Old 04-26-2018, 09:46 PM   #1
Jeffsounds
Human being with feelings
 
Jeffsounds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Northeast Michigan
Posts: 3,020
Default An Argument For Recording At High Res...

Makes sense to me...

High-Res... Why Not?
There is no argument for dumbing-down a recording, while recording
__________________
"Music is a fundamental human desire." - Mike Butera
Jeffsounds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2018, 09:57 PM   #2
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,840
Default

I don't see an argument presented. 9 paragraphs, but not argument in any of them.

If your pacticular converters sound better to you at a higher sample rate, some plugins that you use sound better to you at a higher sample rate, or you would like to enable end listeners to have better quality when slowing down recordings, those would be points for an argument.

But what is the argument presented here?
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2018, 10:18 PM   #3
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 7,868
Default

Recently in a really honest and decent audio magazine the reporter was allowed to describe that to him his bass sounded considerably better when exchanging the power chord of his amp to a $ 150 version by Vovox,

Such beliefs usually can't be turned down by scientific arguments, as same never include each and any influence that might interfere), but the likelihood is very small.

-Michael

Last edited by mschnell; 04-27-2018 at 03:22 AM.
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2018, 10:19 PM   #4
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,408
Default

Quote:
But what is the argument presented here?
Good question. Closest I spotted was:

Quote:
but we’ve read plenty of studies revealing that sounds above the audible band affect what’s within the audible band, whether it be imparting brightness or a sense of air and room ambience that’s difficult to measure.
We have?

If something affects what's within the audible band, it will be captured within the audible band.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2018, 11:21 PM   #5
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,840
Default

Drumphil, I agree on that. I don't know why that argument is often used, unless it is specifically pointed out that we are talking after the fact of capturing audio, i.e., some sort of post processing that affects higher than audible frequencies which in turn affects audible frequencies.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2018, 11:56 PM   #6
ivansc
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near Cambridge UK and Near Questembert, France
Posts: 18,941
Default

a hangover from the Bose Bullshit disaster. They claimed that their equipment was distortion free in the audible frequency range & that distortion higher or lower didnt matter since "humans cant hear it". They had conveniently forgotten high and sub harmonic`s effects. Not sure this has any relevance to this though....
__________________
Brexit Schmexit. Lets have a violent revolution instead. Bagsy the first go with a nuke! (Here, Moggy Moggy...)
ivansc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 12:25 AM   #7
Cableaddict
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,883
Default

It is an absolute fact that certain plugins and VSTi's sound better at higher SR's.

But then you have to weigh that against losses in down-sampling the final mix.

For me, it's worth it, esp since Reaper's sample converter is extremely good.


To each his own. With some sessions, it can be very subtle.
Cableaddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 01:48 AM   #8
drumphil
Human being with feelings
 
drumphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cableaddict View Post
It is an absolute fact that certain plugins and VSTi's sound better at higher SR's.

But then you have to weigh that against losses in down-sampling the final mix.

For me, it's worth it, esp since Reaper's sample converter is extremely good.


To each his own. With some sessions, it can be very subtle.
I understand what you're saying, but that is a work around for poorly designed plugins rather than a basic characteristic of higher sample rates.

Sometimes compromises are necessary.
drumphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 03:29 AM   #9
Jason Lyon
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 694
Default

The argument seems to boil down to "we can, so why not?" Hardly rigorous.

I'm not exactly an audiophile, but I'm an old-fashioned bloke who's recently gone full streaming and freed up a ton of wall space in a small house. I don't miss vinyl warping, scratches, dust, bouncing cartridges, worn motors and belts, and knackered needles... I don't miss skipping CDs much either.

I wonder in particular how much of the perceived quality of vinyl is psychological. We're told it makes a big difference so we believe it.

Reminds me a little of my PSG channel strip. It's short for pop star's girlfriend and it's not routed to anything, I just twiddle with it when I'm getting all kinds of silly suggestions and ask "is that better?" The PSG is the most valuable free plugin in my arsenal...
Jason Lyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 03:52 AM   #10
EvilDragon
Human being with feelings
 
EvilDragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Croatia
Posts: 23,311
Default

The only valid argument is if you're doing sound design. Then high sample rate definitely helps with stuff like pitching things up/down/wherever, and so on.

If plugins have internal oversampling (and use good oversampling algos) there's no real need to go above 48k, although some still might want to run stuff at 96k for whatever reason.
EvilDragon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 04:34 AM   #11
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drumphil View Post
I understand what you're saying, but that is a work around for poorly designed plugins rather than a basic characteristic of higher sample rates.

