Topic: 48k Vs. 96k..?

[ideal77dlr]

Is there a real noticable differnce between recording at 48k and 96k? Espeically if you're recording at 24bit?

I understand from an archival point of view, you've got a higher sample rate at 96k so it's archivable and usable as far a future formats are concerned, but if you're going to downsample to put on a cd, are you going to end up with a 'lesser' quality recording to start with if you run 24/48 when you go out and do your recording?
I'm thinking as well as what you save in terms of card life and potential 'slow card' error or wotnot that you hear about running at 96k...

[rhinowing]

well, i wouldn't record at 24/44.1 because of sampling stuff

as I recall, when resampling, a recording with a clean sample rate/bitdepth ratio gives a cleaner resample/dither

so I'd probably recording 24/48 instead of 44.1

i don't have a 24/96 recorder, so I can't answer the main question

[ideal77dlr]

Ah...and I did mean 44 

Edited to clarify!!!

[runonce]

A "noticeable" difference. I doubt it.

The thing you might notice is the huge file sizes.

[Brian Skalinder]

as I recall, when resampling, a recording with a clean sample rate/bitdepth ratio gives a cleaner resample/dither

You've lost me.    Please explain?

[rhinowing]

as I recall, when resampling, a recording with a clean sample rate/bitdepth ratio gives a cleaner resample/dither

You've lost me.    Please explain?

sorry--that wasn't very clear (what I get for writing posts in the middle of an all-nighter)

I'm not even entirely sure about this (I'm sure someone like DSatz could explain better), but the resampling/dithering algorithms (r8brain's, for example) perform better with a file where the sample rate/bit depth are multiples of each other (eg 24/48, 16/32, 32/96) than on one where they aren't (16/44.1, 24/44.1). I might be getting this mixed up with just sample rate, though (for example, resampling 96 > 48 or 88.2 > 44.1)

[jlykos]

as I recall, when resampling, a recording with a clean sample rate/bitdepth ratio gives a cleaner resample/dither

You've lost me.    Please explain?

sorry--that wasn't very clear (what I get for writing posts in the middle of an all-nighter)

I'm not even entirely sure about this (I'm sure someone like DSatz could explain better), but the resampling/dithering algorithms (r8brain's, for example) perform better with a file where the sample rate/bit depth are multiples of each other (eg 24/48, 16/32, 32/96) than on one where they aren't (16/44.1, 24/44.1). I might be getting this mixed up with just sample rate, though (for example, resampling 96 > 48 or 88.2 > 44.1)

IIRC, it's the resampling that is most affected if you go in a non-multiple, like 24/96 > 16/44.1.  The bit rate conversion is generally OK (you can't get around it anyway if you convert from 24-bit to 16-bit), but if you record in 24 bit and primarily listen at 16 bit, it is generally preferable to record at something like 24/44.1 or 24/88.2 because they are clean multiples of 44.1.

In a program like Sound Forge or Audition, there are different noise shaping algorithms that one can use to mitigate the negative sonic effects of resampling.  I record in 24/96 and then use triangular noise shaping to resample to 44.1.

[taperj]

well, i wouldn't record at 24/44.1 because of sampling stuff

as I recall, when resampling, a recording with a clean sample rate/bitdepth ratio gives a cleaner resample/dither

so I'd probably recording 24/48 instead of 44.1

i don't have a 24/96 recorder, so I can't answer the main question

Actually, if you're trying to end up with a cd quality release 24/44.1could be considered better to use than 48 or 96 because of the reason you specified. Going from 24/44.1 > 16/44.1 there would be no resampling which would make it the cleanest since all it would need to do is drop the last 8 bits to get to cd quality. Resampling from 96 or 48 to 44.1 is where the mathematical/interpolation conundrum comes in. Logically for high res recording 88.2kHz would be the next best since it is evenly divisible by 2 which shouldn't pose a mathematical problem when going to 16/44.1. As far as your 96kHz question, yes, I do notice a difference between 48 and 96 kHz. It's a bit of an intangible but really I don't hear the difference, I feel it. The weight of how the music hits and effects my body and environment is different and somehow heavier and richer. I think this mostly comes into play on a good rendering system played loud. Other than pure end point sound quality there are other reasons to run at higher resolution, one being the greater ability to work with the recording in post. you simply have more to tweak with a 24/96 recording. I think this is a good/fairly simple read about some of the why's/why nots:

