Sample rate..44, 48, 96???
- Thread starter J-malice
- Start date
-
Beat This!The next Beat This! Competition is from November 27-28th!
vitaminman
IllMuzik Staff
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 1
Hey,
Resampling up from 44.1khz to 96khz won't do anything except make your files very large, you need to record them at 96khz with a card that is capable of doing so.
Can you hear a difference? This gets debated by a lot of people. I personally can't tell, but there are those who claim the difference is like night and day.
The human ear is in theory capable of hearing sounds up to 20khz; according to the Nyquist theory, in order for a digital device to accurately capture a frequency, you have to record at twice the frequency... so to capture sounds at 20khz we need to record at 40khz.
But there are other frequencies out there which we cannot hear which effect the ones that we can hear, and if we don't capture them properly it adds aliasing (distortion) to the sound. This, I believe, is why we record at 44.1khz and 48 khz (along with some other reasons which I don't fully understand).
There are now cards which record at 192khz, which is just insane and in my opinion nothing but a way for companies to offer people something new to fork their money out on.
I know I've left a ton of stuff out of the explanation, so PLEASE, anyone who knows more about this, chime in.
Take care,
Nick
Resampling up from 44.1khz to 96khz won't do anything except make your files very large, you need to record them at 96khz with a card that is capable of doing so.
Can you hear a difference? This gets debated by a lot of people. I personally can't tell, but there are those who claim the difference is like night and day.
The human ear is in theory capable of hearing sounds up to 20khz; according to the Nyquist theory, in order for a digital device to accurately capture a frequency, you have to record at twice the frequency... so to capture sounds at 20khz we need to record at 40khz.
But there are other frequencies out there which we cannot hear which effect the ones that we can hear, and if we don't capture them properly it adds aliasing (distortion) to the sound. This, I believe, is why we record at 44.1khz and 48 khz (along with some other reasons which I don't fully understand).
There are now cards which record at 192khz, which is just insane and in my opinion nothing but a way for companies to offer people something new to fork their money out on.
I know I've left a ton of stuff out of the explanation, so PLEASE, anyone who knows more about this, chime in.
Take care,
Nick
yeah man i took this music industry class in college and my professor said that the whole higher sample rate thing is just a way to get more money out of people.... they see the higher number and want to pay more but in truth, like vitaminman said the human ear can't tell the diffrence.
WingsOfAnAngel
Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 3
i think that these articles may explain the topic pretty well:
http://www.studio201.com/cwu/editorials/bits.html
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html
http://www.audiovideo101.com/dictionary/sampling-rate.asp
http://www.atpm.com/6.03/digitalaudio.shtml
http://www.studio201.com/cwu/editorials/bits.html
http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~hgs/audio/44.1.html
http://www.audiovideo101.com/dictionary/sampling-rate.asp
http://www.atpm.com/6.03/digitalaudio.shtml
God
Creator of the Universe
ill o.g.
I will address this in two portions:
TECHNICAL VIEW:
I think the most important thing to increase would be the bitrate rather than the sample rate. If you are recording in 16 bit, I usually recommend increasing the bitdepth to 24 bits in order to lower the noise floor (120 dbs), thus giving you more headroom.
If you have high end converters that correctly make a signal represent 44.1/16, then there shouldn't be a problem recording in 44.1. However, I think that cheaper 44.1 converters are not as good as cheaper 96 kHz converters, because in 96kHz converters, filter response artifacts are bumped higher up in the audio spectrum, thereby skirting the actual issue, which is poor converter construction. So, cheaper 96kHz converters are generally "better" persay. However, I would choose hi-quality 44.1/16 converters to the 96's. (Actually, I would choose hi-quality 96's but lets not get into that!
)
But, the fact is that 44.1/16 is CD quality, and its great, if you know how to properly engineer the recording. A slightly higher sample rate of 48kHz gives you a little more to work with than 44.1 and allows for more ultrasonic frequency (vis-a-vis the human ear), so some people say you gain a little bit more alleged ultrasonic "textures", but not increasing your file size to massive extremes (as 96kHz and 192 kHz recordings do.) In reality, 48Khz may just sit better with the soundcard you are using and have little sonic fidelity recognition anyway.
