Page 1 of 1

96000 or 44100 is there a difference

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:13 pm
by cosypete
Hi guys,

very simple question. When recording audio in live does it make a difference in quality between recording 44100 and 96000 ?

Obviously there is a difference in file size but just wondering whether I would notice any difference.

Many thanks

Cosy Pete

Re: 96000 or 44100 is there a difference

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:14 pm
by Atardecer
There could be pages written on this topic so best to redirect you to an article such as this. Its full of technical stuff from Dan Lavry ( a dude who knows what he's talking about) and talks more about 192k. Check out page 26 for his final thoughts.

I should add that if your end format is going to be CD (44.1k) dont bother with 96k (or 192k for that matter). Go with 88.2k instead and direct multiples of 44.1k. 44.1 into 48 is a very messy calculation and is probably the worst sample rate conversion you can do to your audio. 96k aint much better given its a direct multiple of 44.1k. When you think about it, its strange that 96k and 192k have been marketed so heavily as selling points for soundcards etc when these are ridiculous samples rates to use for product that ends up on CD. 88.2 and 176.4 are much better but i guess they just dont roll of the tongue as much :) I use 48k at work but that is because most of the stuff i work on is for film and TV where stuff is broadcast at 48k.
Also if you cant hear a difference then dont worry about it. People often get a bit carried away with the argument about higher sampling rates in the hope that their mixes might suddenly sound a whole lot better. :wink:

Jim

Re: 96000 or 44100 is there a difference

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:35 pm
by Fieldmedic
so I use 96k because the latency is about half. is there a calculation I'm missing, because it seems that higher sample rates would require more processing power and would result in higher latency requirements. what's the math?

CMB

Re: 96000 or 44100 is there a difference

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:53 pm
by DIgiDennis
96000 samples per second vs 44100 samples per second
you see the logic why the latency would be less? ie if your buffer is 256 samples and you tell the machine to process 96000 of samples per second.
And yes it will do more work yet still try to maintain lower latency.

Re: 96000 or 44100 is there a difference

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:44 pm
by Fieldmedic
so lower latency but higher CPU load.