Log in
Log in
Forgot your password ?
or
Create an account
or
Log in using a Facebook account
NotificationsNo new notification
< Back to Sound Techniques
Enlarge
Sound Techniques
Thematic Forums
Sound Techniques
News 334 334
Articles 528 528
Media 4,983 5k
Tutorials Tutorials & Tips 3 3
Forums 934 934

96,000kHz or 44,100kHz

  • 17 replies
  • 17 participants
  • 16,515 views
  • 4 followers
Topic 96,000kHz or 44,100kHz
i have witnessed alot of arguements about wether recording at 96,000 or 44,100 gets a better sound. i personally see no point in recording at 96,000. it takes up too much ram, hard drive space and unless your ear is extremely acurate and i mean really really acurate you can't tell any difference. im interested in what you all think.
View this discussion’s subject
11
Wouldn't 96 be better for recording the classical guitar with all it's harmonic overtones etc?
12
96 khz and 192 khz are all very well, but are the converters in your kit capable of resolving at that speed without jitter ?
Look up 'jitter'
Only the top-end converters can do it, with super-accurate clocks e.g. Digidesign
Consumer gear doesn't have a hope.

John
13
Two points; One, to record at 96 KHz you need to be good. This is going to point out every little mistake you make. Two, I have had more problems downsampling and upsampling than anything else in my engineering career. Just stick with the industry standard. If you really want some more "fidelity" which you won't even notice, go with 48KHz.
14
i have only skimmed over the above, but if you are recording at 96 or 48, then remember that a cd can only contain 44.1 at 16bit!!
15
I agree that 41,000 is the best from what i've eard here and ther places, however, i dont know what 96,000 sounds like so i cant really say.

Oh well, looks like ui guys know wat ur talkin about! lol

Whipped.
16
96,khz all the way if you can afford it and especially if you want to match a commercial release. The reason for the higher sample rate is the quality of the truncated waveform when re-sampled down to 44,100khz. Its also important to have 24bits too (dithering).
17

Quote: i have only skimmed over the above, but if you are recording at 96 or 48, then remember that a cd can only contain 44.1 at 16bit!!


Quote: 96,khz all the way if you can afford it and especially if you want to match a commercial release. The reason for the higher sample rate is the quality of the truncated waveform when re-sampled down to 44,100khz.


Don't know if it's true but I've always heard that since everything has to be converted back to 44.1 in the end then it's wiser to simplify the conversion to avoid potential problems, thus it's better to work in either 44.1 or 88.2 rather than 48 or 96... Now clearly you should hear more differences between 16 and 24 bits than you'd do between 44.1 & 48kHz.
18
Ok, so just my two cents: :D:

Everyone is correct, the Human ear cannot hear above about 22kHz (this maximum range decreases over time).

As stated above, the math does workout to be that a higher sampling rate can lead to interesting results that audible. However, Lavry Engineering published a very interesting white paper about just this very question:

http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf

In short, he points out that 96 is beneficial in terms of frequency response when recording. When recording at 96kHz, you get a close to flat response in recording over the audible range, versus sampling at less than 96kHz which can lead to a gradual decrease in gain across the higher frequencies. The lower the sample rate, the more aggressive the decline in sound levels of the higher frequencies.

It is a great read and he has also done many other papers.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/index_html.html

Go to Support, and scroll down and under White Papers are other articles. Very interesting (esp if you understanding the higher order math involved).

Ciao.