Sometimes compromises are necessary.
You could equally argue that oversampling is a workaround for lower sample rates.

I've read lots of plugin devs explaining to users that oversampling introduces its own problems and is not the magic bullet many presume it to be. If it were, some devs wouldn't spend so much effort on decramping methods that don't involve oversampling.

Another bonus of higher sample rates (well, 96k at least, as higher than that you start dealing with other potential problems) is reduced latency... if your system can handle it.

Last edited by Judders; 04-27-2018 at 05:06 AM.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 05:23 AM   #12
Philbo King
Human being with feelings
 
Philbo King's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,553
Default

Quite a few low and mid range converters have degraded noise floors at higher sample rates, though even the worst are still better than (noncompanded) tape.

Re: vinyl
It's my feeling that some of the 'vinyl sound' is due to vinyl mastering, which prunes out signals that would cause the needle to jump out of the groove. The generic freq distrubtion of vinyl tended to average out to more or less match pink noise. When CDs first came out there were a lot of people, freed from these constraints, that were making horrible messes of mixing and mastering just because they could. I remember certain early CDs that were simply painful to listen to; several of which had artists I loved. These I remastered for my own use just to make listening tolerable. The problem has settled down a bit as time has passed, though, maybe due to market forces, maybe other things. However there a still plenty of examples of horrible sounding releases out there.
__________________
Tangent Studio - Philbo King
www.soundclick.com/philboking - stream music
www.facebook.com/philboking - gigs and news
Philbo King is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 05:53 AM   #13
Retro Audio Enthusiast
Human being with feelings
 
Retro Audio Enthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Default

The argument of high sample rates vs. lower ones to record at was decided a long time ago and you can make your own opinions:

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/de...g.html#toc_1ch

https://sonicscoop.com/2016/02/19/th...-when-it-isnt/
__________________
REAPER License Holder

Last edited by Retro Audio Enthusiast; 04-27-2018 at 02:24 PM.
Retro Audio Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 06:15 AM   #14
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Audio Enthusiast View Post
The argument of high sample rates vs. lower ones to record at was decided a long time ago and you can make your own opinions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/de...g.html#toc_1ch

https://sonicscoop.com/2016/02/19/th...-when-it-isnt/
Could you give a time reference for that video? I skimmed through but didn't find anything about recording at high sample rates.

I was under the impression that IMD is only a problem on playback, not recording.

For example, Xiph gives some test files here to see if IMD is a problem for your system: https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/de...g.html#toc_1ch
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 09:23 AM   #15
emarsk
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 208
Default

The linked article is so uninformed that it's not even misinformed. It's just empty.

For the ones who want to read something more relevant:

24/192 Music Downloads (yes, I know, he talks about downloads, not mixing, but it's the most informative article about this topic I've seen around)
EDIT: I also see it's been posted already

A Digital Media Primer for Geeks

Digital Show & Tell
emarsk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 09:52 AM   #16
Lokasenna
Human being with feelings
 
Lokasenna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 6,239
Default

That article is hilariously hilarious.

Quote:
I want as much resolution as possible—so 44.1 kHz ain’t gonna cut it. I want more.
But you literally just agreed that our hearing tops out around 20kHz.

Quote:
The point is that we are documenting music history.
I'll start caring just as soon as you find me an example of any important music history that happened above 20kHz.

Quote:
In fact, I’d say that because a lot of our work ends up being heard on inferior formats, that’s precisely the reason to squeeze every dB of resolution while you’re in the process.
What the fuck does this even mean?

Quote:
If it’s going to be converted to a low-res format, that’s all the more reason to make the original recording as good as it possibly can be.
But... recording at 48kHz IS as good as it possibly can be. There is no more good to be had because, since nobody can hear what's up there, it's by definition unrelated to the song and is therefore NOISE. Even if we could hear it, you're not going to suddenly find nuances that weren't there before.

Quote:
You never know if it might end up on vinyl.
Vinyl is a technically-inferior format that many people like because it imparts a warm saturation to the track. Many cartridges (according to Google) have a response well past 30kHz... but you STILL can't actually hear it.
Lokasenna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 10:21 AM   #17
Jimmy James
Human being with feelings
 
Jimmy James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 476
Default

If you like running say, 96k. Then do it bro! I love running in 96k. But my HDs hate it.
I have a SD 250gb for my OS and Reaper. But I record and store to two 1tb hds. I made a album for a singer songwriter using 96k. It sounded amazing. I feel I can hear more clear and make better decisions with the eq. Heck even compression.

