< Back to Sound Techniques

Enlarge

Actu 332 332

Articles 526 526

Media 4,787 4,8k

Tutorials Tutorials & Tips 3 3

Forums 930 930

Thread 96,000kHz or 44,100kHz

17 replies
17 participants
16,150 views
4 followers

nihility0000

AFfable Poster

First post

1 Posted on 02/02/2004 at 20:59:10

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.

Watch by email

redplanetdrifter

New AFfiliate

2 Posted on 02/04/2004 at 05:35:33

I agree, I have recorded both ways, and I can tell no difference. I mainly just give my CDs to freinds and family, so they have never been reviewed by "experts".

Krowms

AFfinity Poster

3 Posted on 02/05/2004 at 00:18:00

This is mathematics!! ;-)

I agree there is no big differences... but the reason of 96kHz recording is based on interferences behaviour:

do you remeber that:

cos a + cos b = 2*cos((a+b)/2)*sin((a-b)/2))

So if you are mixing two signals: the first with a [a1,b1] frequencies range and the second with [a2,b2] frequencies range, when you mix this two signals, the result is a new signal with [abs(a1-a2),b1+b2)] range.

It means that, if you are mixing two non-audible signals together(from 18Mhz to 25Mhz for ewemple), you can optain frequencies you can ear!!!

That is one reason it could be interesting having a 96kHz format.

The second reason is the quality of the filter and you convert from analog to digital, it's better having a tolerence between the frequencies of the filter and the limit of your ears. This is the reason proffessional format is 48kHz instead of 44kHz...

So I personaly choose 48kHz for the last reason, but this is true 96kHz is perhaps a bit too much for home studio recording ;-)

mmmm... am I clear? ;-)

revrb

AFfinity Poster

4 Posted on 02/14/2004 at 20:18:10

i was reading in a magazine that human ears cannot tell the difference between the two

dublinux

New AFfiliate

5 Posted on 02/22/2004 at 07:37:41

the human ear can only hear frequencies up to about 22Khz, so if something is sampled at anything faster that 44Khz (remember nyquist's theorem fs >= 2fc) then the human ear wont hear any difference. its only if you are adding effects that it would be beneficial to have eg 48Khz or 96Khz because you are basically performing mathematical algorithms on the signal and you are bound to get some unwanted frequencies appearing if you use a low sampling frequency.
so if you are not adding effects, use 44.1Khz, otherwise you are just waisting memory :?

revrb

AFfinity Poster

6 Posted on 02/22/2004 at 11:15:55

well said!

policom_gr

New AFfiliate

7 Posted on 02/25/2004 at 09:52:33

And don't forget the speakers. It is very simple because if you are using hi-fi computer based speakers you don't hear any change, but if have the money to buy some Monitor speakers ( Good Quality Speakers i mean ) then you hear the changes even from 96 to 192!

manowar

AFfinity Poster

8 Posted on 09/26/2004 at 12:35:22

that is all thrue, but if you going to edit that recorded sound and add some effects you will hear the difference in final mix down

Sam Spastic

AFfinity Poster

9 Posted on 09/26/2004 at 17:47:39

Well in the analog world I can really hear the difference between a very very popular 20KHz response mixer and my 50KHz response Allen & Heath.

So I say buy more ram and a few hard drives. Put every project on its own hard drive. Cheaper than 2" tape.

stefano

New AFfiliate

10 Posted on 02/16/2005 at 02:05:46

Human hear can not even hear 20KHz so 96 is useless but also I agree with mathematic so if you have space and speed go for 96, personally I use 44.1
bye

List of moderators