Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community

How to Join & Post  •  Community Terms of Use  •  Help Us Help You

Knowledge Base Search  •  Community Search  •  Learn & Support


Avid Home Page

Go Back   Avid Pro Audio Community > Pro Tools Software > Tips & Tricks

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-26-2009, 04:50 AM
Sven62 Sven62 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 116
Default 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

What is the point of recording in higher sample rates if it all gets reduced to 44.1K in the end? Why not just save that step? How is it possible that it sounds better after starting in 48 and being dithered to 44.1 vs. simply recording it in 44.1 to begin with?

EDIT: So, I just searched (DOH!) and found that there is quite a controversy over this issue. Apparently, it is very hard to tell the difference between a track recorded at 44.1 and one recorded at 48 or even 96 and then rendered to 44.1. I understand that there IS a difference in whether you record in 16 vs. 24 bit even though it all ends up in 16.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:39 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

Why film a movie on film or in HD if it's just going to get converted to 480i when broadcast on your TV?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:43 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

The answer, if you are stumped, is because the film editors, visual effects artists and color correction can make the hi res version look much better than if the film was shot at 480i. So, after they greatly enhance the hi-res version, when they convert to a lower resolution you get a much better picture than if you filmed at 480i, and then tried to add effects and color correction to that low res image.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:47 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

same holds true with audio...

A FILE at 44.1 KHz and 96KHz may sound the same, but a plugin like Autotune or Melodyne does NOT! So, the fidelity of your audio AFTER you run it through various plugins and the mixer engine will have a much higher fidelity when using a higher sampling rate than if you recorded at 44.1KHz. This makes the final sample-rate-converted and dithered version sound much better than if you had recorded and mixed at 44.1KHz.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:54 AM
O.G. Killa's Avatar
O.G. Killa O.G. Killa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

Also, not all converters are the same... a $10,000 stereo Prism D/A or A/D will sound identical at 44.1KHz and 96KHz. But I've noticed cheaper converters usually sound a little better at higher sampling rates. We've debated why this might be without ever really coming to a concrete conclusion. My guess has to do with the electronics and the design of the Nyquist filter.

I've posted this link a couple times, but it shows the effects a poorly designed digital filter can have on your audio...

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

While the link only compares software conversion. The same process takes place in your converters when converting from analog into digital. The graph should look like a single line that sweeps up from bottom left to top right. Anything else, all those lighter lines are throughout the spectrum are aliasing from poor filter design and creates harmonic distortion. If you move the sampling rate higher, that aliasing happens, but it happens much higher, outside the range of our hearing...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:18 AM
lwilliam lwilliam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Valencia, CA
Posts: 5,094
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

That's a fascinating set of graphs (never saw them before). Wow, Sadie was very bad as was Waveburner. I'm surprised at Sadie, but not Waveburner.
__________________
Larry

PTLE8/002r;OS 10.6.4 2 x 2.26Ghz quadcore,6GB RAM, Waves Platinum, many other plugins...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-26-2009, 09:26 AM
gordonotron gordonotron is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 22
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

The diffrence is subtle.

However the change in bit rate provides a higher maximum frequency which is half the sample rate. 44.1 = maximum frequency of 22.05KHz. 48 = 24KHz. and 96 = 48KHz. All of which are above the range of human hearing.
This is the case to avoid digital quantization noise at the A/D Convertor.
the 48KHz is used for film as it relates to the NTSC format.

Bit depth on the other hand (16 or 24 bit) gives the number of digital quntization steps. This means 24bit sounds better because the sounds are more accurate to the origional sound.

Dither is applied to a master ONLY when the bit depth is reduce from 24 to 16 bit in order to mask any quantization errors.

Hope that helps

G
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-26-2009, 12:00 PM
daeron80 daeron80 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando, Florida, USA
Posts: 3,624
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

If you use Audio Suite plugs to free up CPU, working at higher res will preserve more of the plug-ins' processing quality. A good EQ plug will sound very noticeably better when printed at 96 kHz than at 44.1 or 48, even after the file is converted to the lower rate. I usually work at the lower rates, but if I have to print EQ that has a lot of high end boost, I always do that processing at 96 kHz, then import the result into my normal session. Much smoother than doing the processing at 48 kHz.

Try a small session at 96 and see if it sounds better to you. If it does, you'll have answered your own question. If it doesn't, you won't gain any benefit from it anyway.
__________________
David J. Finnamore

Nyquist was right.

PT 2019.6 Ultimate | Omni | macOS Sierra
PT 2019.6 | Saffire Pro 40 | Win10
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-30-2009, 03:38 PM
DrFord's Avatar
DrFord DrFord is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 873
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

OG made a poignant statement when he talked about a good converter. When I got my apogees it changed my sonic world. The difference between 44.1k and 96k on my apogee is not audible to my ears, On my 002 the difference between 96k and 44.1 was night a day. But the difference between 96k on my 002 and 44.1k on my Apogee incredible. It doesn't even come close. Just pulling up old mixes and re-bouncing them made them 10x better.

Funny part is that 192k doesn't really even get used. I don't know many who do use it, unless they have all the right plug-ins that will work with it, or unless they are recording at a million dollar studio with a full complement of outboard gear, and happen to have a spare terabite hard drive to record to.
__________________
DRFord
Homepage | Facebook | YouTube
Mac OSX 10.12.6 | Mac Pro 5,1 | 12core 3.46ghz
Avid HD Native PCIe Core | Pro Tools HD 2018.1
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-30-2009, 09:15 PM
Sven62 Sven62 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Warrenton, VA
Posts: 116
Default Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K

Well, I am limited to a max of 48K anyway because my Presonus Digimax LT 8 channel preamp will not go any higher and it is the clock for my 002.

I am somewhat inexperienced with this so maybe there is a way to do sessions at 96K even though the Digimax only goes to 48K. I dunno.

And aren't all CDs and digital music (like iTunes) at 16 bits? So same question... why use 24 if it all ends up 16?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com