But just from his double album that used around 700gb. Down the road I am going to get a few huge SD drives. But until then, 48k is my world.

If you got the space for it and performance. Go for it bro!
Jimmy James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 10:25 AM   #18
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy James View Post
If you like running say, 96k. Then do it bro! I love running in 96k. But my HDs hate it.
I have a SD 250gb for my OS and Reaper. But I record and store to two 1tb hds. I made a album for a singer songwriter using 96k. It sounded amazing. I feel I can hear more clear and make better decisions with the eq. Heck even compression.

But just from his double album that used around 700gb. Down the road I am going to get a few huge SD drives. But until then, 48k is my world.

If you got the space for it and performance. Go for it bro!
That's still a lot cheaper than the equivalent audio time for 2" tape. If I were running a professional outfit then a hard drive or two for archive purposes would be part of the deal.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 10:40 AM   #19
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
That's still a lot cheaper than the equivalent audio time for 2" tape. If I were running a professional outfit then a hard drive or two for archive purposes would be part of the deal.
2" tape would have been maybe $200 USD back then (for me). My last project came in at 240GB @48k, with backups that's similar pricing @96k. Not disagreeing but the price adds up.

As far as the overall subject, until those who claim to hear it, pass an A/B/X blind test (beyond just saying it in a forum), I'm not buying it and they aren't really hearing it. If it were so obvious we wouldn't need such claims, drawn-out explanations, silly articles like this one, and decade-long debates, it would just be obvious, hearable and agreeable, like the sky being blue, but it isn't so there. I'll give a mm to recording only but that's corner-case 99% of the time.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 10:49 AM   #20
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
2" tape would have been maybe $200 USD back then (for me). My last project came in at 240GB @48k, with backups that's similar pricing @96k. Not disagreeing but the price adds up.

As far as the overall subject, until those who claim to hear it, pass an A/B/X blind test (beyond just saying it in a forum), I'm not buying it and they aren't really hearing it. If it were so obvious we wouldn't need articles, claims and drawn out explanations and decade-long debates, it would just be obvious, hearable and agreeable, like the sky being blue, but it isn't so there.
I'm not making any argument for high res delivery formats (though if you are working in a professional capacity then you have to be aware of high res formats, such as Blu-Ray, and also the AES standards call for high res archiving).

But the fact is that you can hear, and measure, differences with some plugins and software synths at lower sample rates. Plus, if you are using software monitoring or just prefer snappier response from faders or whatever, you have a good case for reducing latency by using a higher sample rate.

I would say that there are pros and cons for both, and it isn't an obvious no-brainer to choose one or the other (though I would personally see working above 96k as pretty pointless).

EDIT: and also there is a good argument for avoiding oversampling where possible. If I can avoid linear phase filters all over my audio then I will. It's just more latency and possibly audible pre-ringing.

Last edited by Judders; 04-27-2018 at 10:57 AM.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 10:57 AM   #21
brainwreck
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,840
Default

Simply for the variable speed/pitch aspects, I think that recording, mixing, and rendering to 96k is a good idea. It means that musicians can have a better time with slowing down recordings for educational purposes.
__________________
It's time to take a stand against the synthesizer.
brainwreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:09 AM   #22
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
I'm not making any argument for high res delivery formats (though if you are working in a professional capacity then you have to be aware of high res formats, such as Blu-Ray, and also the AES standards call for high res archiving).

But the fact is that you can hear, and measure, differences with some plugins and software synths at lower sample rates. Plus, if you are using software monitoring or just prefer snappier response from faders or whatever, you have a good case for reducing latency by using a higher sample rate.

I would say that there are pros and cons for both, and it isn't an obvious no-brainer to choose one or the other (though I would personally see working above 96k as pretty pointless).

EDIT: and also there is a good argument for avoiding oversampling where possible. If I can avoid linear phase filters all over my audio then I will. It's just more latency and possibly audible pre-ringing.
That's the reason I said, I'll give a mm during recording but not much, not much at all. But I'll still say, thousands of recordings that inspire everyone here, are/were 44.1k from day one, and no one knows which ones those were by ear. I don't think the whole snappier operation @96 idea is very relevant though, basically you get the same thing by just lowering the buffer for a generally equal CPU tradeoff. There's a terrible amount of black magic mojo that breeds off of fear in the industry, and people always chase that fear over their ears.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.

