|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
to lee and everyone else who has posted this thread:
My reasons for asking about the audible diffence in sample rates are as follows: 1. To me all digi did was give us the same system we already have but at 96K. They did not change the summing mixer so that means to me that the HD system running at 48K with their new interface is not going sound any better that the existing system with a good clock and great converters. 2. Per the digi reps at namm running the HD system @ 96K requires so much power that you end up with only 64 tracks and same amount of dsp power card for card as the Mix system @48K. 3. One rep said that they changed the dithering mixer but I have no idea what that means or how that will translate. 4. I do r&b & pop so I could care less about 24track @ 192 K. So the question is, do I upgrade & spend $10,000 and go through the headaches of bug fixes over the ability to record frequencies and overtones that only mice can hear or continue to make records on something that I know gets good results and works. I've got apogee converters and unless this new system blows the mix system away. I see no point to upgrade [unless the 96K or 88.2K (which makes more sense because it is a 2:1 ratio when going down to 44.1) becomes the industry standard]. special note to Lee: I often enjoy reading your post but for the record I've been accused of having exceptional ears by many engineers. The notion of buying the HD system or recording @ 96K just so the 5 people in the world who can hear the difference between 96K and 48K will be happy seems a bit ridiculous to me. If there is a significant difference or it becomes the industry standard then I'll have no choice but to switch. If not, then digi can kiss my !@#$#@ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
Quote:
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! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
Indeed, thanks. That was a very clear explanation.
__________________
Dell XPS 8700. Intel Core i7-4770 CPU @ 3.40GHz. RAM: 16GB. Windows 10 Home x64. NVIDIA GeForce GTX 645. NI Komplete Audio 6. Pro Tools Software 2019 amagrasmusic.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
Hi!
Yes, for Sampling, Sound FX Editing Timestreching etc. its not bad and possible better. For normal music production in the most cased its not needed and you have more problems for downconvert laters. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
1. Depends on the converter. Some sound better at 44.1, some at 96, etc.. I could hear a difference every time on my RME converters; with my Apogee, no difference to my ears.
2. Depends on the plugin processing. Some plugins suffer from aliasing artifacts above Nyquist and require "oversampling" to get it right (or operation at a higher sample rate.) Some are fine either way. Aside from that, overall, I think bit depth has a much higher impact on digital audio in general. I can almost always tell the difference between 24-bit and 16-bit audio by ear (depends on the source material). Like several have said in this thread, there are soooo many tiny factors that add up to your music's final fidelity...The guitarist keeping his fingernails trimmed will have a much higher impact than sample rate every time. Use whatever makes sense to you, keeping in mind CPU impact, hard drive space, etc.. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
This topic comes up once or twice a year....and you know what???
It doesn’t change people’s mind....opinions are like what? Everyone has one... I believe you do hear a sonic impact but it taxes the machine pretty hard....I’ve been running 44.1k for years now. Now that I think about it...I haven’t tracked anything with my HDX card @ 96k sounds like an interesting weekend project It does use double the DSP on both Avid and Universal Audio
__________________
Daniel HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8 Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
Quote:
I believe I have, but I chalk it up to hardware. That and mood. I've never done proper tests because I've always bled my systems for all they were worth at 44.1, so I never really had an option. Nowadays with modern processors and hard drive space cheap as hell, I could revisit it...But if I did switch to a higher sample rate, it would be to decrease latency, not for fidelity. We'll see how my new Slate VRS-8s system performs...I hear they'll be on my front porch "soon". |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
Seriously, if you can't hear the difference between 44.1 and even 48K, let alone 96k, you're in the wrong profession. Now 96 vs 192, not readily audible for me...
And while I'm on my soapbox. LOL. Please record everything at at least 24bit/48k. (32bitFloat/96k much better) The net effect of 20-100+ tracks initially passed through the required brick wall filters required for 44.1 is FAR more obnoxious than a single sample rate conversion back down to 44.1 for the final stereo mix.
__________________
offthewallproductions Mac Pro 5,1 3.46 Ghz 12 core, Open Core 0.9.8, Radeon RX580 GPU, GC-TITAN RIDGE TB3 PCIe card, M.2 NVMe SSD boot drive on PCIe card, 48GB RAM, macOS 12.7.4 Pro Tools Ultimate 2024.3.1/HD Driver 2023.3 HDX, UA Octo PCIe card in external TB3 chassis, MTRX Studio I/O, C|24 control surface. Genelec 1031AP/7070A 5.1 monitoring. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?
I don’t agree with the 32 bit resolution
I think it makes the computer work harder, from what I have seen. I have found 24 to be acceptable, as long as your not pushing the levels there isn’t a problem
__________________
Daniel HDX - PT12.5.1 - HD I/O 16x8x8 Win10-Pro (v1709)- 6 Core i7-6850k - ASUS X99 Deluxe ii D-Command Main Unit - 'Ole Blue http://www.sknoteaudio.com/ plugins rock and are affordable. Last edited by YYR123; 06-14-2018 at 06:51 AM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Big Ben-Can you hear the difference? | Dynamixaled | Tips & Tricks | 39 | 09-04-2011 03:03 PM |
how much difference will I really hear? | lastounce | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 2 | 08-27-2004 02:32 AM |
Will I really hear a difference at 24Bit? | Dal Hic | Tips & Tricks | 7 | 02-22-2003 11:42 PM |
16, 20, 24 bits-can you hear the difference? | Park Seward | 003, Mbox 2, Digi 002, original Mbox, Digi 001 (Mac) | 23 | 03-01-2002 10:40 AM |
192K and Electronic Music...will it make a difference? | Hardnox | Tips & Tricks | 9 | 01-21-2002 02:43 AM |