96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size VS 48kHz! Does it sound better in 96kHz?

 I will never switch back to 48kHz anymore. I will continue work 96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size only.
 
 
The dynamic range and sounding in 96kHz 32bit-files /64bit file sounds just amazing. And the 64bit double precisions Audio-engine in SONAR 8.5.1 doesn't make it worse.
Don't forget that all soft synths and plugins get oversampled to----> 96kHz too so that sounds amazing in SONAR 8.5.1 x64bit too. Much better, it sounds more "open sound". Its like hardly you need to use any EQ, it sounds so crisp and clear, air, anyway. I clearly understand why 96kHz is the DVD standard.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E]http://en.wikipedia.org/w...dio%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E[/link] 



So make a new 96kHz project and try it out for yourself, if you don't believe me!



Regards
Freddie

I don't know, think so.  It will not sound worse... "Higher de better"

Often, all "quality sounding" you hear; gets capture always after simple downmix or mastering.
Starting out high gets a great final result! 
Regards
Freddie
 

STOP FREDDIE !! :-)

now you are taking your enthusiasm to a totally new and - sorry - wrong lever!!!
there has been a very long tradition of this sort of discussion - and still today as far as i know NO one has aver been able to recognize (in a scientific double blind randomized test setup) the different qualities when recording OVER 48khz!!!  and i am ONLY talking about recording live signal !!! softsynths might be another world in this context, because the higher the sampling rates the easier its to implement certain filters and soundcahracteristics because aliasing is pushed really far over the audible spectrum!

but be sure freddie  that there is no use at all in recording at any higher that 88 (if you are a stickkler to the detail and eventually believe that transients might be represented better ;-)   but on the other hand MOST average soundcards (and with avereage i mean studio average not home average) will eventually even get worse results at higher samplingrates due to poor clocking and resulting jitter .... you can read a lot about this in scientific papers - and since even the "master of conversion" dan lavry refuses to build anything higher than converters with 96 because he says its already snake oil - you can trust me here !
because some marketing guys keep claiming that "always mor must be better" this doesnt mean that there is any truth behind this...
or how do you think people were able to craft very nice records with (according to "less is ****") with technically poor consoles like the yamaha 03d (v1) ???
this whole prosumer madness is pretty absurd....
anyway i bet EVERYTHING i own that you wouldnt be able to tell the difference between 48 and 96 in a scientific setup...

just today btw. i talked to a friend of mine who is an audioeginer in a viennese operahouse who deals daily with higend recording (talking of recording highend musicians) and they did a test between their usual horrendly expensive schoeps and some low level behringer (talking of price rations of 30:1)  and guess what ??? all the engenirs there agreed that it was EXTREMELY hard to even tell a difference ...

well thats just an example for snake oil - and it also applies for adda...

so pleas stop propagating your overly excited enthusiam for "newer" "higher" "faster" or whatever ....great music has already been recorded on 4 track tape - remember !!!!

(btw. i hope you dont take this personal - but you are just exagerating with your postings - as for the 64but campaign: if no good track is made with sonar 7 on xp, no good track will be made with sonar 8.5 on w7 64 either...

best regards

I agree with you Freddie. I can hear it or feel it or whatever, but I will not be recording lower than 96/24 ever again. My sound card can handle it, my computer can handle it, and my hard disk can handle it, so why not? To infinity and beyond!!!

Fret Wizz

rainmaker1011


how will the CD quality 44,1 kHz/ 16bit sound then? will it be better than dither from 48/24?

The CD format is dying so this will soon be irrelevant.

You're right. People listen 128 kBps Joint Stereo MP3 files. 
EDIT: Or even worse - Myspace, Youtube ...

well..so all you 96 guys surely have rooms treated for 40k $ professional studiomonitors (price range 7k upwards) professional recording chains and high quality da convertesr to HEAR all this praised "leap in quality" ?

i have been in audiobusiness for mor than 15 years now - and i worked on low, middle and high end equippment - and i can also assure you that i am a hardware, and specs freak - actually if i could afford it i would buy the most expensive stuff available (and yes there are classes over apogee and similar stuff ;-)  but just because i am a freak not because there is a real reason to to have "the best" soundg better

yet - please stick to technical facts: all the "better" whatever you hear is just in your head - actually if a soundcard sounds different between 88 and 96 than its just badly built ...maybe you even like the worse sound with more jitter better - who knows...maybe also digital distortion can be pleasant to the children of mp3 files ;-)
its just a mettar of FACT that humans cant hear anything over 20 (and  pushing it to the extremest possible some specialits claim that there is "sound" percieved up to  a max of 26k but that sound is not percieved acustically but via the skin or just via stereo allocation depth...yet this is already pretty specuzlative)

on the other hand folks do as you are pleasd: if you have disk space to waste (i have but i dont waste it in spite of) if you reduce the benefits of better and faster computers by doubling the load...well - its good for the industry - but SURELY not for your tracks...

