Go Back   UG Community @ Ultimate-Guitar.Com > Music > Recording
User Name  
Password
Search:

Reply
Old 12-26-2015, 07:07 AM   #1
KenACwb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Anyone recording higher than 48khz?

Hi,

Nowadays we can get audio interfaces that go way above 48khz sample rate. My one is an old Apogee Jam that goes up to 48khz, so I was wondering if an upgrade would be worth?

--[ KenA ]--
--[ https://soundcloud.com/ken_awamura/sets ]--

Last edited by KenACwb : 01-01-2016 at 06:41 AM.
KenACwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 02:24 PM   #2
EY8CC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Hi,

I don't think so. Most people record in 41kHz anyway.
But I might be wrong.
EY8CC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 04:35 PM   #3
KenACwb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Actually I've seen some AI going up to 192khz ... I do note differences between 44100khz and 48000khz and sometimes I'm playing/recording at 48khz and it sudenly drops to 44100khz ... not sure it's an audio interface issue or my DAW (Ableton Live).
KenACwb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 06:09 PM   #4
Spambot_2
UG's rum aficionado
 
Spambot_2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Italy
For a direct guitar?
44.1k are more than enough, no need to spend money in something else.
__________________
Name's Luca.
worthwhile quotes, because quote boxes occupy too much space
Spambot_2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 09:35 PM   #5
pinheadslts75
BrainDamage
 
pinheadslts75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
So let's talk about sampling rates:

44.1kHz is enough. 48kHz is not really any different but it's the video standard because of time-stamp reasons.

Anything higher than 48kHz is pointless unless you're going to pitch/time correct the shit out of it.
pinheadslts75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2015, 10:30 PM   #6
Cajundaddy
Registered User
 
Cajundaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: SoCal
If you are running a home project studio, 44.1khz/24bit is fine.

Pro mastering lab? 88.2/24bit
Cajundaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2015, 12:50 PM   #7
fingrpikingood
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
I prefer 44.1. I don't really understand why people record in higher resolution than that really if you will have to downsample it and introduce dithering. I guess there must be a good reason, but for my purposes, I can't see the purpose of recording at a higher sample rate.
__________________
Miles In Your Shoes Original production on Soundcloud.

Last edited by fingrpikingood : 12-28-2015 at 07:21 PM.
fingrpikingood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2015, 01:25 PM   #8
Rickholly74
Registered User
 
Rickholly74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Eventually most projects end up in a media that compresses and greatly lowers the quality whether it's a CD, MP3, MP4, whatever. Unless you can distribute your recordings in a media like FLAC it's all just academic and a waste of resources to sample at higher rates besides "almost" no one will hear any difference. I had to say "almost" because there will always be someone who will swear they can tell the difference between 44.1 and 48 or 96. I don't have supersonic hearing so 44.1 and 48 are fine with me. It's better than my old standard 15 I.P.S. @ 59db s/n ratio on a 10 1/2 inch reel.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Yes I am guitarded also, nice to meet you.

Last edited by Rickholly74 : 12-28-2015 at 01:36 PM.
Rickholly74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2015, 02:27 PM   #9
kendall jones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
As new technologies such as High Res Audio come to the fore, people will begin to substantially notice the difference between lossy compression schemes such MP3 and MP4, as well as the harshness of the CD 16 bit 44.1kHz format. For professionals, I would always suggest recording in the highest bit depth possible (except for DSD 1 bit and 2.8224 mHz sample rate, simply the best in digital), so 24 bit 192kHz is definitely the way to go, and your master should reflect any format as needed from radio to web distribution. You can even use Endless Analog's CLASP which allows you to get all of that beautiful harmonic distortion and tape compression with digital's superior dynamic range. For hobbyists, you can do whatever floats your boat.
kendall jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2015, 06:46 PM   #10
diabolical
Registered User
 
diabolical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Most of my studio work was at 24bit/48khz, every once in a while a project came in or was requested to be at higher res, usually 96khz or 192khz. Honestly, once you get into a rock mix you would barely hear any difference or any at all. For symphonic music you get a bit more detail. The deeper resolution places a further burden on your system and file storage that most of the time doesn't really warrant it.
I work at 24/44 in my home studio and am quite happy with it for the moment and it sounds good. In the end it is all mastered into 16/44 so I don't find the need to up the resolution.
diabolical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 03:05 AM   #11
Prime2515102
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Michigan, USA
I wonder... Do these higher resolutions reduce listener's fatigue? I know most people can't hear the difference above 44.1khz, but for long term listening (say, an entire album) a higher resolution might reduce it. I know that lower resolutions get pretty hard to listen to, so maybe the higher it goes, the more "pleasant" the sound would be even if it's not consciously perceivable.

Personally, if I think what I'm recording is important, I might as well get the best possible recording I can for archival purposes. I currently top out at 24/96 so that's what I go with.

If I had the choice of 32-bit float over 24-bit, I would definitely go with 32 no matter what though. And yes, I know it's not actually 32-bit, but there is an improvement in dynamic range, which is arguably more important than any other aspect of sound as far as reproducing reality goes. Eventually, I'm sure, there will be 32-bit D/A converters, thus the aforementioned desire for a high quality archive. Any possible improvement in playback quality aside, there are also benefits to using it during processing (namely, for all practical purposes, an unlimited dynamic range).

But then again, it depends on what you're going for. Everyone seems to want to compress the hell out of everything and pin it to just below clipping these days anyway.

