?? you think you are smart? well ... thats your problem.
and: you spend your time and energy talking BS? well ... thats too your problem. especially when you are not able to admit being wrong.
whiteaxxxe, sorry, missed this post the first time through. Was that directed at me or one or more of those eager beavers up above? Can't tell, but if to me, let me assure you that, yes, I'm a real smarty pants. Oh, yeah....
About the sync problem with video and sound recorded at 44.1 - I've noticed that too.
Maybe do some tests, because this I think depends on your soundcard or converters clock. I think that often in low budget interfaces we get this problem especially if not recorded at the target resolution.
From my experience all guys I've been dealing with recorded at 48 by default because of that. And all the professionals did it at 96kHz.
If space and resources would not be a problem I would surely do it at 88, but again because these samples can not be divided into 48 in a simple way, you can get the resample problems, which are visible here as additional lines (http://src.infinitewave.ca/), but are beyond our hearing capabilities if we talk average audio RMS value with not to much of dynamics. 88 to 44 is of course less of resampling - actually if done proper it should be moreover just sample-reduction.
What an excellent, informative, and well put together video! Thank you very much for posting that, karbo, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Yeah, that was pretty awesome. Lots of common misconceptions dispelled.
I'm going to keep a link to that guys page handy for the next time I get into a debate with a digital-hater.
(https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell)
About the sync problem with video and sound recorded at 44.1 - I've noticed that too.
Maybe do some tests, because this I think depends on your soundcard or converters clock. I think that often in low budget interfaces we get this problem especially if not recorded at the target resolution.
From my experience all guys I've been dealing with recorded at 48 by default because of that. And all the professionals did it at 96kHz.
If space and resources would not be a problem I would surely do it at 88, but again because these samples can not be divided into 48 in a simple way, you can get the resample problems, which are visible here as additional lines (http://src.infinitewave.ca/), but are beyond our hearing capabilities if we talk average audio RMS value with not to much of dynamics. 88 to 44 is of course less of resampling - actually if done proper it should be moreover just sample-reduction.
hey urednik, my recording interface was my RME Babyface. so, I don't know if that is any help figuring anything out with the sync trouble.
And that would mean you are doing pretty much only videos? Why otherwise use 48k? the difference between 44.1 and 48 is so minimal, especially now in the digital age, that it makes this entire thread ridiculous from the get go -- unless someone is asking what the standard accepted format is for whatever you need to produce.
No, nothing to do with videos. Its just the standard that most of my clients request and is also the sample rate that a lot of studios I've recorded in over the years.
cheers
__________________ Get Kick-Ass Drum Tracks @ www.hugoribeiro.com
Macbook Pro | Audient ID44+ASP880 | Apogee Duet 2
Sonor Drums | Sabian Cymbals | Remo Drumheads | Vater Drumsticks
I really appreciate everyone taking time to discuss this.
Everyone.
I watched the video and it was very interesting, but quite a bit over my head.
Still not sure what to do, though.
Maybe record at 96...and buy a larger hard-drive to hold the bigger files.
I wonder if 96 convert to 44.1 as well as 88.2 would convert to 44.1?
Peace,
Keith
Ask the people you are submitting to what format they want (file type, bit depth, sample rate)
provide that
I usually go for recording at higher rates and down sampling rather than recording at lower rates and up sampling
But with a good sample rate converter (even just using REAPER) at it's highest setting, I'll give you a million dollars if you can hear the difference*
*Caveat: I won't actually give you a million dollars
A little background into why I'd asked in the first place
If it will help, I'll explain the basis for this question:
I belong to a songwriter's association (CT Songwriters Assoc.) that has frequent guests that give presentation. Some are publishers that are looking to place music in certain projects...or sometimes the guest might be interested in music for internet radio shows, etc.
It was these folks whose efforts got some of my music played in internet radio, which resulted in my receiving my first royalty check (about $50) from SoundExchange, last fall.
So it seemed to me that, if I start recording everything at 48K (or higher), that my music -might- be more likely to be considered for usage in video/film, because it would be more compatible.
If it will help, I'll explain the basis for this question:
I belong to a songwriter's association (CT Songwriters Assoc.) that has frequent guests that give presentation. Some are publishers that are looking to place music in certain projects...or sometimes the guest might be interested in music for internet radio shows, etc.
It was these folks whose efforts got some of my music played in internet radio, which resulted in my receiving my first royalty check (about $50) from SoundExchange, last fall.
So it seemed to me that, if I start recording everything at 48K (or higher), that my music -might- be more likely to be considered for usage in video/film, because it would be more compatible.