Last edited by karbomusic; 04-27-2018 at 11:15 AM.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:15 AM   #23
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
That's the reason I said, I'll give a mm during recording but not much. But I'll still say, thousands of recordings that inspire everyone here, are/were 44.1k from day one, and no one knows which ones those were by ear.
I'm with you 100% there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I don't think the whole snappier IDE @96 is very relevant though, basically you get the same thing by just lowering the buffer for a generally equal CPU tradeoff.
Not if you're using oversampling in your plugins at lower sample rates!

I've had real world cases where I get stutters at 48k with a 64 sample buffer, but run fine at 96k with a 128 sample buffer.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:17 AM   #24
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post



Not if you're using oversampling in your plugins at lower sample rates!

I've had real world cases where I get stutters at 48k with a 64 sample buffer, but run fine at 96k with a 128 sample buffer.
I've never been able to repro that but if it exists, seems like someone with that issue wouldn't be needing that article. Tbh, I didn't even read it, I was just feeding off of the sonic arguments in the thread but still, 99% of such fears are self-driven minus ears.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:23 AM   #25
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I've never been able to repro that but if it exists, seems like someone with that issue wouldn't be needing that article. Tbh, I didn't even read it, I was just feeding off of the sonic arguments in the thread but still, 99% of such fears are self-driven minus ears.
To be honest I haven't even read the article, because the quotes from it here are so dumb they make my head hurt

I can only presume that in those cases it was the CPU overhead from oversampling being greater than the CPU load to run at 96 kHz. Plus, you're adding more latency by using oversampling. Not such a big deal when mixing, but not welcome when using software synths or amp sims. I'm not fond of having to record with all bells and whistles off then turning them on later for mixing. I like to hear it on the way in exactly as it is on the way out.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:27 AM   #26
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Plus, you're adding more latency by using oversampling. Not such a big deal when mixing, but not welcome when using software synths or amp sims.
That I'm unclear on since that isn't part of the sound card buffer, it's internal CPU processing by Reaper, then it exits via outputs to the buffer. I won't call it either way until I can think about it more.

Quote:
I'm not fond of having to record with all bells and whistles off then turning them on later for mixing. I like to hear it on the way in exactly as it is on the way out.
Can someone provide me with an example of this? Say render a synth with and without the higher sample rate? I'd like to hear the difference in real-world terms. I'm not denying that scenario, I've just never found a big enough difference to matter to my ears the few times I checked. If I'm not misinterpreting, I just can't imagine that difference being enough to hinder a performance or inspiration, hence the ask for a demonstration.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:35 AM   #27
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
That I'm unclear on since that isn't part of the sound card buffer, it's internal CPU processing by Reaper, then it exits via outputs to the buffer. I won't call it either way until I can think about it more.
It manifests as higher PDC. Not usually a problem if you're mixing and running a high buffer anyway, but can be a problem if you're software monitoring while recording and trying to minimise latency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Can someone provide me with an example of this? Say render a synth with and without the higher sample rate? I'd like to hear the difference in real-world terms. I'm not denying that scenario, I've just never found a big enough difference to matter to my ears the few times I checked. If I'm not misinterpreting, I just can't imagine that difference being enough to hinder a performance or inspiration, hence the ask for a demonstration.
The most dramatic case I had was Arturia synths having terrible stair-stepping when using the filters at lower sample rates. This disappeared when running at 96k. That was back in version 4 though, so I'm not sure if that still happens. Admittedly, that is bad design rather than something inherent to sample rates, but still a valid reason for upping sample rate.

I'm not saying that it would hinder performance, and it's a tiny margin of difference, which probably resolves to near zero difference in a mix.

I'll see if I can cook something up for you over the weekend, though I can't promise I'll find the time. If I forget, remind me!
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:45 AM   #28
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
It manifests as higher PDC.
I'm not following how processing internally at an even higher sample rate affects that but I trust you.

Quote:
The most dramatic case I had was Arturia synths can't promise I'll find the time. If I forget, remind me!
Go ahead, pick the one synth I don't have. Stair-stepping of filters sounds like an automation issue to me FWIW, not a sample rate quality issue per se but probably missing something. Tiny margin of difference is really the key for me. With anything but the most sparse mixes, it should really never bother most anyone but YMMV. IOW, I wouldn't bark at someone using 96k for getting rid of zipper noises no more than I'd bark at myself for using lower buffers for the rare occasion the automation reaction needs to be super fast. I just tend to keep that and "96k sounds better" in two different buckets.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 11:50 AM   #29
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
I'm not following how processing internally at an even higher sample rate affects that but I trust you.
I think I didn't make myself clear...

