Asher Guitars WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Nordstarnd Pickups
Asher Guitars WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Nordstarnd Pickups
Asher Guitars WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Nordstarnd Pickups

Recording with 96Kz resolution

Discussion in 'Recording In Progress' started by Tornado, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. Teleterr

    Teleterr Friend of Leo's

    Feb 7, 2011
    Lewes De.
    When I needed a new CD player years ago I went to the local Circiut City and almost bought the cheapest figuring that digital is digital. Nope, every one sounded different. I m thinking coverters , as mentioned and even the opamps etc effect the sound much more.

  2. LutherBurger

    LutherBurger Friend of Leo's

    Oct 29, 2013
    If you don't understand how something works, please don't try to explain it to others. You're not helping.
    maxvintage likes this.

  3. Jules78

    Jules78 Tele-Holic

    Dec 12, 2016
    Northern VA
    Rather than act like an *** why dont you correct what was wrong in my post, which I took 15 minutes of time to write to be helpful, so I can learn from my mistakes? You’re the one not helping. Kinda ironic and hypocritical imo.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018

  4. LutherBurger

    LutherBurger Friend of Leo's

    Oct 29, 2013
    Your first mistake was wasting 15 minutes trying to lecture someone who clearly knows more about the subject.

  5. bottlenecker

    bottlenecker Friend of Leo's

    Dec 6, 2015
    I record at 24 bit 96 khz and I consider this a minimum standard for me. I've been at 24/96 for more than a decade. My interface can do 24/192.
    Not only does 24/96 down sample well, it sounds much better as an end format if high fidelity ever comes back in style. FLAC seems to deliver it pretty well right now.

  6. still_fiddlin

    still_fiddlin Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    May 6, 2009
    Some more reading here: (Read at least all of chapters 2 and 3.)

    Just to elaborate a bit on the mistake people are making is applying Algebra II thinking to this topic, and stopping at the first graph, as shown earlier, that suggests that the audio signal, made up of thousands of sine waves, all with different amplitudes, is recreated like some connect-the-dots puzzle. There's not really a good metaphor, but the samples aren't "dots" but more like a core sample, with information about all frequencies and amplitude. The (still not disproven) Nyquist theorem says you only need a sampling rate 2x the maximum frequency you want to capture to accurately reproduce the signal.

    Now, people say they hear a difference between 48-24/96-24 (e.g.) and I'm not saying they don't. In fact, it would be surprising if they didn't because there are so many variables involved. The argument is whether it is a more accurate/better reproduction simply because of the sample rate, and the answer to that is No.

    If you want to use 96kHz, it's your right. If you hear a difference, fine. (And, if you are selling music in the Hi-Res audio market, well, you probably should, though it seems some of that content is merely upsampled.) Just stop with the snobbery and throwing zeros and ones around and graphs to imply that proves 96kHz automatically/a priori yields a better quality recording.
    teleaddicted likes this.

  7. Tornado

    Tornado TDPRI Member

    Mar 13, 2016
    He guys,

    I am thinking about buying the simple version of Ableton live 9. But it says that you need a Multicore processor on your laptop.
    My laptop has got a AMD Dual core processor 1.65 Ghz. I guess that is not sufficient? Or is a dual core also a multicore processor?
    Please help me out on this.

  8. brogh

    brogh Super Moderator Staff Member

    Jun 26, 2010
    it's a multi-core ... it has two cores ... however it's really not that much info to be "safe" if you could find out what processor you have .. many 2 cores in amd catalog.

    you can find out with cpuz ( its a free tool ) it will tell you exactly what cpu you have onboard, and we can move on from there.

    however... i think on the Ableton site they are assuming a modern multi-core, probably if your computer is " old " it will work but you will be really slow in interaction with the software.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018

  9. WireLine

    WireLine Tele-Holic

    Mar 23, 2003
    Midland TX
    There are just so many variables here to make a blanket statement of “24/96K sounds better than 24/44.1K”... the quality of the converters going in, coming out, and not all DAW are equal in the way they sum (mix) things down stream.

  10. bottlenecker

    bottlenecker Friend of Leo's

    Dec 6, 2015
    I haven't heard anyone give a good reason NOT to record at 24/96.

    Here are some reasons to do it:

    You can.

    It won't hurt anything.

    You have space for big files, because it's 2018.

    Your computer should be able to handle it fine since my old xp machine does, and my previous xp laptop before that.

    DVD, (that's the old video format before Blu-ray), supports 24/96.

    Because it sounds better...? Well does it sound worse? No.

    Because in the future, if it turns out that the eggheads who convinced you of whichever choice you make were wrong, you'll never wish you had less information. You can always down sample, you can't up sample.