Hope this helps.
Peace.
Short answer:
Avoid unnecessary conversions.
Record at the highest settings on your recording device. (Further, don't use intentionally limited portable formats like mp3 and 16 bit in production.)
Longer:
Running at 48k vs. 96k is nowhere near as noticeable as reducing bit depth from 24 to 16 for one example to put things in perspective. You are correct to avoid any unnecessary conversions of course. And as far as fidelity goes, upgrading to a classier interface with better converters would get you far better sound even at 44.1k than a more budget unit at 96k (for further perspective). 44.1k still captures the full audio band. The hardware AD/DA converters we build have just a little bit of distortion in the higher audible frequency range when the cutoff is right next to the usable audio band. 88.2k & 96k simply gives you a perfectly clean audio band by putting it in the center of a 'wider road'. You'll only hear this on a high end system and again, this is nowhere near as obvious as 24 bit vs. 16 bit at any sample rate. A classier converter unit would initially sound better because of the cleaner analog portion of the circuits.
The 'sour grapes' arguments that keep coming up with people trying to tell you that 96k doesn't sound better (or sounds worse ) than 44.1k are hilarious. We have a digital format (24/96) that is basically perfect to the highest levels of critique. You can make 100 generation copies that basically have no perceptible loss it's so good. Set it and forget it and focus on the project I say. Or I guess you can argue that [insert favorite older technology] is really all you need and constantly try to prove it if that's more fun.
TL;DR = since we don't have the option to run audio at 60kHz, 88.2 or 96kHz is probably your best bet (but even this can be a problem if the interface is not truly good enough to run it; i.e., it is possible to sample too fast for a particular interface).
I'm using a MOTU Traveler...if that's any consolation.
It's an older model, but I still think it's quite capable and good enough interface for 24/96.
As usual, I welcome comments from folks who think otherwise.
Thank you, everyone, for your insight and comments.
Is there a better forum than here at Reaper.fm?
I doubt it.
Serr explained it well but you need to know that sometimes even a better converter is not to be found by pro's in AB comparisons.
So yes, moreover nothing of this really matters.
What matters is:
1. the sound you are capturing,
2. the way you are capturing it,
3. the microphones and a proper choice of their usage,
4. the mix.
All other debates are not near as important as that. Even a mp3 at 256kBs beats a bad recording in the depth.
If it will help, I'll explain the basis for this question:
I belong to a songwriter's association (CT Songwriters Assoc.) that has frequent guests that give presentation. Some are publishers that are looking to place music in certain projects...or sometimes the guest might be interested in music for internet radio shows, etc.
It was these folks whose efforts got some of my music played in internet radio, which resulted in my receiving my first royalty check (about $50) from SoundExchange, last fall.
So it seemed to me that, if I start recording everything at 48K (or higher), that my music -might- be more likely to be considered for usage in video/film, because it would be more compatible.
Hope this helps.
Peace.
Now that you've finally explained what you are after, why not just convert and render to both? Let those you send your stuff to choose what they want to use?
Meanwhile, Newbies Beware! This thread contains more mis-information and outright BS than any two or three I've seen here or anywhere lately.
[QUOTE=The Telenator;1466069]Now that you've finally explained what you are after, why not just convert and render to both? Let those you send your stuff to choose what they want to use?
Hi Telenator,
Well, certainly.
So, the answer to this question seems to be, "If your interface can handle it, record at 96k, then convert it to 48 or 44.1, as needed."
So, the answer to this question seems to be, "If your interface can handle it, record at 96k, then convert it to 48 or 44.1, as needed."
Is everyone in agreement here?
Record AND mix or just record?
__________________ Windows 10x64 | AMD Ryzen 3700X | ATI FirePro 2100 | Marian Seraph AD2, 4.3.8 | Yamaha Steinberg MR816x "If I can hear well, then everything I do is right" (Allen Sides)
short story... I repair hearing aids. Some guys I worked with used to have this competition going over home stereo gear... arguing THD back and forth. My amp is doing 0.04... mine is better... 0.03.... on and on. and then they send repairs through that test at 35% distortion across the board... too funny.
WHat about if you just wanna record multicam drum videos for youtube? I was recording with a couple GoPros and the audio became out of sync. I had to play the recorded audio in REAPER at rate of 0.997 (I think) for it to perfectly match up through the entire song. I was at 44.1k on REAPER and using the standard 60FPS 1080p setting on the GoPros. Would changing the audio in REAPER to 48k fix this problem?
