44.1 vs. higher sample rates

[Stacyodell]

Before I ask my question I would like to say I have searched the internet quite a bit on this topic and read alot about it. Alot of the information I found was not very specific and I thought polling the DUC would be a way to get some informed opinions on the topic. So here it goes... Q: What's the deal with sample rates? Can anyone really hear a difference between 44.1 and higher rates? Thanks.

[jeff markham]

Before I ask my question I would like to say I have searched the internet quite a bit on this topic and read alot about it. Alot of the information I found was not very specific and I thought polling the DUC would be a way to get some informed opinions on the topic. So here it goes... Q: What's the deal with sample rates? Can anyone really hear a difference between 44.1 and higher rates? Thanks.

well stacyodell, it's subject of much debate in the audio community. you will likely get
many opinions on the matter.

i can only offer you my opinion; and i'll preface this by saying it's an empirical
opinion ( based on my experience ) a synthesis of fact and personal experience.

to my ears ... i can hear a difference in mastered material done up to 96kHz. i have
never been able to perceive a difference in the ranges 130k and above. for tracking,
i do not recommend running a session above 96kHz .. it's total overkill.

lots of money being made at the extreme high-end .. and .. sadly .. it all
gets smooshed to a CD or an mp3.

jeff

[studiojimi]

i use 192 for classical guitar cds i produce
see
http://www.jamiepalumbo.com

if i did a solo piano cd i'd use it as well as the sound on both of our classical guitar cds is pristine.

we liked it so much we chose not to master it as we loved it on every set of speakers we played it on.

with one instrument and no overdubs the temptation to use the 192 was too tempting to resist and were were pleasantly happy with the results.

[iamnerdyrocker]

I can totally hear a difference once you break the 48k mark. My rule of thumb is that I always work in even multiples of my final destination. In other words, if I am doing work that is ending up on CD, I will record at 44.1 or 88.2. If it needs to end up at 48k, I will record at 48k or 96k.

The difference between 88.2 and 44.1 is astounding in my opinion. The sound becomes so much more 3-D.

[studiojimi]

I can totally hear a difference once you break the 48k mark. My rule of thumb is that I always work in even multiples of my final destination. In other words, if I am doing work that is ending up on CD, I will record at 44.1 or 88.2. If it needs to end up at 48k, I will record at 48k or 96k.

The difference between 88.2 and 44.1 is astounding in my opinion. The sound becomes so much more 3-D.

i agree

think of it like this if you will

take a picture with a hot digital camera with an astounding pixel rate

a xerox copy of the master will retain some (much) of the pristine sharpness

the same will happen to your MP3

this is the way i describe it to clients.

i love 88.2 by the way for projects i intend to take producer credit on.

for a down and dirty demo....44.1 is fine

[PTUser NYC]

I'm going to disgree with a lot of the "common wisdom" written here.

1) With good converters, in a proper double blind test, golden eared folks cannot tell the difference between 44.1 kHz and higher rates. With lesser converters, there can be some phase smear from the anti-aliasing filter that can extend down into the area of 16 kHz, which is clearly audible.

If you use good converters, there is no benefit to recording at rates greater than 44.1 kHz.

If you've ever heard a CD that you thought sounded great, then you know that 44.1 kHz is enough.

2) With modern SRC, there is no benefit to downsampling from a whole number multiple of the target rate - i.e. recording at 88.1 kHz will not produce a better 44.1 kHz SRC result than recording at 96 kHz.

I do think that recording at 44.1 kHz or 48 kHz sounds better than SRC between the two.

3) ANY hypothetical difference between sampling rates (and I don't beleieve there is any) is completely swamped by any plug in setting you may change by one unit, or by a quarter inch difference in mic placement, or by every decision you make as an engineer.

In other words, don't woirry about this - work on your ears and your chops. I'm fanatical about audio quality, but I don't think this is the area to make changes.

Heck, I still run a Mix+++ system. It sounds great with Apogee converters.

So it isn't about the rate, its about the converters, and the choices you make.

[EGS]

In other words, don't woirry about this - work on your ears and your chops. I'm fanatical about audio quality, but I don't think this is the area to make changes.

Yep.

[Naagzh]

Before I ask my question I would like to say I have searched the internet quite a bit on this topic and read alot about it. Alot of the information I found was not very specific and I thought polling the DUC would be a way to get some informed opinions on the topic. So here it goes... Q: What's the deal with sample rates? Can anyone really hear a difference between 44.1 and higher rates? Thanks.

In Bob Katz' "Mastering Audio" book, even he claims that good converters sound good, and mediocre to bad ones seldom benefit from upping the sample rate. Among the good converters, the difference between sample rates is described as "different" instead of "better" or "worse". Was this book included in your research?

I believe this because I've heard some terrible crap from studios way more equipped than what's in my bedroom. The mix is god.

[studiojimi]

I'm going to disgree with a lot of the "common wisdom" written here.



Heck, I still run a Mix+++ system. It sounds great with Apogee converters.

So it isn't about the rate, its about the converters, and the choices you make.

"HECK" what's a little "common wisdom" between friends.

of course PTUserNYC is gonna dis 192 ...he doesn't have it.

i can hear the difference between 192k and 44.1k

i have both and i can hear the difference.

on my 192,
i can hear my fingers brush across my shirt when miced up to an M149 neumann with pristine clarity

and i have tired old rockstar drummer ears!

but i don't have a hoity toity attitude mr. glass house.

and PTUser...it is about the choices you make but if you don't have the 192k choice...
you can't make the 192k choice!

so i can see why my real life professional
"experience"
can appear to come across as
"common wisdom"
that is IF you were referring to what i posted earlier.

continued blessings,
studiojimi

[jeremyroberts]

Here's a test everyone should do before they choose a higher sample rate:

1. record a great musician in a great room with a great mic and pre using a lower (44.1/48) sample rate;
2. record a great musician in a great room with a great mic and pre using a higher (88.2/96) sample rate;
3. mix each down as clean as possible, ensure levels are IDENTICAL
4. convert/save/bounce both to 16-bit/44.1 for CD, use dither
5. do a true ABX test, playing a CD -- you must not know which mix is which.
6. Can you tell which was high sample rate? Do you prefer one over the other?
7. Bonus question: send the mixes to AAC 128k (iTMS) format. Do the listening test on an ipod in the gym while you're on a treadmill. Same 2 questions.

Are you disappointed by the results?

Part 2
===========

1. Take the same performance(s) and master it to SACD
2. Identify 10 people who own SACD playback gear.

Do I sound biased? Can you guess what sample rate I work at for CD-audio delivery?