I am about to start recording my first 192Khz project. I am looking for people who are recording at 192K and why? We will be using top gear, Mics, Covertors, Preamps etc and looking to capture maximum fidelity.

Any feedback on 96K vs 192K would be very helpful.

If you can hear a difference and have the hard disk space, go ahead! I can't and I don't, so I'm happy with 44.1kHz. In fact the industry I work in (videogames) frequently uses sample rates a long way below that... often below 22kHz. That's not what you asked though... sorry... carry on!

--------------------
Yes, good, very good, but everything LOUDER!

I've never heard a difference and doubt that it justifies the manipulation and storage of the attendant massive audio files. I have seen arguments that say it "must" be better, but I reckon that's usually wish-fulfilment by people who have already bought the gear.

IMO it's all hype by equipment manufacturers looking to get everyone to upgrade.

I've gone to 96k on a couple of projects such as solo/duet classical pieces with a lot of dynamic range. Other than that, I'm as inexperienced as the previous poster, sorry!

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

This thread covers the subject nicely, and particularly Hugh's contribution.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote Spord:

---

In fact the industry I work in (videogames) frequently uses sample rates a long way below that... often below 22kHz

---

Who do you work for, if yo don't mind me asking?

Kind regards,
Peter

The only advantage of 192kHz over 96kHz is the extended top end frequency response.

96 goes up to 48kHz and 192 will go up to 96kHz.

The human ear will only go up to 20kHz and the very best microphones top out at 50kHz.

The advantage of high sampling rates is that you can use gentle filters, rather than the brick-wall filter that to need for 44.1 and 48 sampling rates.

So, 96kHz is a good idea but 192 is just specmanship.

I record at 88.2 or 96 and can see no real need for 192. I don't think you could hear any difference given converters of equal quality.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote Conz:

---

Quote Spord:

---

In fact the industry I work in (videogames) frequently uses sample rates a long way below that... often below 22kHz

---

Who do you work for, if yo don't mind me asking?

Kind regards,
Peter

---

If it's in derby, it'll probably be either Core Design or Eurocom.

--------------------
...rubbish at words 'n' stuff.

I would also suggest taking a look at Dan Lavry's paper which is linked towards the start of the thread that Zukan mentions. Basically, Dan's paper says that the disadvantages of working at 192kHz (from a conversion point of view) far outweigh any advantages.

Cheers

James.

--------------------
JRP Music - Audio Mastering and Restoration.
http://www.jrpmusic.net

Quote Dark Fader:

---

Quote Conz:

---

Quote Spord:

---

In fact the industry I work in (videogames) frequently uses sample rates a long way below that... often below 22kHz

---

Who do you work for, if yo don't mind me asking?

Kind regards,
Peter

---

If it's in derby, it'll probably be either Core Design or Eurocom.

---

There's more places in Derby (Circle Studios for example, not too far from Core) and especially within Derbyshire, which covers a much wider area of the East Midlands. I worked at Core for nearly 8 years...

P

Quote Shahi:

---

I am about to start recording my first 192Khz project. I am looking for people who are recording at 192K and why? We will be using top gear, Mics, Covertors, Preamps etc and looking to capture maximum fidelity.

Any feedback on 96K vs 192K would be very helpful.

---

....and what's wrong with good ole 44.1....

--------------------
Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.

Quote redleicester:

---

....and what's wrong with good ole 44.1....

---

Brick-wall filters that resonate down into the audible spectrum.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote Zukan:

---

This thread covers the subject nicely, and particularly Hugh's contribution.

---

I remember starting that thread and was amazed how strongly people felt about this technical subject.

I still think 192khz is complete bollocks, even after six pages of forum discussion - I mean, halving the number of tracks/effects you can use for only "theoretical" gain... What a bunch of arse(!)

There. I said it.

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

Quote The_Big_Piano_Player:

---

(I still think 192khz is complete bollocks, even after six pages of forum discussion)

---

Not b*ll*cks - just unnecessary.

--------------------
John - Sound-Link ProAudio
President - Federation Internationale des Chasseurs de Sons

Quote John Willett:

---

Not b*ll*cks - just unnecessary.

---

Yeah true - please forgive my colourful language.

--------------------
www.thediplomatz.com

Quote John Willett:

---

Quote redleicester:

---

....and what's wrong with good ole 44.1....

---

Brick-wall filters that resonate down into the audible spectrum.

---

--------------------
Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.

Human ear going up to 20khz ?

Kids, maybe- anyone who's ever been to a few clubs or loud gigs is probably down to 17k, and anyone over 30 is down to 14k, and by the time you're 50 (especially if you've been to a lot of loud gigs by then) it's probably 10k if you're lucky.

I do find it extraordinary that in this day when most people listen to music on highly compromised/compressed formats, through bad headphones and even worse hi-fis, that anyone bothers with 96k, let alone 192k.

It's the MUSIC that counts, not the dogs-only frequency range of your recording.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

In my experience the difference between 44.1 and higher speeds comes rather low on the list of factors influencing the recording quality. Things such as the artist, the room, the mic, the mic positioning, the mic pre all comes much higher on my list. So if you go with good converters, there is seldom any reason going to 192. With crap converters it is all a gamble which speed sounds best anyway (remember the Soundblasters that resampled everything from 48kHz). With middle of the road, well if you hear a difference, fine.