WHat about if you just wanna record multicam drum videos for youtube? I was recording with a couple GoPros and the audio became out of sync. I had to play the recorded audio in REAPER at rate of 0.997 (I think) for it to perfectly match up through the entire song. I was at 44.1k on REAPER and using the standard 60FPS 1080p setting on the GoPros. Would changing the audio in REAPER to 48k fix this problem?
Was the audio out of sync when just playing back the videos or only when you import them into Reaper?
WHat about if you just wanna record multicam drum videos for youtube? I was recording with a couple GoPros and the audio became out of sync. I had to play the recorded audio in REAPER at rate of 0.997 (I think) for it to perfectly match up through the entire song. I was at 44.1k on REAPER and using the standard 60FPS 1080p setting on the GoPros. Would changing the audio in REAPER to 48k fix this problem?
Sync between any two digital devices is a crapshoot. The problem is that tiny differences in the trimming of the clocking source result in increasingly large differences as recording time increases.
Pro cameras and audio systems include a feature called time code that solves the problem. Sometimes our non-pro devices will be in sync, happy days. When we're not so lucky we either stretch or slice one of the sources so they line up. For a single camera edit we have to use speed adjustment. If we're using multiple cameras, any place where we switch angles in post is an opportunity to resync.
Use 48 kHz which is fine for video and even FLAC's, OGG's, MP3's, or AAC/M4A encodings. Then use r8brain or SoX freewares to convert to 44.1 kHz for CD tracks, if you need them.
Bit resolution affects the noise floor, but don't worry about that if you use 24-bit or 32-bit float. Again, if you need a lower setting, use r8brain or SoX freewares to convert them. You can do both types of conversions in one step.
I totally agree, however, if your using sampled instruments, there's a good chance they're already going to have audio at 44.1K. Somewhere along the line a conversion is going to have to take place. Heh heh, unless you've bought libraries that are only 48K/24bit.
Wow, another, finally a found out realization. I have tried all recording scenario settings. Recording in 44.1 is good enough, if you know how to keep all tracks clean and neat, and yes, 48, for film work,etc. Actually, to get stuff recorded in Reaper easily, you need to keep it simple and at the end of a song rendering, dithered and noise done.
TBH, and don't take this the wrong way, Reaperites, I have to use Adobe Audition to edit the rendered master wav. I mean, I tried almost everything, but muting and chopping up intros and exits, sometimes, adding an effect here and there and limiting go down,way, way better in that DAW, just my 44 cents, psingman
P.S. I use Reaper for everything else, uses the least amount of resources than any other!
This is why 48 KHz over 44.1 KHz. NOISE FLOOR. 48 KHz has a lower noise floor compared to 44.1. Movies / Film / Video require that lower noise floor. When converting 44.1 to 48 You are taking that noise floor with you. It's a mess to clean it out.
If you want all the really technical reasonings: I suggest you look up the Fast Fourier Transform theorem. It may be a bit technical though. It's mathematics for engineers type stuff. It basically states that the higher the sampling rate, the farther apart the Frequency impulses are. This gives a wider area of decay of the sample's wave form. Thus there is less artifacting / interference / noise / bleed through from sample to sample. 44.1 gives a noise floor of around -3 to -12db. 48 gives a noise floor of around -60db. 88 and 96 KHz give noise floors of around -120 to -180 dB. Any thing under -60dB is considered silent. My Fast Track Pro with nothing connected to the inputs puts out -56dB. That's pretty freaking quiet in recording terms.
Recording in 44.1 is good enough, if you know how to keep all tracks clean and neat, ...
no, its not good enough. it is perfectly good. waveform in = waveform out, whats there to be "optimised" or to be "made better" than "good enough"? really.
and the samplerate has absolutely nothing to do with noise-floor.
(when will every musician on this planet be forced by the UN to take a test on his knowledge before he is allowed to grab an instrument, download a DAW, or make even one note of music? have to take that recommendation to my congressman/woman. the UN should urgently care about that. )
when will every musician on this planet be forced by the UN to take a test on his knowledge before he is allowed to grab an instrument, download a DAW, or make even one note of music?
Someone did better than that actually.
All those MIDI sound banks? All the preset sounds?
It's a trap!
If you don't have the skills to figure out how to tweak the sounds and/or program your own, you'll sound like an absolute idiot playing the cheesy canned preset sounds. People will point and laugh!
SO if I record a drum video with my GoPro, and my drum audio is at 44.1K, the sound from REAPER stops being in sync with the video from the GoPro after about 45 seconds. I have to change the playrate in REAPER from 1.0 to 0.9998 in order for a 3 minute-ish video to stay synced up. In this case, should I switch REAPER to 48k?