44.1 kHz vs. 48 kHz - why not use the higher?

[WombatStudio.Org]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

There's no advantage in recording to 32 float files over 24 bit. There is an advantage to 32 float when calculating files with DSP such as Audiosuite or bouncing. The session setup window allows you to change it back and forth during a project.

Disagree.

32 bit float essentially gives you unlimited headroom.

Try this as demonstrated in a video by Russ over at pro-tools-expert.com (you have to have an account to view the video):

Set a clip's clip gain to clipping, so it's clipping the LEDs.

Bounce it out at 32 bit float. Bounce it again at 24 bit.

Suck those files into a session and AudioSuite Normalize them to 0db.

What result?

[Top Jimmy]

Originally Posted by WombatStudio.Org

Disagree.

32 bit float essentially gives you unlimited headroom.

Nope. 32-bit float does not give you unlimited headroom, it only gives you the ability to float the 24-bits used in the word above and below scale. There's still only 144 dB of SNR per sample.

And as Bob so knowledgeably stated, there is no advantage in recording 32-bit float files because there is no AD converter whatsoever that spits out 32-bit float words. All converters put out fixed point words with the best resolution being 24-bit.

[groundcontrol]

Which is why they are called 32 bit bloat in that context...

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by WombatStudio.Org

Try this as demonstrated in a video by Russ over at pro-tools-expert.com

It's been a while since I watched that video. But, if I remember right, it actually demonstrates what Bob said. The video shows doing things with clip gain, right? Which is operating on audio that has already been recorded. In that sense, it's like Audio Suite. What the video doesn't show is recording an analog signal too hot and saving it with 32-float headroom. That's not a physical possibility.

[TOM@METRO]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

I'v not been able to hear any difference between 44, 48, 88 or 96 KHz, but I'm only on an mbox 2 pro.
Maby better AD/DA converters would make it more audible ?

This has been backed up again and again in consumer blind tests. Let's think about the quality of converters in an ipod. However there are plug-ins that will sound somewhat better at higher sample rates. Whether or not this is enough to justify the additional resource needed is still hotly debated. I typically run 48/24. I feel if people can live with MP3s, they can live with the downside of the conversion to 44.1. Albee's point though still holds true. If you know that the project will never see film, 44.1 is fine.

[groundcontrol]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

This has been backed up again and again in consumer blind tests. Let's think about the quality of converters in an ipod. However there are plug-ins that will sound somewhat better at higher sample rates. Whether or not this is enough to justify the additional resource needed is still hotly debated. I typically run 48/24. I feel if people can live with MP3s, they can live with the downside of the conversion to 44.1. Albee's point though still holds true. If you know that the project will never see film, 44.1 is fine.

It's the badly implemented converters that show a marked difference in performance. Switching sample rate on the Lavry and Benchmark is telling in that regard.

Regarding the plugins and high sample rates, in my limited testing I've found it seemed to be the ones with oversampling that apparently benefited from higher sr. It may have to do with not having to up/downsample and/or having different/relaxed decimation filter values at higher rates.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by TOM@METRO

...If you know that the project will never see film, 44.1 is fine.

The problem is that we don't know and the highest quality playback our projects are likely to encounter in the future are film and video.

[groundcontrol]

And since most music mixes will generally do a trip outside the box to the analog world during mastering, the opportunity to simply capture it all back at 44 is always there.

[TOM@METRO]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

The problem is that we don't know and the highest quality playback our projects are likely to encounter in the future are film and video.

Exactly the way I feel, this is why I record at 48/24.

[gives]

Originally Posted by chrisdee

After some further testing I have to correct my self. There is actually a pretty big difference between 44 and 96 KHz. Especially on the rtas effects (reverb, delay, etc) . They sound clearer and better in my opinion.

It also seem to be less of the pitchbend/chorus effect on DVerb at 96HKz.

On a dry track without any effects I can't hear the difference that much.

THis is true.. It's also hard to evaluate on a lower quality Interface with less quality A/D converters and so I am guessing that is why Avid has better ones as well. I DO hear a BIG difference here especially with all of the work that gets done here for films and other projects. Much cleaner and more transparent. It's all about what you are starting with, like cassette VS 2" tape at 30 ips. RIght.? -:)

Regards,

G