View Single Post
  #118  
Old 08-13-2017, 03:44 PM
jamesleonard jamesleonard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Default Re: 44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

Hello,

Although 44.1kHz has become the de facto standard in all work stations, many producers today will operate their sequencers at a much higher sampling frequency of 88,200Hz or 96,000Hz. Although these sampling rates are far beyond the frequency response of human hearing, these sampling rates can reduce unwanted side effects such as *Frequency Cramping*

Frequency Cramping often occurs when a processor or effect is employed in an audio workstation at frequencies that are close to half the sampling rate. For example, if the current working project were set at 44.1kHz and the engineer were to boost a wide range of frequencies at 18kHz - the boost occurring on the the higher frequency side of 18kHz could extend well beyond 22kHz. This is more than the projects sampling rate and, in accordance with the Nyquist theorem, this would result in aliasing and Frequency Cramping, whereby the boost reduces sharply resulting in an uneven balance.

The attached thumbnails shows this effect in action - and sonically it appears harsh, reducing both presence and spatial resolution of the sound, whats more, this effect can be much more noticeable when using processors and effects that emulate analogue characteristics - such as: analogue modelled EQ's or distortion units - since these often introduce further harmonics either side of the frequency range being processed.

The diagram shows an unbalanced EQ curve (pink) compared to the original curve (grey)... The 2nd diagram illustrates this phenomenon.

*(Please substitute 10kHz for 18kHz - because I could not be bothered to plot a logarithmic graph for this example - but this diagram will suffice )

Also.. the boost at 1k serves no purpose in THIS example - so please disregard it - as it has no relevance to the diagram - so forget it's even there
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	68.4 KB
ID:	8967   Click image for larger version

Name:	2.jpg
Views:	0
Size:	67.3 KB
ID:	8968  

Last edited by jamesleonard; 08-14-2017 at 03:28 AM.
Reply With Quote