i wished people would at least react to facts here - the cited double blind randomized tests have all be done - and some exponents of "higher is better" just didnt look good in those tests - cos NO ONE statisically EVER guessed the "better sources"...this is just the truth - and here we are talking about tests with ultimate highend gear in a sort of perfect test environment ...
so pleas stop spreding panic - there are so many professionals still working at 44...

btw.. i agree with most people that 48 is better than 44 - and i also experimented with 88 (cos why 96 if a cd will be the target) and i also sometimes THOUGHT that it sounded better - but its just the psychology of a wish :-)
12 xears ago i dindt care about any specs and rules and in logic i alwayxs applied dither in ec´very renderinbg step (BIG SIN ;-)  - well those old tracks sound as fat as they could - so even 100 steps of dither during production did not any harm --- hey its a bout "MUSIC" not numbers !!!!

cheers

Freddie what sound card are you using. I keep quoting Bob Katz's book on mastering and I will again. They did tests and compared 48Khz to 96Khz and above. But they did build the very best converters to do it. They also got some of the best ears in the business to listen to the AB tests. Conclusion, no one could really tell the difference. Conclusion, you dont really need sample rates above 48 Khz. End of story. But the converters have to be good and that is where the problem may lie.

What you may be hearing, is you sound card may be performing better at the higher sampling rate but it is not so good at lower rates. Also you may also be hearing the better detail in the 24 bit depth.

If you are switching yourself you may be experiencing what you think is better. Get someone else to do the A/B test and also make sure the levels between both rates are exactly the same. And by the way when you do an A/B test like this you should use a real analog source eg a high quality turntable or reel to reel machine as the sound source. Do this test with a turntable (and someone else switching and you need to be blindfolded as well or not look!) instead and let us know the result.

You are wasting disc space and making your system work harder for no reason.

thanks jeff for saying what i said above - at least we agree on the facts,
i am not claiming to be the guru of anything here, but i really think that people should to facts and reality instead of chasing marketing sloagans
 
 
regards

Freddie H


 I will never switch back to 48kHz anymore. I will continue work 96kHZ 32bit / 64bit bit size only.
 
 
The dynamic range and sounding in 96kHz 32bit-files /64bit file sounds just amazing. And the 64bit double precisions Audio-engine in SONAR 8.5.1 doesn't make it worse.
Don't forget that all soft synths and plugins get oversampled to----> 96kHz too so that sounds amazing in SONAR 8.5.1 x64bit too. Much better, it sounds more "open sound". Its like hardly you need to use any EQ, it sounds so crisp and clear, air, anyway. I clearly understand why 96kHz is the DVD standard.

[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E]http://en.wikipedia.org/w...dio%3C/a%3E%3C/font%3E[/link] 



So make a new 96kHz project and try it out for yourself, if you don't believe me!



Regards
Freddie

Hi Freddie H,
I have my record bit depth set to 64 bit, but my audiocard ( edirol M-16DX) is only capable of 24bit/96khz, so is it useful to set my file bit depths that high, or should I set them to match my sound card at 24 bit???
 
Thanks

If it's good enough for mix engineers, it's good enough for me. 96/24 it is. And with today's fast computers and Terabyte hard drives, the argument for too much disk space and your computer working too hard doesn't hold water anymore. Not for me anyway. You wouldn't buy an HDTV to watch analog signals would you?

A1MixMan

 
funny enogh i had the same average performance with my pentium 3 at 1 giga when i used 44/24 and almost no plugs because i had a console for mixing and fx 8 yeras ago as today with the vst/vsti overloaded projects - did you ever think about the relatively liner evolution of hardware and heavy taxing applications?
and as for the hddtv example: even a mole can see the difference between the formats and resolutions - while is pay you 10grand if you can distinguish a sngel source at 48 or at 88 ;-)
 
 
 
 
 

dear mysonar8 .. and now zhis is getting a bit obsolete (pleas dont take this as a personal insult)= but there is actually no audiointerface on earth that has a resolution of 64 bit cos it would be mor than sensless -- what you are talkimng about is the bit depth for rendering....which is something completely different considering that you might render tons of clips at eventuayl peaks of 0 db (at 24 bit resolution) that "could" cause clipping in a mixing domain that has a resolution that is too low ...
 
btw. there is one extremely expensive converer from a german ultrahighendmanufacturer for classical stuff that works with 26 or 28 bit - but thats the end of the roof...
 
i really dislike seeing this forum becoming a place where misinformation and/ or confusion is cultivated ....please take some time and check the basics of digital audio ....i dont know what should be the benefit of someone asking a totally wrong question to someone who is propagating only subjective feelings about quality....
is this all getting esoteric here???
 
sorry for my worsening mood ;-)

post two songs...lets hear it...


unless you double blind test yourself....you are releaving yourself into the wind.

Have you ever grabbed a knob, turned it, and thought...man that sounds better...only to find, the knob isnt reallly doing anything...I have, and I will again...

