any arguments against higher sample rates like 96?

[Tito Ricci Arballo]

I remember reading something about this on the DUC a couple of months back, but my search didn't lead me to it. Just on a quest for knowledge, don't mind me.

[Slim Shady]

Do a search on the TDM forum, there's a great thread about this. Most people seemed to agree 96k was a bunch of hooey, but 192k (possible with HD systems) had a very noticable sound difference.

I only have an Mbox, so haven't had the chance to A/B it myself, but even if I did have the option I'd never use it due to the increased disk bandwidth needed as well as the fact that each plug-in is going to require more CPU at the higher sample rate, so on an LE system you're looking at fewer tracks and fewer plug-ins per session - not really what people are looking for in an already CPU hungry DAW.

[Robenspiel]

hey there!


I've got a 002r, and a few months ago I recorded a 1 hour radioplay using 96k/24 bit. this was using 4 mono tracks


The sound was amazing compared to 44.1k/16 bit


BUT!

I had severe problems bouncing to disk at those data rates, as Pro Tools (and Avid for that matter) have issues with files 2G in size and over.... they just don't work.

I called support and they told me about the 'known issue', and blamed the Mac OS for it... (the Mac OS used to have a 2G file size limit, but they worked that out in OS9, several years back)... Support's suggestion was to export or bounce at the lower data rates, which seemed like a non starter to me, because what's the point of recording in 96K if I can't keep it that way through Post?


but if you're only working with short songs with moderate track counts, you should not have this problem, and IMHO 96k sounds great.


HTH,

Sven

[mcconnellsteve]

I've got a 002r, and a few months ago I recorded a 1 hour radioplay using 96k/24 bit. this was using 4 mono tracks


The sound was amazing compared to 44.1k/16 bit

i wonder if the sound quality difference is due more to the difference between 24 bit depth vs. 16 bit depth as opposed to 96/41 sample rate?

steve

[blindmelon]

i wonder if the sound quality difference is due more to the difference between 24 bit depth vs. 16 bit depth as opposed to 96/41 sample rate?

Most likely...

[valvebrother]

Most likely...

Yep, that's most likely the biggest reason in that scenario. 16 bit->24 bit is an increase in quality that very few people argue about.

44/48 -> 88/96 is way more subjective.

My experience is that the biggest change in quality is often within the converters themselves; some converters (RME for instance) sound much better at 96 than at 44.1. BUT, my CraneSongs at 44.1 sound better than my RME's at 96. So (for me) it's more about the converters than the sampling rates.

With the same converters: my CraneSongs at 88/96 usually sound better ON SOME MATERIAL (classical, acoustic, ambient) than they do at 44/48. On other material (heavier, denser, rockier), 44.1/48 sounds better.

In mastering, most DSP based dynamics processing sounds better at 88/96 than 44/48; it's not uncommon to upsample material just for this reason.

I've never met anyone (who's not selling something or justifying a purchase) who thinks that 192 is anything but marketing crap. The few times I've heard it in action, I was unimpressed by any differences.

So, the only real "answer" I know of is to try it (88/96) with YOUR material and YOUR converters and see what happens.

Damon

[citi]

o a search on the TDM forum, there's a great thread about this. Most people seemed to agree 96k was a bunch of hooey, but 192k (possible with HD systems) had a very noticable sound difference.

That's not what I read. I read that going from 44.1 to 96 yields better results than staying 44 but going from 44.1 to 192 yields no better results, possibly more degredation than if you stayed at 88.1 or 96khz. In the end, it's all just perception though.

[Carl Z]

My biggest reason to not do so is the larger file size and computing power needed. I like the sound I get at 44.1/48.

C

[Tito Ricci Arballo]

I made a copy of a session template at 96kHz and when I tried to open it, it said my playback engine didn't support it. Is this true for LE system running with an 001?

Maybe I should do my homework before asking but I'll do it anyway. What is the highest rate actually supported in PTLE?

[horse]

48khz. But you might as well record at 44.1 as any perceptable improvement in quality will be lost in resampling to 44.1