For example; I'm talking about 48 kHz with 2X oversampling vs. 96 kHz with no oversampling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
Go ahead, pick the one synth I don't have. Stair-stepping of filters sounds like an automation issue to me FWIW, not a sample rate quality issue but probably missing something. Tiny margin of difference is really the key for me. With anything but the most sparse mixes, it should really never bother most anyone but YMMV. IOW, I wouldn't bark at someone using 96k for getting rid of zipper noises no more than I'd bark at myself for using lower buffers for the rare occasion the automation reaction needs to be super fast.
Yeah, the stair-stepping sounded like an automation problem to me too, but it was one that upping the sample rate solved.

What synths do you have? I mostly use the Arturia collection and TAL U-No.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 12:27 PM   #30
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
I think I didn't make myself clear

For example; I'm talking about 48 kHz with 2X oversampling vs. 96 kHz with no oversampling.
Got it, I was on the assumption this happened by default. Likely because I'm conflating with Reapers upping to 64 bit internally. 1000 CDs from my long-running project just hit my front porch so I'm not thinking clearly. I'll update the two threads from that project later.

Quote:
Yeah, the stair-stepping sounded like an automation problem to me too, but it was one that upping the sample rate solved.

What synths do you have? I mostly use the Arturia collection and TAL U-No.
Most all the NI stuff + Zebra2 + many of the freebies.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 12:37 PM   #31
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Ahhh- "let there be sampling!" - and so there was...
there is simplicity in all things--so lets simplify>>
using reaper we want to catch sound,but the problem is-we have to catch sound at fixed rates which chops a continuous signal into tiny snippets or chunks of energy: this can result in signal distortions.
when we catch audio at 44100 snippets per sec- the result can trick the brain into decoding the vibrational image into what we can describe acceptably as 'sound':

simplifying stereo audio down to mono,then a single sided waveform {rectified signal} we can see a wave being modulated by amplitude over time (am) but not 'frequency modulation' over time (fm) ---reaper and other softwares work at 'fixed sample rates'- so long the programme can encode + decode the amount of samples per sec==all is well.

if your recording @ a fixed rate of 44100sps - this is fine to make an image over the 'hearable frequency range'-- but when it comes to distortion rates of signal over time,the actual 'hearable range' does not matter 1 single bit--- your now dealing with the amount of distortions of signal over time... simple-- the more samples per sec-- the better image can be formed over time.

the reason higher sample rates work better with samplers and plugins is as the octaves go higher there is fold back of signals-aliasing--- oversampling just moves them foldback distortions way above the 'hearable range'--but most likely,still present.

it makes little sense recording @ 44100sps- then trying to oversample that on output render>> you gain no further informations --
<< unless ! >> you change sound with some type of volume or fx.!
<< then >> oversampling helps to create better waveforms with less distortions.
mixing @ 48khz and then rendering @ 96khz definitely has some benefits-but it's got nothing todo with 'audible frequency range' -- it has more todo with how compressors and limiters behave with transients-- << it's pure and simply that ! =)

Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 12:58 PM   #32
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

To further visualize>> we want to become skyscraper hoppers!!
--> now we may be able to stretch our legs to the next building to move along--but if the buildings are too far apart,we cannot 'hop' or even reach another building!! -> this is what is happening in sampling-- the steps have to be very very close to make hopping a really comfortable experience!!
> the problem is--reaper says "" o man,your throwing 24 tracks of 96000 samples per second" -dudez i need a holiday! i'm outta here ! ""
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 01:24 PM   #33
Jimmy James
Human being with feelings
 
Jimmy James's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 476
Default

All I know is, when I track at 96k. It seems to have more 3d in the space on playback. Hard to explain. It is subtle. It seems easier to EQ and Compress. The mix seems more dense and thick. But with more clarity.
Maybe it is a feel thing. Maybe it's in my head. I just don't have the space to do it right now, or I would.
But when I finish my SD tower (woooooo). Bet I am gonna record 96k.


Have you guys tried recording some tracks in 96k? Then rendering to 48k and see if you notice anything?
Jimmy James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 02:24 PM   #34
Retro Audio Enthusiast
Human being with feelings
 
Retro Audio Enthusiast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judders View Post
Could you give a time reference for that video? I skimmed through but didn't find anything about recording at high sample rates.
Apologies, it's just those two links following that should have been on. Edited.
__________________
REAPER License Holder
Retro Audio Enthusiast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 02:41 PM   #35
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Retro Audio Enthusiast View Post
Apologies, it's just those two links following that should have been on. Edited.
Ok, cool.