Your brain, can fool you.

Making statements like, "its just better" doesnt cut it with me...prove it to me...or better yet, prove it to yourself.


Blind Tests, null tests...they are the best way to decide if you should open your wallet.


Also, I think it was stated earlier, some gear MIGHT function better at one sample rate compared to the other...as a function of that particular piece of equipment...no probs....but you just cant state blanketly, 96Khz is better.


It might be

Prove it to me.


WIz

here is what the help guide in sonar shows,
 
 
 
24-bit Tips

---

Here are a few tips for playing back and/or recording at 24-bits:

Try to play back at 24-bits even if your sound card only operates at 20- or 18-bits:

Having established the default settings for new files, you must also specify at what playback bit-depth you want your sound card to use. In the Audio Options dialog box, set the Audio Driver Bit Depth to the desired value. Even if your sound card's highest bit-depth is only 18- or 20-bits, you should try selecting an Audio Driver Bit Depth of 24 first. If you receive an error message when doing so, try selecting 20. If this also produces an error message, try selecting 18. In other words, if you want SONAR to operate your sound card at any bit-depth greater than 16-bits, try selecting the highest value possible in the Audio Driver Bit Depth setting, and work downward from there if you have to. (If your sound card's maximum bit-depth is 20-bits and you specify an Audio Driver Bit Depth of 24 as advised above, audio data will still be sampled by your sound card in 20-bit samples, but each sample will automatically be padded with extra 0's to produce a 24-bit sample, which will be stored at full 24-bit resolution in your project file.

Some 24-bit cards require you to configure the order in which data is streamed:

If necessary, open the Audio Options dialog, click on the Advanced tab. In the Stream > 16-bit data as option, select one of the following:

3 bytes 4 bytes, right justified 4 bytes, left justified 32-bit PCM, right justified 32-bit PCM, left justfied

These settings affect how 24-bit audio samples are transferred from the sound card into the SONAR software, and affect the efficiency of the transfer. You'll get the best performance from this card when working at 24-bits if you use the correct setting for your sound card. If you're not sure whether your particular sound card requires these settings, consult the documentation that came with your sound card. You should also check the web page http://www.cakewalk.com/Support/Docs/sound cardTips.html to see if any information is available there regarding configuration of your particular sound card in Cakewalk. When in doubt, leave these settings disabled. (These settings are only relevant when working with sound cards at >16 bits-per-sample. You can ignore them when operating at normal 16-bit depth.)

Using 24-bit depth and/or high sampling rate can be costly:

While using 24-bit audio can improve the sound quality of your recordings, there are some important drawbacks to keep in mind. Projects stored at 24-bit depth will require 50% more disk space than those stored at 16-bits; if you have a large number of audio tracks (and keep in mind that stereo tracks require twice as much data as mono tracks!), your audio project file can grow very large and use up lots of disk space. Also note that recording, playing, and processing 24-bit data utilizes more CPU resources than working with 16-bit data. This means that for a given computer configuration, you will be able to record/play/process a smaller number of total simultaneous tracks, and use a smaller number of simultaneous real-time effects, in a 24-bit project than you would be able to in a 16-bit project. This is also true when working at higher sampling rates (i.e., a 24-bit/96khz project requires substantially more computing resources than a corresponding 16-bit/44.1khz project). Depending on the size of your project and the configuration of your computer (CPU, RAM, disk), you may need to reconsider whether working at the higher bit-depth/sampling rate is justified or even possible. Some plug-ins do not function well at a 96 kHz sampling rate.
Using an audio bit depth of 24 can enhance the performance of some plug-ins, but raising the sampling rate to 96 kHz does not offer much improvement, and can cause some plug-ins to add unintended artifacts to the sound. Using a 24-bit, 44.1 kHz setup for your audio provides plenty of enhanced performance for plug-ins that can take advantage of it, without risking the problems that 96 kHz audio causes with some plug-ins.
It's also worth noting that not all audio projects benefit equally from the use of higher bit-depth/sampling rates. Most professional sound engineers will tell you that 24-bit, higher-sampling-rate audio is most beneficial when working with music that focuses on natural acoustic instruments and/or vocals recorded with very high-quality microphones. The benefits of 24-bit/high-sampling-rate recording are less audible when working with highly synthetic or highly compressed program material, often found in contemporary popular music. You must make your own judgement about whether the benefits of higher-capacity audio justify the extra demands it places on your computer.
Note: Red Book Audio CDs are still 16-bit (44.1 sampling rate), so if your goal is to burn a CD, you will have to mix down to 16-bit.

 

Damn Freddie.
Just as I was about to sort of agree that 64 bit matters you come up with this insane idea.

Well I guess you have to find a reason to justify using a 64 bit supercomputer to do audio.

I am just sorry they do not sell cars with 12,000 horsepower engines. I could use the commission I would make on selling you one.