You are here

Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby AngryMonkney » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:08 pm

Hi,
I have just bought a Presonus FP10 as my first home studio recording equipment (up until now I have just been using a laptop sound card).

Should I record at 96khz now that I have the capability? What benifit does this bring to me?

My recordings sound ok at 44khz so im assuming the actual quality of the sound wont change?

Thanks,
AM.
AngryMonkney
Poster
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Sle » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:19 pm

Debatable. If you can, do so, but you'll find that it chews up resources far faster than when working with 44.1. Bitrate (24bit vs 16bit) would be my preference in a pinch, as it gives more flexibility as well as (Debatably) better sound quality. Actually there's loads of articles that'll be far more useful than people's opinions. This: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep07/a ... lmyths.htm is a good starting point, carry on from there :)
User avatar
Sle
Regular
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

 


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Jonnypopisical » Fri Jul 04, 2008 5:32 pm

Stick to 44.1kHz - you'll be wasting your time & hard disc space running 97kHz
Jonnypopisical
Frequent Poster
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Oakham

Mac Pro, Logic Pro, lots of software and 17 hard drives!


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby matt keen » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:14 pm

I dont know about that

I can hear a huge difference between 96 and 97khz ;)
matt keen
Frequent Poster
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Paul Soundscape » Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:30 pm

i have worked with "big name producers" that record at 44.1

though this is all pretty much rock guitar bandy stuff.
Paul Soundscape
Regular
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby desmond » Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:40 pm

44, unless you have a really specific reason for 96, and your room acoustics and recording chain are top rate, and you have the available resources to "waste" (double the CPU load, double the disk space, etc).
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6731
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:00 am

mu:zines | music magazine archive
Vintage issues of Sound On Sound, Electronics & Music Maker, Music Technology and more...


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Shambolic Charm » Fri Jul 04, 2008 8:27 pm

what about 48khz?
User avatar
Shambolic Charm
Frequent Poster
Posts: 674
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby A Non O Miss » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:12 pm

You always want to maintain the highest sample rate as long as possible. However just because you have the capability to record at 96 does not mean that you should. There are a lot of factors to consider and I won't go into detail as I am no expert but space is one of them, power is another, internal components of your AD is another. Even if you have the capability that doesn't mean that your gear operates best at 96. It really is quite confusing and there are a million previous threads debating such questions, one or two of them mine.

Bottom line after all the reading and research I feel I know less than when I started, or else I know more which only makes it more confusing thus it feels like I know less :?

I can hear a difference between 96 and 48, however what that difference is, is debatable and once I listen to 48 for a while it sounds just fine.

At the end of all of that I would say unless you are recording Classical music I would stick to 48/24, or 44.1/24 and forget about trying to understand any of it.
A Non O Miss
Regular
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Sle » Fri Jul 04, 2008 9:54 pm

48k is for film and broadcast - I usually export "up" to 48k from 44.1 when handing in broadcast stuff.
User avatar
Sle
Regular
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

 


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby passerrby3141 » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:16 pm

Some say certain plugins sound better at higher sample rates. And I have seen convincing claims that lower end converters perform better at higher sample rates as well, this seems counterintuitive I know. But space and computing power will most likely be the deciding factor for most home studios. Dedicated DSP cards like those in the UAD line and HD Pro Tools systems up sample to as high as 192khz for their internal processing I believe, which negates the need to record at higher sample rates.

I could be wrong, this is just what I have gathered from my untrained research!
passerrby3141
Poster
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby desmond » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:54 pm

Jocoserious wrote:You always want to maintain the highest sample rate as long as possible.

Hmm... bit of a blanket statement that.

Why?
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6731
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:00 am

mu:zines | music magazine archive
Vintage issues of Sound On Sound, Electronics & Music Maker, Music Technology and more...


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby desmond » Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:57 pm

passerrby3141 wrote:Some say certain plugins sound better at higher sample rates.

Yes. There are technical reasons for this, but it can be true that, especially for aliasing reasons, some virtual instruments benefit from going up that high. But this is a completely different issue to audio recording.

passerrby3141 wrote:Dedicated DSP cards like those in the UAD line and HD Pro Tools systems up sample to as high as 192khz for their internal processing I believe, which negates the need to record at higher sample rates.

It's nothing to do with DSP cards per se, it's the DSP algorithms used. Some algorithms and processes benefit from upsampling, and some native plugins do this as well where it makes sense. However, upsampling does tend to make the plugin much heavier on the CPU, so plugin designers try to avoid high-cost algorithms unless it makes sense, or is necessary to use them.
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6731
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:00 am

mu:zines | music magazine archive
Vintage issues of Sound On Sound, Electronics & Music Maker, Music Technology and more...


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Interweaved » Sat Jul 05, 2008 2:11 am

Basically.....

Human hearing goes up to about 20 kHz.... but you need to double that to eliminate something called aliasing, which is something like a "rounding error" that causes mucho distortion and strange frequencies.

However, I regularly argue that 80 kHz or higher is necessary to get a good representation of the frequencies around 20 kHz.

If you imagine a sine wave at 20 kHz... and then you sample that twice per period (which is a 40 kHz sampling rate), you don't happen to get a great representation of the wave... For example, if you're unlucky and you happen to sample the sine wave at the two zeros each period, you'll get nothing.

in fact, you're guaranteed to get a "lower volume" reproduction of the wave. Thus, I suggest at least 4 samples per period of the highest frequency you're interested in reproducing accurately.

192 kHz means you're getting 8 samples per period of a 24 kHz wave... that ought to reproduce those high frequencies much better.