The human ear can't hear over 20 kHz. So anybody talking about recording 96kHz/192kHz SPECIFICALLY for CD at 44.1/16bit is being paid by someone.
PRACTICALLY:
In your case, increase the bit depth. For the sample rate, 44.1 or 48 should work for you, depending on what kind of soundcard you have, and your system resources. Remember, that at any higher sample rate than 44.1 you have to have a good sample rate converter that has good anti-aliasing filters to downsample to 44.1. The fact of the matter is that, most people can't make good use of 44.1/16 anyway, because they can't engineer.
There is no advantage to SRC from 44.1 to 96, which is what you were doing. It also shows that you may not really grasp the concept of samplerates and bit depths, perhaps. Read more on the mathematics involving sample rates, like the links posted above. Also, most people don't have the audio chain to support the "quality" of higher sampling rates, which is claimed by many audio pundits. Think of all the car factory audio systems and how awful some music sounds, because the speakers can't represent the frequency ranges in what is generally a good recording. PEOPLE CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 44.1kHz recordings and those at significantly higher rates. Also, if you are recording poorly, through a bad microphone, then the point is moot as well.
ALSO, I usually record at 96kHz/24 bit but that's because many projects are now being put not only on CD, but DVD as well, so I have to have the quality of file to support what is demanded. Also, with people trying to force SACD down your throat, the file quality has to be "better."
Work on your engineering, though. Read and learn more!
Sincerely,
God
TECHNICAL VIEW:
I think the most important thing to increase would be the bitrate rather than the sample rate. If you are recording in 16 bit, I usually recommend increasing the bitdepth to 24 bits in order to lower the noise floor (120 dbs), thus giving you more headroom.
If you have high end converters that correctly make a signal represent 44.1/16, then there shouldn't be a problem recording in 44.1. However, I think that cheaper 44.1 converters are not as good as cheaper 96 kHz converters, because in 96kHz converters, filter response artifacts are bumped higher up in the audio spectrum, thereby skirting the actual issue, which is poor converter construction. So, cheaper 96kHz converters are generally "better" persay. However, I would choose hi-quality 44.1/16 converters to the 96's. (Actually, I would choose hi-quality 96's but lets not get into that!
)But, the fact is that 44.1/16 is CD quality, and its great, if you know how to properly engineer the recording. A slightly higher sample rate of 48kHz gives you a little more to work with than 44.1 and allows for more ultrasonic frequency (vis-a-vis the human ear), so some people say you gain a little bit more alleged ultrasonic "textures", but not increasing your file size to massive extremes (as 96kHz and 192 kHz recordings do.) In reality, 48Khz may just sit better with the soundcard you are using and have little sonic fidelity recognition anyway.
The human ear can't hear over 20 kHz. So anybody talking about recording 96kHz/192kHz SPECIFICALLY for CD at 44.1/16bit is being paid by someone.
PRACTICALLY:
In your case, increase the bit depth. For the sample rate, 44.1 or 48 should work for you, depending on what kind of soundcard you have, and your system resources. Remember, that at any higher sample rate than 44.1 you have to have a good sample rate converter that has good anti-aliasing filters to downsample to 44.1. The fact of the matter is that, most people can't make good use of 44.1/16 anyway, because they can't engineer.
There is no advantage to SRC from 44.1 to 96, which is what you were doing. It also shows that you may not really grasp the concept of samplerates and bit depths, perhaps. Read more on the mathematics involving sample rates, like the links posted above. Also, most people don't have the audio chain to support the "quality" of higher sampling rates, which is claimed by many audio pundits. Think of all the car factory audio systems and how awful some music sounds, because the speakers can't represent the frequency ranges in what is generally a good recording. PEOPLE CAN NOT TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 44.1kHz recordings and those at significantly higher rates. Also, if you are recording poorly, through a bad microphone, then the point is moot as well.
ALSO, I usually record at 96kHz/24 bit but that's because many projects are now being put not only on CD, but DVD as well, so I have to have the quality of file to support what is demanded. Also, with people trying to force SACD down your throat, the file quality has to be "better."
Work on your engineering, though. Read and learn more!
Sincerely,
God