd November 2002
  #4
Lives for gear
 
3rdpath's Avatar
i'm waiting...

the best sounding cd i've heard in ages was done live to 2 track thru prism ad's into a sadie 24/96(running at 88.2). upright bass never sounded so good. ( tierney sutton..unsung heroes on telarc) i can't deny that the higher rates make a difference but i'm staying at 44.1/16bit...still pretty standard for us sound designers.

of course, by the time i'm ready to change the industry standard will be 576k /48bit...( oh, they'll find a way, just wait...)





Old 2nd November 2002
  #5
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
Nothing in my studio is 24 bits or 96khz. Well, the M2000 is 24 bit but that's the only piece I have that will do that. Not many of my cleints know or care about sampling rates. Well, the engineer clients do but most musicians don't know or care. I'll upgrade the DAW and all that when I feel enough pressure to do it. Maybe early next year, definatly by the end of the year.
Old 3rd November 2002
  #6
Lives for gear
 
groundcontrol's Avatar
 

I have PT HD but I've been stuck mixing stuff done at 44.1 since I got it. There definitely is NO demand (or budget for that matter! ) whatsoever for higher sampling rate in my market right now. Most people that upgraded to HD (me included) have done it more for the extra DSP and better sound.

Now for the potential technical merits or lack thereof of higher sampling rates... There was an epic thread of biblical proportions more than a year ago on Georges Massenburg's forum over at the EQ site. (When the signal-to-noise ratio was still bearable!) In order NOT to repeat the same over here, here's the link for those who have missed it:

http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/...=000822#000000

I would also suggest reading a good technical book about digital audio (like the one by John Watkinson) and making some personal listening tests if you really wish to formulate an informed opinion on this matter.
Old 4th November 2002
  #7
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by groundcontrol
I have PT HD but I've been stuck mixing stuff done at 44.1 since I got it. There definitely is NO demand (or budget for that matter! ) whatsoever for higher sampling rate in my market right now. Most people that upgraded to HD (me included) have done it more for the extra DSP and better sound.
What does budget have to do with higher sampling rates? Sure, you burn through more hard disc but media is usually the cheapest part of any project.
Old 4th November 2002
  #8
Gear Maniac
 

Bombfactories new plug-ins (vs 3) are optimized for 96k..He thinks we should hear a big difference especially in the Pultec at 96k...I only have the compressors that came with my HD3 pack....anyone willing try them and give them a review?

Old 4th November 2002
  #9
Lives for gear
 
groundcontrol's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Jay Kahrs

What does budget have to do with higher sampling rates? Sure, you burn through more hard disc but media is usually the cheapest part of any project.
As I've stated in my post I'm not a commercial studio. I produce the stuff I record and I work for record companies mostly. Labels don't request high sampling rate (unlike an outside producer could for sound (pun intended) reasons) unless they specifically need it for technical reasons. I can't see why they would, apart for DVD releases. Let'me assure that such a thing doesn't exist in the miniature french-speaking market of the province of Quebec (my main market). In fact there is no commercial releases of a local artist that I am aware of in 5.1! The only mixes I've done that have been requested to be delivered in 5.1 yet, were for movie theater versions of tv ads and they have been far and few between. I know a couple of guys who have mixed a bunch of live shows in 5.1 for releases on DVD but it was for American clients like Buena Vista/Disney. This is what I was refering to when I said there is no budget for it (from clients); i.e.: no market.

The situation is only marginally different in the rest of Canada.

So basically only the local feature-film industry can afford (and barely) to have projects mixed in 5.1 over here.
Old 4th November 2002
  #10
Gear Addict
 
cymatics's Avatar
 

My experience with A/B comparison of sampling rates was not terribly scientific but was revealing. Mike Rivers of RAP was kind enough to host an open house event to poke and prod at the Mackie HDR's that he had (I think he was rewriting the technical manual for Mackie at the time). One thing we decided to try was a crude A/B of 48kHz vs 96 kHz at 24 bit. The source was a key jangle (not really a musical instrument but a revealing test subject). The mic was a Schoeps supercardioid capsule with a CMC series body. An Aphex 1100 microphone preamp that features a built in 24/96 A-D converter was used as a front end. The key jangle was recorded once at each sample rate then reviewed.