Anyhow - that'd be the difference! Much music is "low end heavy" anyway.
Interweaved
Regular
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby MaTr1x2051 » Sat Jul 05, 2008 3:02 am

Like others have said, I'd stick with 44.1 unless you're doing something very delicate in a very nice room. I used to do everything at 96. It was a pain to mix large sessions because my computer really couldn't handle all of that data. Now my classical recordings are done at 96/24 while pretty much everything else is at 44.1/24. A friend of mine uses 48 to get away from a few of the side-effects of 44.1. He even uses 48 for classical work and there's no problem in the sound. Unless you can do 192k or... SACD rates (2822k etc...) I'd stick with lower rates. 192 and sacd are definitly far superior, but is it worth the strain on your computer?
MaTr1x2051
Regular
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Interweaved » Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:18 am

Ok, i made a rough approximation... because I'm hitting the same problems at 48 versus 96...

Basically, I roughly computed that if you wanted 48 to sound more like 96, if you put an EQ that raised 20 kHz by 1 dB, 10kHz by 0 db, and made a smooth line between the two (eh, I have a hand drawn eq)... it'd be pretty close.

So, then I tested it with some songs in my collection... basically, if you've already boosted the high end on cymbals and similar, it doesn't really matter too much.. just puts a small punch on the cymbals.

Whelp, so. I find this stuff fun to think about.
Interweaved
Regular
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby Jack Ruston » Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:05 am

Well I think 96k sounds better...the difference gets smaller as converters get better but I think it's clearly a sonic advantage IF you're actually recording stuff and not just using loads of samples.

However it is really inconvenient because it chews resources, makes backups take ages, and introduces a boring extra conversion at the end of the process.

My advice would be: Anything that's really important, try it at 96 because it's certainly a bonus. Do your demos etc at 44.1 because it's convenient and sounds very good.

J
Jack Ruston
Frequent Poster
Posts: 3548
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby The_BPP » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:15 am

This has been covered (extensively) before, but just to add my 2 penneth...

recording at 96k doubles your PC overhead - for an improvement that is hardly perceivable in real-life use. (don't quote your maths at me)

It ain't worth it.

Just remember to record 24 bit, 'cause that makes one hell of a difference.
User avatar
The_BPP
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 11:00 pm
Location: Lincolnshire

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby jayzed » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:51 am

Check out Paul Lehrmans artice in Mix Magazine (available on the web) - The Emperors New Sampling Rate.

The title says it all really. Even Ethan Winer, of Real Traps who I respect greatly when it comes to sound (his ears are much more golden than mine) suggests that differences heard (and I'm not saying that people who hear a difference are lying) can be due to minute changes in head position between changing the material, affecting the phase of the sound. Mr Lehrmans article refers to double blind tests where there was no statistical difference and apparently 'educated' ears were used. Of course, he has been flamed within an inch of his life in some places but many people, in particular manufacturers and those who have been saying for years that they can hear a difference have a vested interest in 88.2 and up.

Now, I'm not one to go against the word of many much more experienced and sucessful engineers on this but in my (admittedly very limited and unscientifc) tests I can't hear a difference in my little studio. And as I can run a few more plug ins (not as many as you would think, I run Guitar Rig in HQ mode which does internal upsampling and use UAD plugs which also upsample where required) and many more tracks I keep using 44.1 or 48.
User avatar
jayzed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby desmond » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:24 am

Here's the link. Interesting article, thanks for posting that:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/
User avatar
desmond
Jedi Poster
Posts: 6731
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 12:00 am

mu:zines | music magazine archive
Vintage issues of Sound On Sound, Electronics & Music Maker, Music Technology and more...


Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby _Nuno_ » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:28 am

JohnnyT wrote: Mr Lehrmans article refers to double blind tests where there was no statistical difference and apparently 'educated' ears were used.

Double blind tests, in a big enough sample of people, are about the only thing that actually proves anything. All the rest can be easily explained by the placebo effect.
_Nuno_
Regular
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby jayzed » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:38 am

I believe any hesitation in shouting about the results is due to the size of the sample, if I recall. I didn't think to post the link - my, how 20th Century!
User avatar
jayzed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby jayzed » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:41 am

I correct that, I just re-read the article. The sample size was 'hundreds' of people. Perhaps not definitive but pretty persuasive, certainly enough to stop and think about it and hope for more studies. In the meantime, maybe stick to 44.1 :-)?
User avatar
jayzed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby jayzed » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:42 am

Once again, sorry. Hundreds of trials.
User avatar
jayzed
Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 am

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby _Nuno_ » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:46 am

desmond wrote:Here's the link. Interesting article, thanks for posting that:

http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

Interesting article. I enjoyed reading that :)
_Nuno_
Regular
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm

Re: Should I record at 44 or 96khz?

Postby _Nuno_ » Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:55 am

JohnnyT wrote:Once again, sorry. Hundreds of trials.


I can not find anything wrong with the study at all. I suppose the only thing you could do to improve it would be having some kind of frame to lock the listener head in the exact same position every time. Something like they had in clockwork orange maybe? lol

I know I can not wear any differences in 96KHz audio as opposed to 44.1KHz, but then again my hearing is not great after a few years playing gigs so Id on't really think this proves much.

It reminds of a test I saw in some audiophile forum once where they did a blind test between themselves in order to prove they could hear a difference between 16/44.1 Khz and 320 Kbps MP3. They only guessed correctly about 40% of the time, and conclude that deaf people could probably do as good a job as they did or better, since anyone has 50% probability of guessing right by picking a random answer.

Anyway, I blame all this on gearslutz.com. lol
_Nuno_
Regular
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 pm

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests