Sample Rates
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > Sample Rates
Posted on Feb 07, 2004 01:33 am
Charged
Member Since: Feb 07, 2004
Is a sample rate of 96kHz or greater giving you a much richer or "meatier" sound than 44.1kHz? Some of the things that I've recently read, don't give me this impression, especially since I'm reading that the human ear doesn't recognize frequencies higher than 20kHz.
[ Back to Top ]
deepsMember
Since: Jan 26, 2004
Feb 07, 2004 12:50 pm Charged - I do not know if it sounds "meatier" but take for example when you encode .wav files to MP3 format, the higher the sample rate, the better quality the sound is. I would say, its sharper and a lot clear. Hope that helps!
Feb 07, 2004 05:49 pm concider that any sound near 20kHz recorded at 44.1kHz will have been reduced to a simple squarewave. and i guess once it's been D/A'ed and noise added it will become a pure sine wav again. higher sample rates will give definition in that last octave (10k to 20k) making it sound more lifelike. also concider that when you master to CD you'll be going to 44.1kHz anyways :O)
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Feb 08, 2004 02:31 am if i hit you in the face 2 times an hour, would it hurt more or less then once a day?
i know, bad example but it dumbs down the thought, eh?
haha
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 11, 2004 08:21 pm There are plus and minus arguements to the higher sample rates.
Here is the scoop on the differance. 44.1khz means the audio is sampled 44,100 times per second, and 96k is sampled 96000 times per second. This means that at the higher sample rate you have a much finer bit of audio to work with. Now this goes up against the fact that as Jamie put it, Cd audio is only 44.1khz so the need for 96khz is really only a selling point in my opinion. I can do it in Sonar but choose not to for sile size and also I find no real differance in the finished product.
Feb 11, 2004 10:15 pm true that.
but now higher bitdepth? that's a whole nother story. i know people who swear by 24bit ;O)
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 15, 2004 09:30 pm I process in 24 but still do the main mix in 16, since that is were the CD ends up anyway. And I really dont notice much diff in the process end either, but there must be or they wouldnt swear up and down its better.
EdvoMember
Since: Feb 18, 2004
Feb 18, 2004 05:12 am For good old musicians, when recording makes me real pleasure, sometimes I am not lazy to do this: record 24bit/96kHz tracks, mix and master also to 24bit/96kHz, then record on simple MC in tape recorder, and record back to 16bit/44kHz wav :). A little noisy, but better than tape saturation plugins (e.g. Magneto).
In other cases I record 24bit/48kHz tracks, I dont know why, I saw this combination in some pro studio.
Feb 18, 2004 08:32 am I record 24-bit 44.1khz. I keep it at 24 bit and then dither as the last step, using Ozone.
Feb 18, 2004 10:25 am micro cassette?? i have several recorders, and regular size cassette decks too. why micro cassette?
Feb 18, 2004 10:34 am Hmmm...
el musicoFreeleance Producer/Engineer/GtrMember
Since: Aug 11, 2002
Feb 18, 2004 10:52 am as far as bit depth, for you math types you can think of 16bit as 2 to the 16th power and 24 as 2 to the 24th. obviously a huge difference in bit depth. but is it audible? well i thought so when i changed from 16 to 24. it kinda gave things their space a little, kinda like adding more headroom... of course maybe i just "wanted" to hear the difference when i changed :)
Feb 18, 2004 11:38 am Haha, yeah, same here, el musico.
Feb 18, 2004 11:54 am Well, whether audible or not, to me the big diff lies in post-recording processing, 24-bit allows room for the subsequent degredation from applying effects and such to the track and still be able to make a decent sound to go to the eventual CD-quality 16-bit final product.
EdvoMember
Since: Feb 18, 2004
Feb 18, 2004 03:24 pm to Jamie Garrett:
Magnetic cassete, I call this thing so
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Feb 18, 2004 10:17 pm Edvo, if you dont like Magneto, and I still do. But I have switched to the PSP vintage Warmer. It is twice what Magneto was and way more adjustable. And also way more warmer.
EdvoMember
Since: Feb 18, 2004
Feb 19, 2004 01:37 am Thanks, I will check vintage Warmer