Without knowing which one I was hearing, I heard a clear difference between the two. The difference was a 'smoothness' to the extreme high frequency transient information. Those in attendance made similar observations and agreed as to which they preferred. The favored sample was the 96kHz version.

I am not making any claims that this test was definitive or scientific in any way; I am simply saying that under the circumstances of the experiment I witnessed the difference was audible.

With all that being said, I recently bought an 'Original' Cranesong HEDD which only samples as high as 48 kHz. I don't feel that the difference that I witnessed was significant enough to warrant the investment required to bring my recording rig up to 96kHz. If I had the option to do it that way? Sure why not? but until everyone goes crazy over 192kHz and dumps their newly antiquated 96kHz setups for pennies on the dollar, I'm happy in where I am.

- jon
Old 10th November 2002
  #11
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally posted by cymatics
My experience with A/B comparison of sampling rates was not terribly scientific but was revealing. Mike Rivers of RAP was kind enough to host an open house event to poke and prod at the Mackie HDR's that he had (I think he was rewriting the technical manual for Mackie at the time). One thing we decided to try was a crude A/B of 48kHz vs 96 kHz at 24 bit. The source was a key jangle (not really a musical instrument but a revealing test subject). The mic was a Schoeps supercardioid capsule with a CMC series body. An Aphex 1100 microphone preamp that features a built in 24/96 A-D converter was used as a front end. The key jangle was recorded once at each sample rate then reviewed.

Without knowing which one I was hearing, I heard a clear difference between the two. The difference was a 'smoothness' to the extreme high frequency transient information. Those in attendance made similar observations and agreed as to which they preferred. The favored sample was the 96kHz version.

I am not making any claims that this test was definitive or scientific in any way; I am simply saying that under the circumstances of the experiment I witnessed the difference was audible.
I like your test ... nice and real world. It's a tough argument ... subjective quality vs. mathematics. To my ears, my nemesis of digital recording, the triangle, doesn't have the 'make my hair stand up on the back of my neck' sound when recorded at 96 ... so my unscientific real world test would indicate that 96 sounds better. I'm not really all that concerned about the math part as I can still recall the digital clone arguments from the DAT days that went from 'a digital clone is mathematically identical therefore sonically identical' to 'oh yes, but jitter might affect the ...'. So after hearing that there is more to it than just math, I prefer to leave the calculator out of the control room ....

FWIW, I'm finding label clients are beginning to request recordings at 96/24 ... particularly those that are archiving their aging analog assets. And in situations where I'm mixing for DVD, I'm laying masters to 96 for future DVD-A etc... so labels have some semblance of mandates for product development in the not-so-far-away future ....

YMMV but client demand and good sonic performance made the switch to 96 a no-brainer for us.
Old 11th November 2002
  #12
Lives for gear
 
davemc's Avatar
 

I heard a difference with 96 to 44.1. So I switched to it after I got HD3. I have been backing off the plugs and using a bit more outboard so I still do not use all the DSP. Then again I rarely let the band go over 32 tracks as well. Backups a pain, got a new firewire drive to copy all the stuff. Demo bands now get a 2 weeks and the data has to go to data heaven. In a mix when everything alys on top of everything I do not know what teh diff will be. The mastering house I use I give them the 96/24 files.
Old 15th November 2002
  #13
Here for the gear
 

try tracking a key jangle with a 2" at 30 ips and compare it to 96k, you'll hear a real audible difference and dump your newly upgraded 96k equipment.dfegad
Old 16th November 2002
  #14
Gear Maniac
 
Jack the Bear's Avatar
 

People can sometimes get caught up in hype of the numbers. I found good gear running at 48K is better than cheap ****ty stuff at 96K.

Having said that mastering at 96K has only been of significant value when you start with mixes that were recorded and mixed at 24/96. Especially program that has more organic elements.

Other than that mixes that come in on 1/2".

Ultimately we are getting to a final destination of 16/44.1, so dither is really important.


Cheers,

Tony Mantz.
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