I still don't see any problems with recording at high sample rates. If IMD was a problem at the ADC stage, why are interface companies moving to sigma delta designs where the ADC runs in the megahertz range?
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 02:52 PM   #36
inertia
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 601
Default

Extremely poorly written article.

I've tried to convince myself to start recording and mixing in 96khz but I just can't do it. 48 is fine and gives me more resources to make the mix better. The mix isn't better just because it's 96khz and 48khz certainly isn't "dumbed down".

Have you ever heard someone criticise a mix buy saying "it sounded ok, but I am pretty sure this wasn't record at 96khz! Sounds like a dumbed down 48khz mix to me!" lol
__________________
inertia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 03:02 PM   #37
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inertia View Post
Extremely poorly written article.

I've tried to convince myself to start recording and mixing in 96khz but I just can't do it. 48 is fine and gives me more resources to make the mix better. The mix isn't better just because it's 96khz and 48khz certainly isn't "dumbed down".

Have you ever heard someone criticise a mix buy saying "it sounded ok, but I am pretty sure this wasn't record at 96khz! Sounds like a dumbed down 48khz mix to me!" lol
Yep, plenty of albums still being done at 44.1 kHz and 48 kHz. Sample rate is inconsequential compared to the musicians, recording space, mic placement and mixing skill.

Another argument for lower sample rates I forgot to mention: if you are using a lot of sampler instruments (most I've used have been 48 kHz samples), then you are better off sticking to the sample rate of the samples than having the software sampler upsample on the fly.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 03:27 PM   #38
karbomusic
Human being with feelings
 
karbomusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 24,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy James View Post
All I know is, when I track at 96k. It seems to have more 3d in the space on playback. Hard to explain. It is subtle. It seems easier to EQ and Compress. The mix seems more dense and thick. But with more clarity.
Maybe it is a feel thing. Maybe it's in my head. I just don't have the space to do it right now, or I would.
But when I finish my SD tower (woooooo). Bet I am gonna record 96k.


Have you guys tried recording some tracks in 96k? Then rendering to 48k and see if you notice anything?
Actually, I'm fine if it's in your head, I support that and allowing that to help in the mojo process is fine with me, it's a good thing creatively. I'm even fine if someone doesn't want to test that formally with A/B/X but we should all be aware that this is very often the exact case, in our heads. Or maybe we shouldn't be aware, except when it causes us to waste time and money over something that comprises .001% of what we hear and/or isn't really there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by inertia View Post
Extremely poorly written article.

I've tried to convince myself to start recording and mixing in 96khz but I just can't do it.
I did 96 and 88.2 for many years, what really got me is I have hundreds and hundreds of songs and projects dating back to around 1998 and neither I nor anyone who listens has the slightest differentiation of which were at which sample rates, then I started ABXing myself (a lot) and realized, higher rates are one huge waste of time unless you fit into a corner case, usually an extreme one and... that people like Mr Nyquist who are smarter than anyone here, came to the conclusions they did for very real and quantifiable reasons.
__________________
If it requires a null test to find it, it is by definition minuscule.
karbomusic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 03:29 PM   #39
Bri1
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: England
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Another argument for lower sample rates I forgot to mention: if you are using a lot of sampler instruments (most I've used have been 48 kHz samples), then you are better off sticking to the sample rate of the samples than having the software sampler upsample on the fly.
^this may be good advice-- the less convertions-the better--- after all,we are just converting- light energy into sound energy__ which then gets transmitted via air or speakers back to light
more samples=more points of pleasure!!
we must consider speed of circuitry,speed of sound + speed of light + speed of consciousness.
it's all light-light is all that is. =)
Bri1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2018, 03:44 PM   #40
Judders
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 8,683
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karbomusic View Post
...people like Mr Nyquist who are smarter than anyone here, came to the conclusions they did for very real and quantifiable reasons.
I think we need to be careful about conflating delivery format with DSP.

Mr. Nyquist was not writing about aliasing from compression or saturation plugins (with the caveat that aliasing is generally much less of a problem than people who stare at frequency plots of 1 kHz sine tones all day instead of making music would have you believe).

I've recorded and mixed at 96 kHz for a few years now, but when it comes to bounce time, I'm going 44.1 kHz, either 16 bit WAV or 320 kbps MP3.
Judders is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.