Is a high sample rate (88.2 or 96) worth it?

[Lugh98]

If I am just going to end up converting a 88.2 to 44.1 when I mix down, is the end result going to sound any better if I had just imported at 44.1 to begin with?

Are there better conversion formats that are better than others?

[GeneOuse]

It is in any case, but especially true depending on material that is being recorded. Light, acoustic music is better recorded and mixed at higher sample rates. When ther's not much rynthmic things going on human ear is not too distructed and is more sensitive to audio material. If you're working on such project at 88.2k you capture your material with double persision which means you loose less sound character of your instrument during A/D conversion. Later in mixing process, whether you're using analog gear to process the sound (i.e send signal out to analog gear, then send it back into DAW - where another A/D conversion occurs) or digital processing, you still have double precision (over 44.1k rate), thus less data and character is being lost during that progress. Due to the fact that there was less data loss in all previous processes, the downsampled end-result will have a lot more charecter of the original sound, than the same would have that would have been recorded at 44.1 or 48k sample rate.

[evoltuions_end]

and dont forget about the extra frequencies that you record. if you track in 88.2, youll record frequencies that humans cant hear, but they affect the frequencies we CAN hear. IMO tracking at 48 is good enough.

[GeneOuse]

and dont forget about the extra frequencies that you record. if you track in 88.2, youll record frequencies that humans cant hear, but they affect the frequencies we CAN hear. IMO tracking at 48 is good enough.

This isnt really the case. All audio equipment is designed so that everything below 20Hz and above 20kHz is filtered out. There are exceptions but in digital world this is generally the case. 48k sample rate means that there are 48000 samples per second, it doesnt mean that frequencies up to 48k are captured. It is just resolution quality. The higher the sample rate the better the resolution is, meaning sound is captured more acurately, just like high resolution picture would look more detailed than the same image at lower resolution.

[LUEDEMANN]

yes- if you can do everything you need to do like you would a 48k/44.1k session all the plug ins, automation without your computer slowing down at all...if you can't then no-because theres [bleep] you have to do ro accomplish a project so...if your machine can do it no sweat why not? why not 192?

[imi]

[QUOTE]

The higher the sample rate the better the resolution is, meaning sound is captured more acurately, just like high resolution picture would look more detailed than the same image at lower resolution.

This analogy is intrinsically incorrect... The sampling process of audio does not equate to the process used for digital images. A search of the DUC can explain this in much greater detail than I would presume to offer. /imi

[GeneOuse]

True, but how else would you explain this in few words?

[Naagzh]

True, but how else would you explain this in few words?

It certainly is a book-worthy topic, but pressed for only a few words, here goes:

The converter and clocking scheme determines the quality of digitally recorded audio. A great setup, including high-end converters and wordclock (preferably hard-wired together in the same box as the recorder, IMHO), performing at 44.1 or 48k Hz will easily outperform a consumer grade setup at any resolution. Among high-end setups, the best ears in the business might prefer one setup over another depending on how it suits the music, but at that point it's a personal preference, and any one of us would be hard-pressed to hear a difference.

For us home-recordists and hobbyists, we should thank our lucky stars we're recording at a 24 bit depth; great records have been made on lesser equipment (ADATs, for example). To summarize, improve your room, monitoring chain, micing technique, and mixing chops, and you'll soon forget about sample rates.

[imi]

Sorry. I deleted my comments as after another search of the DUC I found so much well informed information from people with a far deeper insight than mine.

[benrachor]

Our instructors at SAE http://www.sae.edu are teaching us that the most important reasons to consider with sample rates are what your end product is going to be. And to consider the math is easier when down sampling with some rates. For example, if your final product is going to be a Audio CD then use a high sample rate of 88.2 when recording and bounce down to 44.1 because the math is simple. Ex. 88.2 / 2=44.1. If your final product is going to say DVD then use a high sample rate of 192 when recording and bounce down to 96 for your final product. Ex. 192 / 2=96. Also a lot of masteing houses prefer that you give them your production with the higher sample rate and let them to the down sampling for you. The algo's get a bit wierd if you say down sample from 96 to 44.1, 96 / 2=48. And I've also been told not to record at 48 if your going to down sample to 44.1, just record at 44.1.

Cheers,