96 vs. 192 khz???

meatfestival · Post by **meatfestival** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:23 am

96khz = overkill
192khz = complete and utter overkill

I dare anyone to be able to tell the difference between 96khz and 48khz in a blind listening test.

IMO the only thing it's useful for is if you want to record some audio and then slow it down without losing top end frequencies

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 1:37 am

meatfestival wrote:I dare anyone to be able to tell the difference between 96khz and 48khz in a blind listening test.

I dare you to do a blind Coke vs. Pepsi taste test, byotch!

err_fatale · Post by **err_fatale** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:11 am

nah, when recording real instruments, you want all the resolution you can get. For electronic music and synthetic sounds, lower sample rates and resolution are OK, but definitely not for vocals and real instruments!!! It sound like crap. No way recording an acoustic guitar or nice female vocals in 16/44.1 is going to sound good at all after you throw some effects on it. NO way. Sound like a computer, not real; synthetic, sometimes you want a clear reproduction, plus when using FX and processing sounds you want higher resolution or your sounds just degrade into digital mush/noise.....how can you take your music seriously when it sound shitty like that??

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:12 am

meatfestival wrote:96khz = overkill
192khz = complete and utter overkill

I dare anyone to be able to tell the difference between 96khz and 48khz in a blind listening test.

IMO the only thing it's useful for is if you want to record some audio and then slow it down without losing top end frequencies

Ok, i'll take that dare and the results are..... me and a ton of people can hear the difference and like the higher rate. Hell, me and my buddy's can hear reverb tails getting eat up by aliasing at 48. 44.1 is way to low for what humans can hear. This is why vinyl sounds so good to us. We don't mind the high noise floor, but we mind our music chopped up 44,100 times a second on a cd, even if the noise floor is super low. It's way too ruff.

44.1 or 48 is the minimum for getting by and that's why "they" chose those freqs. It saved manufacturers money and made us keep our precious no sample rate vinyl because it sounds better.

I don't think you've tried this test yourself. No, it's not overkill at all. To re-master "Nevermind the Bullocks" at a higher rate would be stupid. So yeah, it's overkill for noise bands.

To record certain kinds of music at 192 and mix through an analog console, sounds most amazing. For real. You just gotta hear it. The higher the rate, the closer to real we get.

err_fatale · Post by **err_fatale** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:19 am

I just asked cuz I'm used to 96 and wondering if I'm missing anything. I think that the maunfacturer of the interface makes as big a difference, there are some good quality 96khz boxes and some crappy 192khz boxes....

like a MOTU 24/96 vs a creative soundblaster 24/192

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:27 am

err_fatale wrote:I just asked cuz I'm used to 96 and wondering if I'm missing anything.

Nope, 96 is way phatt. 88.2 is a little better if you pop out audio cd's and 96 for video audio. You are not missing a thing, unless you're a noise band. And yes manufacturers lie. If you have lame production chops then all the higher sample rate stuff will only make it suck clearer. There is still a lot to do with 44.1 concerning good recordings.

err_fatale · Post by **err_fatale** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:32 am

Heres why i ask: I have been asked by some (computer illiterate) band members if I would be interested in recording them and making a CD. For my crappy electronic stuff, 96khz works fine, but I'm wondering how well my new MOTU with 24/96 will fare recording some real instruments....compared to 192....I guess I have gotten my answer here and elsewhere, that yes there is a difference, and if my computer can handle it and I can spare the disk space it is worth going 192.....but 96 is still good by all means....

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:38 am

err_fatale wrote:here's why I ask: I live in Pittsburgh, and there aren't too many electronic acts here, but a zillion bands of all genres. I have been asked by a lot of band members if I would be interested in recording them and making a CD. For my crappy electronic stuff, 96khz works fine, but I'm wondering how well my new MOTU with 24/96 will fare recording some real instruments....

I have 2 weeks to exchange it and am seeing the Fireface 400 coming out, it costs more $$$$$ I'm sure, is it worth the dough? Or even a DIGI 002?

I don't know about any of those boxes. Most important is how you set your mics/direct boxes and gain stages etc.. A good engineer at 44.1 will beat the crap out of average dude and 192 on any audio quality issue.

err_fatale · Post by **err_fatale** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:41 am

yeah I'm learning. Trial and error just like anything. Thank god for the internet and the wealth of info, cuz I can't afford to go to school for audio engineering right now....

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:43 am

err_fatale wrote:yeah I'm learning. Trial and error just like anything. Thank god for the internet and the wealth of info, cuz I can't afford to go to school for audio engineering right now....

Well, don't wait for the big day to find out. Put together a little test session. Cheers

astronmr20 · Post by **astronmr20** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 3:58 am

192 on a motu is going to make no difference in sound compared to 96k. Keep in mind that good converters at 44.1 will sound better than mediocre converters at 192. Converters make all the difference. Sorry to throw another monkey wrench in the fray.

I'd stay at 96, and just get it done.

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:12 pm

Probably stating the obvious here, but recording at 24 bits vs 16 is far more important than increasing the rate from 44.1 to 96.

Of course, doing both is probably even better even if your hardware can handle it. Cheapish hardware might actually sound better at 44.1.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:17 pm

that's true, but the frequency is important because of what I said earlier about softwysnths and effects.

despite no one reading it and continuing to post "I dare you to hear 52khz" type posts and completely miss the point.

SubFunk · Post by **SubFunk** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:17 pm

44.1 unless you do soround DVD projects for theaters.

it's no practicle, does cost a hell lot of disk space and CPU power and is only worth it dealing with high end material the whole chain through...

also you need a really good pow-r dither to have a serious quality improvement as you have to downsample anyway... for all "normal" music production... 44.1 it ends up max on a CD anyway.

forgie · Post by **forgie** » Tue Mar 28, 2006 12:30 pm

Two things that make me want to post:

1. Nyquist's theorem of sampling applies to repeating signals. i.e. sampling at 44.1khz can reproduce a sinewave of 22khz perfectly. It can't reproduce one cycle of a 22khz sinewave. Transients are captured better at higher sampling rates.

2. One of the ways in which we perceive the stereo 'sound-stage' is through the difference in time it takes a sound to reach each ear. The difference in time between a particular sound coming out of each speaker affects how we perceive it - and the higher the sampling frequency, the more resolution there is for that 'stereo time difference'.

There ARE many technical reasons why high sampling frequencies can increase the quality of an audio production - but as some people have said, they mostly apply to the recording and perception of real instruments.