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

J

[phanophish]

http://www.korg.com/services/products/mr/Future_Proof_Recording_Explained.pdf

I find this article does a pretty good job explaining the limitations of the various PCM sample rates/depths.  It is a Korg marketing piece so filter the data a bit.

That said I usually run 16/44.1 on my R44.  The file sizes of 24/96 and post processing work to render a 16/44.1 copy are not worth the incremental improvement in sound quality that you get with 24/96. 

[Belexes]

That said I usually run 16/44.1 on my R44.  The file sizes of 24/96 and post processing work to render a 16/44.1 copy are not worth the incremental improvement in sound quality that you get with 24/96.

To each their own, but I like the extra headroom 24 bit gives.  My work in post for the files is simply to import into Audacity and export to 16/44.  There really isn't that much work to it.

I tape 24/48 all the time. never saw the need to jump up to 96.

[phanophish]

I get the advantages and headroom of running 24 bit instead of 16, I'm familiar enough with my gear that I can usually run the R44 hot enough at 16 bit that I don't feel the need for the extra headroom.  If I'm taping in a room I don't know as well I will sometimes bump up to a higher bit depth.  But why 48 instead of 44.1?  My understanding is the same as JLYKOS in that running a non multiple of 44.1 for the sampling rate makes the re-sample "less clean".  It makes you much more dependent on the quality of the re-sample algorithm rather than the quality of the actual recording.  All this presumes that the ultimate goal here is a 16/44 CD.  Obviously there is a slight quality bump if you are playing back the 48k files without changes.

[boojum]

I always record at 24 bit depth.  I like the greater dynamic range.

And I usually have a sample rate of 44.1.  I cannot understand why there has to be any connection between bit rate and sampling rate.  If there is any published literature on this I would like to read it.  As for sampling rates, well, this is like talking about the events in the US between 1860 and the present.  There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue, lots has been written, but I do not know any definitive proof over which is the best rate.  I ran a pull for a fellow who is a real pro and he insisted on 24/882.2.  OK.  I am not sure how many folks could distinguish sampling rates in a double blind test.  When they can be distinguished with a high rate of accuracy I will use that rate.

What is important is where those mics are.


Cheers

[Tim]

IIRC, it's the resampling that is most affected if you go in a non-multiple, like 24/96 > 16/44.1.  The bit rate conversion is generally OK (you can't get around it anyway if you convert from 24-bit to 16-bit), but if you record in 24 bit and primarily listen at 16 bit, it is generally preferable to record at something like 24/44.1 or 24/88.2 because they are clean multiples of 44.1.

In a program like Sound Forge or Audition, there are different noise shaping algorithms that one can use to mitigate the negative sonic effects of resampling.  I record in 24/96 and then use triangular noise shaping to resample to 44.1.

^^^ this best fits my understanding as well.

[jeromejello]

most of the time i go 24/44.1
some of the time i go 24/48

never thought to do anything but based on both of my current needs [audio (44.1) / video (48)].

have been thinking of going all 48, but it hasnt really stuck.

[Belexes]

All this presumes that the ultimate goal here is a 16/44 CD.  Obviously there is a slight quality bump if you are playing back the 48k files without changes.

Hopefully one day we will get away from 16/44 since the CD is becoming a thing of the past.

I do play a lot of my masters from my computer with headphones on and don't burn to CDR, thus I do a lot of playback 24/48.