Quote:
Originally Posted by ejsongs
Has anyone heard recordings done at these sampling rates? Is there a noticable difference? I'd love to know what you guys think before I consider doing the upgrade.
|
Sorry to revive an old thread. I was browsing around for some 192k info and while reading this thread I realised that no one posted the correct answer to the question. With newbies in mind, please allow me:
There is, effectively, no aural difference between 48KHz and everything up in most common listening conditions. The real reason why should be striving for higher frequencies is oversampling. That said, it is a fact that the sound will be more rich and precise in extreme conditions (think movie theatre or expensive home cinemas).
If you grab a 48k track and try some time stretching for example, you will end up with artefacts with ratios as small as 105% (or 95% in the other direction). You can effectively MULTIPLY the safety range of your effects by using higher frequencies. At 192K, you won't hear glitches until 120% of time stretching for example.
As a rule of thumb, you should always record, mix and master on the highest frequency available and then choose 48K for your final rendering. You never know when a client is going to phone you asking to get such part shortened to 16 seconds. 48K is a standard for most new compressed codecs out there (think mp4, aac, YouTube, Spotify).
If you need to release HD versions of your track (usually 96K or 192K), then it's also worth investing in next-level monitoring gear that allows you to hear every nook and cranny of your mixes very clearly.
You can think of an audio sample the same way as a video frame. More of it simply means that you can do higher quality processing.
The major downside of high frequency processing is how resource-intensive it may be. The space occupied by each project is also going to multiply in consequence.
I hope someone will find this useful, cheers!