  11. Tornado

    Tornado TDPRI Member

    Mar 13, 2016
    Allright. but there is one thing left that is bothering me a bit. That is the latency when recording guitar on software DAW. I have heard so many conflicting stories about that.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2018
    civanodude likes this.

  12. Chud

    Chud Poster Extraordinaire Platinum Supporter

    Dec 30, 2010
    New York City
    Lots of things impact latency, but most recent computers and audio interfaces can handle a lot of audio with very little notable latency once set up properly. Higher sampling and bit rates require more processing power and memory, so that may impact your decision to go DAW at 96k vs 48k or 44.1k.

  13. chulaivet1966

    chulaivet1966 Tele-Holic

    Nov 17, 2011
    I may be manifesting my ignorance to the power users here but I've never worried about going to that resolution.....ever.

    I just don't see (hear? :)) any point in it.
    If one already has the interface(s) that offers/handles it easily by default....well...why not.
    Certainly, hard drive capacity for it is pretty irrelevant now.

    I would not justify spending a lot of money on new stuff just to record at that resolution when what I have works just fine.
    (You's the "why fix a working toaster" protocol)

    I still use the Delta 44 so 16/44.1 (or 24) is where I'll stay as I find no sonic issues with my recording efforts.
    I just write songs and record them but other power users may truly need that resolution for reasons I'm ignorant of.
    Those that can tell the difference must have better ears than my 70 year old aural receptors.
    If buckaroos is no issue then let us know if your hear the difference. :)

    That's my take on your query....but, I've been wrong in the past.

    Carry on....(oh....I did not read any responses so I may have made a fool of myself with this response)
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2018

  14. maxvintage

    maxvintage Friend of Leo's Ad Free Member

    Mar 16, 2003
    Arlington, VA
    The reason cds were at 44.1 is Nyquist Shannon sampling theorem, which established that to reproduce a piece of sound you had to sample it at twice the highest frequency present, which for humans is 20, 000 kilohertz.

    There's a clear reason for this. imagine sound as a circle emanating from a central point, like ripples in a pond. How many points of info do you need to perfectly re-create any circle? Two. Sound waves aren't actually sine waves, they are circles. You only need two points of info to recreate a circle.

    So you only need two points of info to recreate sound waves, so you sample at twice the highest frequency audible to humans. So 44.1--a little more than twice the 20, 000 kilohertz top end of human hearing.

    Your ear can only "sample" up to 20k per second.

    So 44.1 is frequency dependent--it's a little more than twice the highest frequency we can hear, assuring that ALL frequencies present in the range of human hearing will be reproduced. If humans could hear up to 30k, cds would be at 62.1 k.

    Nyquist Shannon is frickin' brilliant

    If you sample higher than 44.1 you are sampling sounds audible to bats and dogs.

    Some argue this matters, and record at higher than 44.1. I'm very skeptical of the value.

    A bit depth of 24 makes some sense, but the reason NOT to record at 96 is you are constantly wasting processor cycles on sounds no human can hear
    teleaddicted likes this.

  15. maxvintage

    maxvintage Friend of Leo's Ad Free Member

    Mar 16, 2003
    Arlington, VA
    A common analogy is to infrared light. why should your camera sample into the infrared spectrum if people can't see it? Similarly, why sample at a rate that is more than twice the maximum of human hearing?

    I mean most mics cannot record above 20k

    There's lots of debate about this and I'm not trying to be dogmatic. The reasons for NOT sampling at 96 are

    1. increased processor cycles used on inaudible frequencies
    2. increased file size

    I find that when I record and mix at 96 or 88 my computer starts to choke up a lot sooner
    teleaddicted and chulaivet1966 like this.

  16. Geoff738

    Geoff738 Poster Extraordinaire

    May 11, 2007
    I dunno. There are those that claim they can hear and/or feel the difference. I know that I can’t.
    I’ve also heard the argument that modern plugins sound better at the higher sampling rate. Again, I dunno.
    I’ve also heard that there’s an argument that sampling at 192 actually sounds worse. The gist of the argument being the more samples, the more chances for corrupted samples. Following that logic, doesn’t that suggest 44 would sound the best?
    Anyways, I still stick with 44 and 24 bit. Just what I’m used to and I don’t hear any sonic improvement at higher sampling rates. I do like the noise floor advantages 24 bit brings though.

    chulaivet1966 likes this.

  17. maxvintage

    maxvintage Friend of Leo's Ad Free Member

    Mar 16, 2003
    Arlington, VA
    I have some plugins that sound better at higher sample rates and some that don't. The thing you avoid with higher sample rates is "aliasing," which can happen at frequencies that approach the "nyquist frequency" ( A well designed plugin should not do any aliasing, but a lot of them do or rely on oversampling to avoid it.

    IMHO capturing good performance is way more important--and harder--than capturing higher frequencies.
    chulaivet1966 likes this.

IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.