Avid Pro Audio Community
How to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support
|
|
Avid Pro Audio CommunityHow to Join & Post • Community Terms of Use • Help Us Help YouKnowledge Base Search • Community Search • Learn & Support |
|
|
#31
07-06-2014, 01:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
With all the Nyquist considerations, where does everyone stand on sample rates now?
I know 48k on an great (expensive) converter will sound better than 96k on a cruddy (cheap) converter... but many mixers like 96k for FX processing so if you have a great converter like a Symphony or AVID HD, and plenty of computer horsepower, why not record at 96k just for the flip of it?
__________________
Pearlman Church Microphone > Great River MP-2NV > Warm Audio WA-76 > Apogee Symphony MK II 8x8+8MP > PT2018 on 2018 Mac Mini with 32GB of RAM running Mojave. 
|
|
#32
07-06-2014, 07:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
__________________
X Note that all opinions, observations, whatever, in this post are mine, unless I'm being mean or am wrong, in which case it's somebody else's fault. I do not work for Avid (their loss)...my only relationship with Avid is that of a customer (when I'm not too poor to buy stuff, like now)...and that hot administrative assistant...that's more of a "thing" than a "relationship" (that should keep them guessing for a while...  )Just rockin'...what more is there? Bill in Pittsburgh
|
|
#33
07-06-2014, 10:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
There needs to be a reason to throw away half of your resources. If you can name even one valid reason, then it's okay. I record at 96k because HDN|thunderbolt latency is optimized to that. TDM rig? No way.
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
|
|
#34
07-07-2014, 12:26 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
If you have a reason to record higher than 24/44.1 - do it ... Otherwise, save your resources.
__________________
WombatStudio.Org • Digital Recording, Mixing and Mastering in Gibbsboro, NJ • USA "It's not the gear ... it's the ear"
|
|
#35
07-29-2014, 12:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
 Technical concerns aside, 44.1 is perfectly fine for anything that's not locking to film/video, which likes 48. In posts above, I said a bunch of uninformed junk about bit depth. Somebody should have bonked me on the head. Bit depth is about noise floor. Period. A waveform will be represented just as accurately at 1-bit as at 1000-bit as long as you don't mind a -6 dBfs noise floor.
__________________
David J. Finnamore PT 2023.12 Ultimate | Clarett+ 8Pre | macOS 13.6.3 on a MacBook Pro M1 Max PT 2023.12 | Saffire Pro 40 | Win10 latest, HP Z440 64GB
|
|
#37
07-31-2014, 02:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
It's just that there's so many 16-32bit 44.1-192k Nyquist threads out there that I was shocked a 5 year old one could be resurrected ...
__________________
WombatStudio.Org • Digital Recording, Mixing and Mastering in Gibbsboro, NJ • USA "It's not the gear ... it's the ear"
|
|
#38
07-31-2014, 02:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
44 or 48 sounds fine. Converters make a way bigger difference than sample rate. Ive done projects at 44 48 and 96 the samlple rate had no effect on the end quality whatsoever. So now i just record at 44 to save space / resources
|
|
#39
07-31-2014, 03:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
__________________
Janne What we do in life, echoes in eternity.
|
|
#40
07-31-2014, 04:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 96K vs. 48K vs. 44.1K
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