Personally I record everything at 44.1.

Gunnar

Guys, this is turning into a "I record at xxx" thread rather than addressing the original post.

96 vs. 192.

There are plenty of the other type of threads around, let's try to stay focussed on this one so it doesn't turn into another 6 page thread with only 2 relavent posts!

I regularily record at 88.2 and would love to hear opinions on the higher rates (176.4 and 192) from people who have tried it, not from someone who records at 44.1 and "thinks it's fine". We have enough of those threads already!

--------------------
James
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" ~Napoleon Bonaparte~

Sorry to have knocked this OT a few posts up. I work at Eurocom. Any other enquiries in PM please

--------------------
Yes, good, very good, but everything LOUDER!

Quote tomafd:

---

Human ear going up to 20khz ?

Kids, maybe- anyone who's ever been to a few clubs or loud gigs is probably down to 17k, and anyone over 30 is down to 14k, and by the time you're 50 (especially if you've been to a lot of loud gigs by then) it's probably 10k if you're lucky.

---

When I had my ears tested two years ago at the hospital they showed me the results and both ears responded well across the tested frequency range. I think the test ran to 16kHz and I was 34 at the time. (I have been on a few too many flights since then however).

Quote:

---

I do find it extraordinary that in this day when most people listen to music on highly compromised/compressed formats, through bad headphones and even worse hi-fis, that anyone bothers with 96k, let alone 192k.

It's the MUSIC that counts, not the dogs-only frequency range of your recording.

---

Alternatively: I do find it extraordinary that in this day when most music is recorded in high resolution formats, anyone bothers to listen to it highly compromised/compressed or through bad headphones or hi-fis.

Sorry to join in with the old debate, but I don't support the defeatest lowest-common-denominator argument. Of course the MUSIC is important, but as a recording engineer, amateur or otherwise, the recording is also important and that's why some people always want to find room for improvement - even if sometimes barking up the wrong tree.

--------------------
TAKEN.BALL.GONE.HOME

I just tried this out.I recorded the same synth preset into wavelab at 96khz and then 192khz and then listened carefully to each recorded part and I could hear a difference but it was only a very small difference and so small I really had to concentrate and listen carefully and found the 192khz version had a tiny bit more treble and sounded exactly the same as the 96khz version apart from that.There was no more detail that was retrieved or anything.So this leads me to belive that 192khz is definately not worth recording in because whatever extra 'air' it gives to the sound being recorded can be added with a very slight boost of about 2db of eq.

This tes was done using dynaudio bm6a monitors,apogee converters and a lot of acoustic treatment in my studio so the chances are that 95% of pepople wont hear any difference at all and even with my fairly decent equipment I really had to listen carefully.So my advice to you shahi is buy better equipment from microphones to better monitors and a better audio interface and practice using it to the best of your potential if you want to get better sound quality and dont bother using 192khz sample rates.

Quote:

---

This tes was done using dynaudio bm6a monitors,apogee converters and a lot of acoustic treatment in my studio so the chances are that 95% of pepople wont hear any difference at all

---

You mean people with decent converters and monitors?

A better test would be to run an EQ and process a file at 44.1 and then at 96, and then check the differences that the EQ imparts.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

I am happy at 24/48 and that's where I'll be staying for now.

--------------------
www.descentintomadness.com

Shahi, where's your recording going to end up? Will it be Red Book CD, for example? If so, there might be an argument in favour of recording at 88.2 because conversion down to 44.1 can introduce fewer artifacts in the conversion process (depending, of course, on the dithering algorithm). And will you be responsible for mastering? It seems to me that if recording at 192 is important then everything that happens after the final mix has to be given equal consideration.

Quote:

---

It's the MUSIC that counts, not the dogs-only frequency range of your recording.

---

This might explain why my dogs find the BeeGees so painful, whereas I merely consider them to be distressing: my dogs can hear the vocals...

Paul

That must be wonderful: I don't understand it at all. (Moliere)

--------------------
"Over fifteen years without a slogan"

Quote 0VU:

---

Quote:

---

This tes was done using dynaudio bm6a monitors,apogee converters and a lot of acoustic treatment in my studio so the chances are that 95% of pepople wont hear any difference at all

---

You mean people with decent converters and monitors?

---

Yeah I would say that people with decent monitors and converters would hear a slight difference the way I heard a very slight difference but most people who haven't got good quality converters and monitors maybe wont hear a difference at all considering how very subtle indeed the difference was.Either way I do not think it is enough difference to warrant someone to take up the amount of room on their hard drive that 192khz files take up and now know for definate that 96khz is totally fine.I am carry on uising 96khz as appoosed to 44.1 or 48khz because when I did this test about a year ago I found that there was a little bit more of an open sound with using 96khz as aposed to using 44.1khz.What I mean by open is a bit more treble really that brought out detail that is in the higher frequency range a little bit.

Quote Zukan:

---

A better test would be to run an EQ and process a file at 44.1 and then at 96, and then check the differences that the EQ imparts.

---

not sure what you THINK this will accomplish...
the question is more along the lines of what artifacts the steaper filters (required by 44k) impart... as Lavrey and others suggest the inharmonic nature of the added noise is whats objectionable but has limits to how far we extend the rate... so what's next shall we rehash bit depth too???