|
|
|
03-25-2017, 05:55 AM
|
#1
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1,966
|
44.1 or 96 kHz for recording?
I've always recorded at 44.1 but recently was thinking to switch to 96. What do you guys usually use? Do you then export it at 96 or at 44.1? Or it doesn't really matter?
I'm a bit confused, I would appreciate if you could give some tips
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 07:16 AM
|
#2
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Padova
Posts: 1,626
|
It all depends on the use you will do with the final product.
For my job (classical music production, with or without video) they always ask for a 96k24b master (usually divided into each single piece) and a 44.1k16bit image disk for the CD printing.
But if i need to record for a radio streaming or worst for a web streaming, for example, where the final quality will be compressed and squashed down for the streamin i usually record at 48k or 88.2k, it depends on how many instruments i need to record.
Anyway, I never record at 44.1k because you can't never know in the future if you will need something at an higher samplerate...and in any case you will have some more "frequency headroom" for processing.
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 10:57 AM
|
#3
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,905
|
I don't know if anybody has ever brought this up....
I find when editing a 96Khz file I have more detail to play with than with a 44.1 file. More detail.
This may seem to be a bit ho hum but for me it means finer editing!
Also I reckon I can hear the difference between 44.1 and 96.
Grinder
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 11:10 AM
|
#4
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Spain
Posts: 7,239
|
96 if you are processing the audio and want to export at 48.
88.2 if you are exporting to 44.1
But I find it perfect too when exporting to 44.1 from 96 with the higher quality resampling in render settings.
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 01:04 PM
|
#5
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 481
|
For uneducationable clients everything is fine what the client "needs".
For all other purposes... the same discussion again? Really? Look it up, please!
__________________
"Dear Americans... I told you so. Sincerely, your Aldous Huxley"
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 01:10 PM
|
#6
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: It changes
Posts: 1,425
|
Isn't the quality limitation partially due to the microphone and sound card specs?
My Blue Yeti records at 48K and 16 bits, I think it's the same for my sound card. I could be wrong, but in my case it's not worth setting Reaper to better quality unless I'm doing MIDI VSTi stuff, or perhaps for plugin efficacy.
But I also often wonder 'what's the point' if everything I do will end up on YouTube, Soundcloud, or being listened by someone with an I-Pod with cheap earbuds. Amateurishly speaking, I also need to care about CPU/RAM maxing out, and file size if I'm going to share some projects with others over the Internet.
Perhaps for Pros it matters more...
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 01:56 PM
|
#7
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 481
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by doppelganger
I always recorded at 48 khz, don't even know why. Not long ago i tried to record a few times on 44,1 and i can't hear the difference in the finished files.
...
|
There is no difference. Proven a million times. If you think of it: 48khz give you 3 more semitones bandwidth in a region where is no/zero/nada/null content, except for some distortion maybe, compared to 44.1khz. But you are incompatible regarding most audio-formats and have to downsample, what doesnt make the file any better. In best case scenarios it doesnt do any hearable harm.
And for even higher samplerates: ever had a look into these files with an analyser?? No? Do it. You will find... nothing at all above 22.5khz. If there is something, noone can hear it. So if people "hear" a difference, its their converters fooling them with bad implemented filters. And these bad implemented filters are not in the cheaper ones, they are all over the place!
Everything sampleratewise above 44.1khz (48khz for video) is a waste of time, energy, harddrivespace, bandwidth and therefore money.
Really... if a client is resistant to education, he gets the the file with the higher samplerate. Which is of course more expensive. He wanted it that way. I did care but then I dont care anymore.
__________________
"Dear Americans... I told you so. Sincerely, your Aldous Huxley"
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 02:17 PM
|
#8
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: I'm in a barn
Posts: 4,467
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by haervo
So if people "hear" a difference, its their converters fooling them with bad implemented filters. And these bad implemented filters are not in the cheaper ones, they are all over the place!
|
If anything, this is more of a reason to record in a higher sample rate than not.
Do some tests (no need to get so scientific about it either, trust what you feel, it's fine) and just go with what you think gives you the best results. hard drive space is dirt cheap these days, SRC isn't even a thing to worry about either.
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 02:34 PM
|
#9
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 2,613
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by haervo
There is no difference. Proven a million times. If you think of it: 48khz give you 3 more semitones bandwidth in a region where is no/zero/nada/null content, except for some distortion maybe, compared to 44.1khz. But you are incompatible regarding most audio-formats and have to downsample, what doesnt make the file any better. In best case scenarios it doesnt do any hearable harm.
And for even higher samplerates: ever had a look into these files with an analyser?? No? Do it. You will find... nothing at all above 22.5khz. If there is something, noone can hear it. So if people "hear" a difference, its their converters fooling them with bad implemented filters. And these bad implemented filters are not in the cheaper ones, they are all over the place!
Everything sampleratewise above 44.1khz (48khz for video) is a waste of time, energy, harddrivespace, bandwidth and therefore money.
Really... if a client is resistant to education, he gets the the file with the higher samplerate. Which is of course more expensive. He wanted it that way. I did care but then I dont care anymore.
|
Try this test: Record something live of high fidelity at 44.1 and then 96. Then apply numerous high quality eqs. Report back if A) the results sound identical and/or B) if they null.
Remember, it's not the theoreticals, it's what the results of the software work is.
__________________
The reason rain dances work is because they don't stop dancing until it rains.
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 03:09 PM
|
#10
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1,211
|
Many plugins perform better with higher samplerates. Also 44.1 khz means that the the filter in the ADC has to be quite steep creating some artifacts. Science tell us that 44.1 is not ideal and higher samplerates will indeed sound better. Science also tells us that ultra-high samplerates (like 196khz) are not useful either and even detrimental unless you want to do extreme pitch and time shifting.
|
|
|
03-25-2017, 07:03 PM
|
#11
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,905
|
Don't you just love this!
Grinder
|
|
|
03-26-2017, 01:20 AM
|
#12
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lincoln, UK
Posts: 7,924
|
The steep filter issue with 44k1 is worked round using oversampling and digital filtering.
Higher sample rates do record frequencies above 22k05, it's just that you can't hear them, and with 192k these ultrasonics can cause distortion in some equipment that impacts the audible range (ask Mr Lavry).
Some processing algorithms (e.g. EQ) have been shown to work better at higher sample rates, and some offer oversampling to take advantage of this at standard rates.
Record at higher "bit depth" (word length) than 16 bit to lower the noise floor -this is not out for debate, 24-bit will give you more dynamic range for headroom purposes and dynamic processing.
It's not whether you record something differently, it's whether you can hear it.
Now, where's that popcorn..?
>
|
|
|
03-26-2017, 05:54 PM
|
#13
|
Human being with feelings
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,905
|
You do not have to have the best gear, the right gear, the gear that looks great, the most expensive gear, you do not have to record at a great high rate....
I used to wrap my head around music from the old blues guy's years ago when matters were dire straits..... most of the gear they were recorded on was semi pro and the guitars they used were not worth a lot but the sound... not enhanced by the use modern gear really.... for me
Get about writing and playing, playing and recording do not miss the chance to capture something meaningful if you wait to long it may become meaningless and you will loose the passion.
I like 96 so I record at that personal preference.
Grinder
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:16 AM.
|