96 kHz??
Home > Home Recording Forum > Computers & Software > 96 kHz??
Posted on Feb 12, 2005 06:08 pm
Embassador
Member Since: Jan 22, 2005
I've been reading a lot recently about different computer-based software products out there, and most of them flaunt how you can produce songs with up to 96kHz (quaility). What does that mean? Anybody? I mean is that the best quaility you can get?
[ Back to Top ]
Feb 12, 2005 06:13 pm It's not the best,it's the stantard?(correct me if Im wrong)
(related question)
why are we supposed to record at 24/44 or 96 or what ever?in the end it goes down to 16/?? so why do we go the lengths to get the possible quality when in the end is just gets brought down so much?
Feb 12, 2005 06:17 pm basically it's like frames on a movie camera, what your computer is dooin' is taking a still picture of the waveform 96,000 times a second...so the more pictures you have, the more accurate your recording is....44.1 cannot record frequencies above 22khz (which you can't "hear") but you can percieve it, whereas at 96khz, you can accurately record frequencies up to 48khz.
the bit depth is how "clear" the picture of the waveform is, think of it like the pixels that make up a image on a tv...the more you have, the better the picture.
peace
wyd
Feb 12, 2005 06:45 pm again' with the movie analogy, would you rather make a huge movie with super high quality cameras and equipment then take that "master" and dub a VHS version of it....or just make the whole thing with a VHS cam-corder since that's what the final product is gonna be on anyway....the point is when you're creating, it's best to have the absolute best quality material to work with, then you can "dumb it down" to consumer level, instead of workin' with consumer level throughout the whole process.
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Feb 12, 2005 10:08 pm ...and it should be 88.2khz instead of 96khz... for CD... because it would drop every other sample ... 96khz is for video work because NTSC audio is 48khz...
Feb 13, 2005 02:18 am the big thing is though, that commercial cd's are set to sample rates of 44 khz so yeah, going 98 is almost pointless if you plan on releasing. but it is awesome.
Feb 13, 2005 03:10 am The point WYD makes is why you should record as high as possible...
The higher the input res, the better the sound will be depicted and captured. If you start at a high res and bring it down, it IS better than staying in a low res and keeping it like that as you are not actually capturing the sound in its best way if you do (tho obviously it will still be good!!)
Coco
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Feb 13, 2005 04:54 am Coco is right. AND it takes up a ton more room on your HD and takes more CPU power than 44.1 or 48KHz. So even as major studios are using this more it isn't the "Standard."
Oh yeah, it does sound good... very good!
Feb 13, 2005 08:00 am DVD-A is 96khz I believe, as is most sound tracks done these days in 5.1 surround, 24 bit 96khz.
BrunoThe Quiet MindedMember
Since: Jan 01, 2003
Feb 13, 2005 08:08 am Is there a noticeable difference in sound quality? Cause I have been recording at 44 from the start and have never even tried to record at 96. What do you say about that what resolution do you use?
Feb 13, 2005 08:12 am sorry to add another question but what about digital audio I mean If I choose to change the bit and sample rate at a later time I can right?
(By digital I mean MIDI data that hasn't been exported as wavs yet.)
Feb 13, 2005 08:16 am I am starting to use hi-res more and more lately, I have done all 24 bit for a while, the sample rate depends on what my goal is for the finished product.
the higher resolution it is, yes, the better it sounds, but it also takes a bigger toll on your computer resources.
You can change resolutions by converting, but changing to a higher resolution will technically make your audio 96k, but it won't sound better, cuz in reality it's still a 44.1 source. It's like trying to blow up a digital image and it gets all pixelated and stuff...
Feb 13, 2005 09:01 am personaly, I think that 96kHz is overrated and one should spend more time on getting the preformance right and mic placement first.
$0.02
Feb 13, 2005 09:05 am Yeah, well, if you plan on making high resolution audio, such as surround sound, all the mic placement and performance in the world isn't going to help.
You have to record in the spec that fits the final product you intend on mixing in. I personally have been playing with surround sound for a while, and my next EP will be mixed in surround, so whether I personally might feel it's overrated or not isn't the issue.
If you plan to keep trudging in the current world of 16/44.1 then yes, it doesn't matter.
Feb 13, 2005 09:07 am As it is the final CD product (not the spec, the actual product) end up somewhere around 12-13 bit on CD's. Part of that is due to encoding to spec and part is due I would guess, to people that record at 16/44.1, then continue processing, adding effects and all that, as it continues, every step of the way, to bastardize and true bit rate.
Feb 13, 2005 01:30 pm Aye...this is why I run everything as high as possible, nae worrying at all aboot the strain on the PC and just buying more hard drives as needed :-) !!
The key is fidelity...the higher the better. As the pixelation describes perfectly - images downsize far better than they increase...audio is the same.
