Why the different Sample rates??????

Posted on

Member Since: Feb 22, 2003

Ok,


I just want to know why there are so many sample rates available to record at. What is the benefit of recording at 16,000, or 44,100, or up to 96k. Someone help me understand the benefits of each. I record voice overs, and want the best quality but I don't understand the difference between all my choices on my audiophile 2496???
thanks

roughneck

[ Back to Top ]


Administrator
Since: Apr 03, 2002


Mar 14, 2003 05:38 am

Well, that represents how many samples there are in one second of audio (or some similar unit of measure) For example, CD quality is 44.1, which means that one second of audio has 44,100 pieces that represent that audio. 96Khz has one second cut into 96,000 pieces. That said, you see the different? 96Khz is a much higher resolution rate.

It's much like a scan of a picture, id 72dpi clearer that 300dpi? no, why, because 300 dpi has 300 dots of color per inch, whereas 72 dpi has...wel...72.

So, obviously the higher the better, right? Right. BUT, also be aware it is much more taxing on your PC to record, playback and edit 96Khz sound files because the files are MUCH MUCH larger to store all that extra resolution.

[personal opinion]
When working on strictly audio projects I record in 44.1 samplerate because that is the CD quality standard, and when you are done it has to be in 44.1 to meet that standard, if it isn't you will have to convert it, and converting samplerates can sometime be messy and have destructive results.
[/personal opinion]

Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Member
Since: May 10, 2002


Mar 14, 2003 07:59 am

Yup, Db has it down. The whole analog "truist" beef about digital is based on the fact that digital samples the music and then re-assembles the samples. That and digital clips differently. With any samples there are instances of the music between samples that are lost. Now having said that those "instances" are so small in time that they are impreceiveable even at the slowest of sample rates.

I like your analogy Db. Grainey music!

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Mar 14, 2003 07:47 pm

I know this is slightly deviating off topic, but what the hell :)

Resampling down to 22Khz, 12bit can actually sound really good... no, I'm not on crack - it's true :)

I own an Akai MPC2000XL which I do all my sampling work for my band on - the 2000XL is basically a 286 in disguise and as a result has a limit of 32meg of sample ram (!) - however, all is not lost.

If you resample drum hits down to 22Khz, 12bit then they become really crunchy and raw - this may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it can be damn effective.

Another cool "sample / bit rate" trick is to use it on intros. Say you have a really epic song which a little intro - if you resample just the intro to 22Khz, 12bit and make it so the rest of the song is at the usual 44.1Khz, 16bit then you get this kind of "cruchy, grainy intro that burtst into CD Quality sound" - the result can be very effective :)

jues

Member
Since: Mar 15, 2003


Mar 15, 2003 11:57 pm

So for the purposes of recordng songs that will be played on CDs (16 bit/44.1khz) what is the point of buying a card that can record 24/96khz if your not going to use it to its full potential?

Contributor
Since: Dec 30, 2002


Mar 16, 2003 07:39 am

because it will give you a nice warm glow that only 'ready-brek' can match...

... no, seriously :) Cards that can achieve sample rates of 24/96 are generally of higher quality (lower noise levels and better Analouge to Digital (A-D) converters). Besides, DVD Audio runs at 24/96 - who's to say that this format (or others such as SA-CD) will not become the standard in just a few years time.

If, however, you are only doing CD Audio work then I would reccomend you work at 24/44.1 to achieve the highest possible quality.

jues.

Related Forum Topics:



If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.