As far as a need to upgrade, if you're happy with the sound quality, why bother?
__________________
"Practice doesn't make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect." -some dude
Prime2515102 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 05:51 AM   #12
the chemist
Resident Session Player
 
the chemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Why record music at 48kHz? Have fun with that when getting people to listen to the MP3 on an MP3 player, or burning it to a disk.
__________________
Seven String Legion
the chemist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 06:35 AM   #13
diabolical
Registered User
 
diabolical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Scorpions recorded Animal Magnetism and Blackout on Sony digital tape in early 80s much more limited format than today's digital, essentially ADAT, and listen to how those alkbums sound. It is just about knowing what medium you work on and getting the best out of it.
diabolical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 02:02 PM   #14
oneblackened
Futile Bread Machine
 
oneblackened's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
If I know I'm gonna be doing a lot of time compression/stretching I'll do 88.2 or 96. Beyond that is utterly pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime2515102
I wonder... Do these higher resolutions reduce listener's fatigue? I know most people can't hear the difference above 44.1khz, but for long term listening (say, an entire album) a higher resolution might reduce it. I know that lower resolutions get pretty hard to listen to, so maybe the higher it goes, the more "pleasant" the sound would be even if it's not consciously perceivable.


This might be relevant for lossy filetypes (higher bit rate = less psychoacoustic fuckery going on) but certainly not for lossless types.
__________________
Current Gear:
LTD MH-400 (BKP Nailbomb/VHII)
LTD MH-400NT (EMG 81/85)
ESP Horizon NT-7 (SD Full Shreds)
UA Apollo Twin Duo
Peavey Revalver 4

I'm a recording engineer. If you have questions or you want some work done, message me.

Last edited by oneblackened : 01-01-2016 at 02:04 PM.
oneblackened is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 04:17 PM   #15
Spambot_2
UG's rum aficionado
 
Spambot_2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Italy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime2515102
I wonder... Do these higher resolutions reduce listener's fatigue?
No, it doesn't have anything to do with that.

One may argue recording some stuff at a sampling rate higher than 44.1kHz could "reduce listening fatigue", but it's because of a different reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime2515102
If I had the choice of 32-bit float over 24-bit, I would definitely go with 32 no matter what though. And yes, I know it's not actually 32-bit, but there is an improvement in dynamic range
You can't build a floating point converter tho.
I mean, theoretically you can, but in good practice you can't really with today's tech, and even 32bit int converters would need a lot more precision than we have now.

Now there you make it sound like 32bit float doesn't have the same resolution as actual 32bit audio stream, so I'm guessing you mean you would choice 32bit float audio files over 24bit int files, all to be passed through a 24bit DAC, but there you lose all of the audio quality advantages.

The only situation in which a 32bit float stream would be more efficient than a 24bit int stream would be if you made music entirely ITB and then you exported the track into a 32bit float file.
Audio quality tho would arguably be reduced since that way you'd leave the quantization process to the audio player, which might not be as good quality as the DAW's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime2515102
Any possible improvement in playback quality aside, there are also benefits to using it during processing (namely, for all practical purposes, an unlimited dynamic range).
This is the reason why most DAW's audio engines use 32bit audio, but not much of them offer the possibility of exporting 32bit audio.

I reckon it's because 32bit DACs simply aren't used for this application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime2515102
As far as a need to upgrade, if you're happy with the sound quality, why bother?
Somebody may hear what you don't hear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the chemist
Why record music at 48kHz? Have fun with that when getting people to listen to the MP3 on an MP3 player, or burning it to a disk.
It's because of aliasing.
http://recording.org/threads/oversa...xplained.48087/
__________________
Name's Luca.
worthwhile quotes, because quote boxes occupy too much space
Spambot_2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2016, 11:37 PM   #16
the chemist
Resident Session Player
 
the chemist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
I mean, I totally understand the theory behind it, but when everything is going to be turned into a shit MP3 anyways...
__________________
Seven String Legion
the chemist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2016, 06:10 AM   #17
Spambot_2
UG's rum aficionado
 
Spambot_2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Italy
If you record something at 44.1kHz and you get aliasing distortion there's no turning back, you have it.
If you record the same stuff at, say, 88.2kHz and you don't get aliasing distortion, you convert the audio stream to 44.1kHz, then you don't get the aliasing distortion you would have gotten if you recorded the source at 44.1kHz.

If you think that there's no point in producing a better quality source material 'cause someone's not gonna listen to it in full quality you might as well record everything in 16bit to save space and bandwidth and not worry if some part of your chain clips the audio here and there.
__________________
Name's Luca.
worthwhile quotes, because quote boxes occupy too much space
Spambot_2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2016, 06:19 AM   #18
diabolical
Registered User
 
diabolical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Houston, TX
What aliasing distortion exactly?
diabolical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2016, 09:25 AM   #19
Spambot_2
UG's rum aficionado
 
Spambot_2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Italy
It's distortion caused by trying to sample a signal that has a frequency higher than half of the sampling frequency.

It's still all written here - http://recording.org/threads/oversa...xplained.48087/
__________________
Name's Luca.
worthwhile quotes, because quote boxes occupy too much space
Spambot_2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2016, 05:55 PM   #20
diabolical
Registered User
 
diabolical's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Houston, TX
You must mean digital masking.
A lot has to do with A/D converters.
I remember why the studio I worked at dumped the Digidesign A/D, even at 192k it was nasty, Apogee beat it at all tests. Well designed A/D will take care of this even at 44k.
diabolical is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:55 AM.

Forum Archives / About / TOS / Advertise with us / Customer Support / Ultimate-Guitar.Com © 2016
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.