Coco.
Feb 13, 2005 01:54 pm yeah, i do mostly cd material so i record at 24/44.1 then dither it down to 16 bit when it's finished.....i'd love to go to 88.2 but frankly i have no need to ...... yet ;)
Feb 13, 2005 03:11 pm i noticed that 44 is a multiple of 22:
"44.1 cannot record frequencies above 22khz (which you can't "hear") but you can percieve it, whereas at 96khz, you can accurately record frequencies up to 48khz."
then found this...
"...according to the Nyquist Theorem, you need twice as many samples per second as the frequency you're trying to digitize...Bumping it up to four samples or more per wave, however, creates truly compelling audio."
so i guess the formula is: look at the sample rate, halve it, and that half is the upper limit on frequency sensitivity for the given rate.
but who can explain what exactly happens to the waveform when you try to record a frequency of, say, 39,000 oscillations per sec (39 KhZ) with a sample rate of 44,000? i just want to be able to visualize the failure of it registering. i guess the wave just gets chopped up. why doesnt that sound like anything?
BrunoThe Quiet MindedMember
Since: Jan 01, 2003
Feb 13, 2005 06:21 pm quote:"the higher resolution it is, yes, the better it sounds, but it also takes a bigger toll on your computer resources"
should my P4 1.6 with 1.2GB RAM handle the load of recording at 96Khz?
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Feb 13, 2005 11:23 pm yeah, the Nyquist theorem states that you have a sample rate twice the highest frequency you need to record and since 22050 Hz is theoretically the highest you can hear 44.1KHz is used. So whatever sample rate you are using, halve as mentioned above and that's your Nyquist frequency.
Any frequencies above the Nyquist frequency will "foldback" and create aliases in the digital audio, which can eat up headroom and affect the quality of your audio. Even though many people can't hear this, you can record the same data at 96KHz and you'll know it's gone.
Feb 14, 2005 03:59 am interesting...
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 14, 2005 09:30 am Ya Forty,
Some folks recomend using a low pass filter way up there around 20k to filter out those frequencies that can cause aliasing. And there are folks that can hear above 20K. My youngest daughter used to hate an old TV I had because she could hear the horizontal hold circuits working.
More over however it is all about matching the media you print to as dB relates. Most production studios use a 3 or 6 dB roll off on the high end when mastering and printing to standard 44.1 CD. This is considered to 'sound good' which I precieve as a function of what 'we' are 'used to'. It's like tube amplification. To a degree we are conditioned to respond to that sound as 'good' per previous experience listening to tube amplification. Not to diminish the tube's value in sound, more to qualify it. I know a lot of folks that thought CD's where 'brash' sounding when they first came out and 15 years couldn't stand muddy cassette recordings.
I personaly record 48k 24bit and let Cubase convert the 24 files to 32 for compatibility to the God Box. That way I can print to CD or DVD.
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Feb 14, 2005 10:59 am hey walt, what do you use for sample rate conversion from 48 to 44.1? And does it sound good?
Feb 14, 2005 01:13 pm ahhh!! tv's used to drive me nuts! and computer monitors were no saints either! i must say i don't here it as often cuz of these nice flat panels, but oh man i recall being able to hear my brothers bedroom tv, and the one in the living room and i would know when they went to comercials cuz it'd stop for half a second or whatever, i always wondered what frequency that was, cuz i knew it was high, anyone know?
wyd
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Feb 14, 2005 11:28 pm ElMusico,
I either use Cubase by importing the file into an audio track and doing a mix down to 44.1 using the Cubase dithering plug, or I use Cool Edit Pro which has a routine which does it. The Cubase does it best, and yes it sounds as good as anything published on 44.1 CD. I will admit that even I can hear a difference between 48/24bit and 44.1/16 bit on some material and I lived through a lot of years of rock.
WYD,
I really don't remember but 29khz is popping into my head for the horizontal hold freq. That could be just an abarition of my thought process or lack that of however.
Feb 15, 2005 04:52 pm wow!!! no way! i knew my ears were sharp but damn!! i hope you're right lol
i think i'd like to get my hearing tested now that we're on the topic, where would i go for that? regular doctor? or an auditory specialist? i remember gettin' my hearing tested when i was real young and i always liked it, it was like a game to me...they'd say "let me know when you hear something" and i'd close my eyes and wait...wow i'm having a flood of memories from kintergarden now! haha
Feb 15, 2005 05:53 pm i just had that hearing test. i liked it too. i want to go again, like a ride.
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Feb 15, 2005 06:15 pm I'd like to get a hearing test too, but then again I'm not sure I want to know just how bad my hearing is now. LOL
Dan
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Feb 15, 2005 10:39 pm WHAT?! TYPE LOUDER!! :)
