Sample Rate Testing 44 vs higher
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > Sample Rate Testing 44 vs higher
Apr 17, 2008 02:09 pm This study really surprises me. Less than half of the time, a industry professional could not tell the difference.
Maybe it's because that I come from the live side of things. But, I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt, in the live side, you can tell vary quickly. Add a word clock into the equation, and things really clean up. To the point that the common patron can tell.
I don't know. Maybe with all of the MP3's at 168kps on all of the I-pods with the stupid little earphones, has destroyed every one's hearing?
Apr 17, 2008 02:18 pm Aha! I suspected as much. At the least, it's good news for all the folks who are bloating up their storage with all those 96 kHz files.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Apr 17, 2008 02:43 pm Yup, just recently started with the 96 as I got the faster compy. I could not sit down and point out the difference, but they are there.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 17, 2008 09:42 pm The ONLY reason I ever use a higher sample rate is for editing purposes. And I mean when I'm doing heavy wave editing like samples and intense loops that really need the higher resolution. Otherwise I never go above 48 without having a distinct need to. It is simply a waste of space in my humble opinion.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Apr 17, 2008 11:40 pm Rob, IMHO, you have said alot with your suposition on hearing. I theorize that it is a lot more about psycology of sound than the quality of the sound itself. "Good" is largely a social phenonomum. It is also heavly biased in emotion. With the acceptence of Mp3 players and such as "cool", the tendency for the sound they produce will become industry standard IMHO. Now, to those of us (a definate minority) that have sat in musical groups for most of our lives listening to the real thing, there may be some confusion as to why people can't hear the difference. And then of course there is the "industry professional". If that isn't an ambigious term.
On the same token, I agree with Noise. I won't waste my time or HD space with anything over 48K at present just to be smashed down to 44.1 or Mp3. Sometimes, if I get an exceptional performance in house, I will print to dvd at a higher rate for my consumption only.