48k vs 96k or 192k..can we hear the difference?

[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.

[Park Seward]

It has more "air" and "depth". The degree of imnprovement depends on what you record.

You may also want to ask about conversion to 44.1. Some suggest that it will sound worse whan 44.1 direct due to rounding errors in the conversion.

[tbird]

I've heard 96k and 192k sampling rates on numerous ocassions. I've got to tell you that I don't really hear that much of a difference. I don't get what the big deal is with these higher sampling rates. If you have to strain to hear a "percieved" difference - then what's the point?

tbird undefined [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[Allen Hallada]

There must be a difference between Wav files and MP3, because there is a huge difference between an MP3 file at 48,96, and 192K.
Not sure how that translates though.
Allen [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[Nika]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Park Seward:
It has more "air" and "depth". The degree of imnprovement depends on what you record.

You may also want to ask about conversion to 44.1. Some suggest that it will sound worse whan 44.1 direct due to rounding errors in the conversion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That converters are you using?

Nika

[dreeam]

there is a big differnice its your converters use a the trusty 888 or a apogee the head room is big at 96. stereo is more wide .the higher the sample rate the closer you get to the real audio thats going in to protools..

[alexandrepigeot]

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!

[amagras]

Originally Posted by alexandrepigeot

I hope someone will find this useful, cheers!

Indeed, thanks. That was a very clear explanation.

[MatzeHD]

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.

[AlexLakis]

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..