differnt megaherz rates..44k..48k..96k

[barry1]

Hi gang..can anyone explain to me what the differnt mega herz...44k..48k..96k etc will do when u r recording?...my buddy has a mbox2 pro and says its actually makes the recording brighter on audi but it will eat the cpu on midi..is this true...ty....he uses the upper 96k and 24 bit for recording.

[Craig F]

were to start?

it's not mega(M) it's kilo(K)

look up Nyquist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist...mpling_theorem for starters

[marvschlom]

Hey Barry,

The first question I would ask is, what's your endgame? Meaning in "the old days" when people used to buy CDs to listen to music, 44.1kHz was your sampling rate and 16bit was your bit rate. For a higher frequency response (in the digital world this is your sample rate) you could double it to 88.2kHz. Now if you are in Film/TV post production your endgame is going to be 48kHz (confused yet?) Now in the HD age, we've doubled that resolution to 96kHz. (or for really good frequency response that only dogs can hear - 192kHz) Basically it's all multiples of either 44.1kHz (CD standard) or 48kHz (Post Production standard)

'Course if you really want to get confused, I could start going into pull-downs & pull-ups.... :)

[barry1]

well craig thanks for a long winded no help answer..Im sure if u needed help to something u needed a answer too...u would appreciate a basic answer..not a run around....so in plain english..if someone can give me a answer on what can one expect if they chose the higher k when recording....u had your shot craig...dont bother replying.

[barry1]

marvschlom ty...i understand what u r saying...u said the same thing i told my buddy but on his assistence..he states recording at 96 would give a cleaner recording..yes i know about the k on a cd..i tried to explain that to him....he is in the belief that if u record at 96k then when u bounce down to a cd it would give a cleaner performance..even if its 44k...one other point i wish to ask u..if u record at the higher levels does that take more out of the cpu or memory?....ty marvschlom..i appreciate ur response to my post.

[marvschlom]

Originally Posted by barry1

marvschlom ty...i understand what u r saying...u said the same thing i told my buddy but on his assistence..he states recording at 96 would give a cleaner recording..yes i know about the k on a cd..i tried to explain that to him....he is in the belief that if u record at 96k then when u bounce down to a cd it would give a cleaner performance..even if its 44k...one other point i wish to ask u..if u record at the higher levels does that take more out of the cpu or memory?....ty marvschlom..i appreciate ur response to my post.

I believe your friend is correct on a certain level. What happens is the higher sample rate allows you to more accurately represent the higher frequencies that we'll never hear, but we do "feel" them. It gives you a sense of "air" and clarity to your recordings. For my part, recording at 24bit instead of 16bit gives a much more apparent quality boost than the higher sample rate. That being said, my original point is that if you want to be as undistorted as possible, if your final product is going to be 44.1kHz I would record at 88.2kHz and not 96k. The reason being that the conversion math when making the final 44.1 master is better and you run less risk of getting artifacts.

[mhelm01]

Originally Posted by barry1

well craig thanks for a long winded no help answer..Im sure if u needed help to something u needed a answer too...u would appreciate a basic answer..not a run around....so in plain english..if someone can give me a answer on what can one expect if they chose the higher k when recording....u had your shot craig...dont bother replying.

To be honest, you should read the entry on Nyquist. It will really give you an understanding as to what sample rates are for (44.1, 48, 88.2, 96). Read it and then come back with questions you may have about it.

This answer is not as simple as you might think.

[marvschlom]

Originally Posted by mhelm01

To be honest, you should read the entry on Nyquist. It will really give you an understanding as to what sample rates are for (44.1, 48, 88.2, 96). Read it and then come back with questions you may have about it.

This answer is not as simple as you might think.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you are doing anything with digital audio, you really should know and understand the Nyquist theorem. (Learn as much as you can, that's my theory)

[barry1]

apologies to craig....

[mhelm01]

Originally Posted by marvschlom

I wholeheartedly agree. If you are doing anything with digital audio, you really should know and understand the Nyquist theorem. (Learn as much as you can, that's my theory)

There's a reason it's called engineering.