96Khz. Why?

[Vathek]

i think you are still torturing the analogy.

a 50 Hz sine wave (not just any 'wave') can be perfectly captured with a sampling frequency of just over 100 Hz because it is a slow and simple wave to reconstruct mathematically.

analogously, a very long straight line can be perfectly sampled with just a few data points.

Not sure who's doing the torturing here..

It doesn't matter what kind of wave it is, anything not containing any frequencies above 50Hz can be perfectly captured with a sampling frequency of 100Hz. Now that's of course not a very practical example, because pretty much any sound at 50Hz will have harmonics above that, so let's increase the sampling rate to 20kHz. Now every sound not containing anything above 10kHz can be perfectly captured.

But we both know that, this is really becoming a question of semantics. I find the analogy misleading because it makes many people believe that increasing the sampling rate somehow makes for more detailed sounding recordings which is simply not true.

I agree that in music production with a lot of number crunching, it may (or may not depending on the situation) make sense to increase the sampling rate. I'm only arguing against the myth of a somehow more accurate and truer recording when doing so, which is sadly kept alive by such analogies. And people like Neil Young (whom I respect very much otherwise) sell that crap to ignorant consumers.

[fishmonkey]

but the analogy is only misleading when people also misunderstand how image sampling works.

image sampling basically follows the same rules. beyond a certain pixel per inch limit, at a certain viewing distance and with your particular eyes, the image will not get any better defined in a spatial sense.

[Tarekith]

Here's an excellent article on the pros and cons of different sample rates, and when they might be appropriate: http://www.trustmeimascientist.com/2013 ... n-it-isnt/

[mrgrim3]

ive noticed different samples from ableton suites packs will be different like one will be at 44.1 khz and one will be 48khz and some will be higher

i dont even notice a difference in sound honestly but i only noticed when i hovered over the wavform preview

i think its snake oil lol

[jestermgee]

Everyone also seems to forget that the overwhelming majority of people that may actually hear any of this work you do will:

1. Not hear any difference from 44.1 onward
2. Not even give a shit if the hat sounds ever so slightly crisper
3. Have the hardware that would even deliver these differences.

Not to mention the end format it will end up as (compressed MP3, crappy youtube video)

I think if you are a Professional in your field you either already know what you need to use or have someone who will advise you. If you are not a professional then it doesn't matter a lick really as long as it sounds good to your ears. Almost the same kind of conversation when it comes to "mastering" your track. If you have to ask on the forum, it doesn't apply to you so don't worry about it too much.

[Tarekith]

True to some extent, but I don't think people have to willfully remain ignorant if they want to learn and possibly improve.

Like I said on page 1 though, the fact that there's no clear concensus among even professionals shows how tiny the differences are we're talking about.

[Stromkraft]

Everyone also seems to forget that the overwhelming majority of people that may actually hear any of this work you do will:

1. Not hear any difference from 44.1 onward
2. Not even give a shit if the hat sounds ever so slightly crisper
3. Have the hardware that would even deliver these differences.

As you included me, , I must kindly say as far as software synthesisers are concerned you're simply not correct, depending on which synth of course and the patch.
Also, you're not correct on that people won't care because they can't consciously hear a difference. They may not care about anything concerning audio quality, but will typically care even if they are unaware under benign circumstances, i e where the reproduction can make a difference. Outside of these I'm inclined to agree with you though.

You seem to be missing how people actually can listen actively to music and you seem to be mixing up what matters with awareness. Awareness actually doesn't matter. Perception does and the ear (ie the hearing) can be led.

Where is 3 achieved commonly, though perhaps rarely? You'll get one guess and no more. Hint, it's a group activity.

[timday]

I think part of the issue is back in the mists of time, it made a difference because although it is true that all frequencies up to 20 KHz can be captured completely accurately (the sine wave thing is a red herring because all waves can be broken down into sine and cos waves) with a 40 KHz sample rate, harmonics over 20 KHz need to be filtered out so they don't cause aliasing. I think back in the early days they used an analogue filter which, if the cutoff was too steep (and it would need to be pretty much a brickwall if you were sampling at 44.1), would cause audible distortion in the higher parts of the pass band (say 15-20 KHz) because analogue. So with early ADCs the advice was to use higher sample rates.

In Bob Katz's mastering book IIRC he did some blind tests and a sample rate of 50KHz will do the job even with a pretty ropey analogue filter, so 48 rather than 96 would be enough for most purposes.

Nowadays however I think digitisation is a 2 stage prcess, the first stage is a sigma-delta converter which operates at an insanely high sample rate (not strictly comparable as it is a different type of digitsation) and that is then filtered digitally before conversion into a standard PCM. And digital filters can be as steep as you like so high sample rates don't matter so much any more. With even a half decent ADC you should not hear a difference between 44.1 and 96 in a blind test unless you are a bat.

However you could test this - if you recorded a sound at 44.1 and 96, upsampled the 44.1 sound to 96, then nulled them there should be no audible difference in a listening test and any differences in the waveform should be at frequencies above 22.5 KHz in other words inaudible. So if someone wants to resolve this there is a way.

That's for recording - pitch shifting is a different issue because as has been mentioned in this thread, if the original sound has harmonics above 20KHz (and most natural sounds do) you would probably want those sounds to come down in to the audible range when pitch shifting down to preserve those harmonics. I'm not sure how much to take this with a pinch of salt - these are harmonics we wouldn't normally hear so does it sound more or less "natural"? I guess it's up to you but a recording at 96KHz shifted down should in theory sound different from the same sound at 44.1 shifted down.