pdarg
Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2265
- Joined: 2004/03/26 17:52:53
- Status: offline
Recording at 96kHz
Greetings,
I am moving up to recording at 96kHz.
What settings within Sonar should I enable/tweak in order to enjoy the best performance in this regard. Record/play cache-ing etc.?
All serious replies appreciated.
|
Bub 
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/18 20:59:01
(permalink)
None that I'm aware of.
I did an in depth test of sample rates a few months back and posted the results. Unfortunately the forum server crashed and lost all the data I posted.
What I found on my M-Audio Fast Track Ultra was ...
96kHz yielded no benefit other than decreasing my latency. I could hear test tones all the way up to around 18.5kHz, but the low end became very muddy and distorted at certain frequencies.
44.1kHz sounds best on my FTU. It cuts the high end beyond 16.5kHz, but the low end is much more defined.
After doing a lot of reading, and my own sound tests, I've come to the conclusion that it really depends on your converters in your sound card as to what actually sounds better. So before you make the jump to 96kHz maybe do some test to see if it's actually going to help or hurt your sound.
I used the frequency generator in Sound Forge 9.0 to create test tones, that's how I know 44.1kHz sloped off at 16.5kHz.
I've recently set Sonar X1 up to record 48kHz/32bits. I set 'Render', 'Record', and 'Import' all to 32bit so I don't have to deal with dithering when bouncing. If HDD space isn't a problem I would consider going 32bit also if you're not there already. I'm at 48kHz/32bit now and seem to be chugging along fine.
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
jhughs
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1179
- Joined: 2007/11/23 13:58:23
- Location: Naperville, IL
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/18 21:52:13
(permalink)
I won't tout myself as an expert, but I've read through several discussions on this topic and it seemed there was very little reason to record at 96kHz.
(As we say in Engineering, "Just because you can do something is not reason enough to do it.")
The consensus then was that 48kHz/24 bit was optimal. It's probably fair to say with current systems, that if 32bit doesn't bog down your system then go for it.
But I've seen it happen over and over again where someone tries to record at 96kHz and just buries their CPU with just a few tracks for virtually no audible gain... unless your target audience are canines. You'll just be wasting disk space and limiting the number of tracks you can run.
ASUS P5ND/Intel E8500, Line6 Toneport UX2/PODFarm, Sonar, Axiom 25, Blue Bluebird, Audio-Technica AT3035s, Blue Snowflake, Line6 Spider IV 150 & AMPLIFI, Crate 1 J Hughs Soundclick
|
pianodano
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1160
- Joined: 2004/01/11 18:54:38
- Location: Va Beach Virginia
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/18 21:57:24
(permalink)
I bought Lynx Aurora convertors last year specifically to try recording at 96K. But I don't. I just can't hear the difference. Just gigantic files. So I stay at 48k.
Best, Danny Core I7, win XP pro, 3 gig ram, 3 drives- Lynx Aurora firewire- Roll around 27 inch monitor, 42 inch console monitor- Motif xs controller - Networked P4's and FX Teleport for samples- Muse Receptor VIA Uniwire for samples and plugs- UAD QUAD Neve - UAD 1- Sonar X1 but favor 8.5 GUI - Toft ATB 32 - Vintage hardware - Tascam MS-16 synched via Timeline Microlynx -Toft ATB32 console
|
Zuma
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 525
- Joined: 2006/01/13 17:56:03
- Location: SoCal...High and dry in LA
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/18 23:07:50
(permalink)
The noise floor is raised when you record at 24/96, so, yeah, there is an audible difference. It's not always an advantage though. It is in a super quiet top notch studio... not so much in a bustling city apartment with a computer and cooling fans running, lol. Trust me, you'll pick up all sorts of little far off noises that you couldn't really hear on a 16/44.1 or 24/44.1 recording. You have to remember that you're capturing more information so to speak of the source recording when you record at 24/96... in that respect it's impossible to not hear a difference if you turn a discerning ear to the subtle nuances present in the recording itself.
Most people don't think they can hear the difference but if they pay attention to detail they can pick out that the sound is indeed fuller and richer... it may be subtle but it's there. But if you try to relate to or hear the difference in overall volume that is where you get tricked into thinking you can't hear the difference. You feel frequencies as well as hear them and this can produce interesting results in and of itself at high volumes, ie a live concert.
A standard cd that's been mastered and pushed with a limiter makes it even tougher if not impossible for most to hear the difference... that's why the double blind tests are not a good gauge ... IMO those tests are flawed and can't be considered proof positive. Too many variables to stamp the test as ligit beyond doubt. You have to use source recordings that haven't been mixed or mastered to really hear the difference. You're listening for a fuller, more complete recording, not a louder recording. Nuances like harmonics and finger squeaks on the strings, these are the things you'll notice and hear as being more audible. These aspects of a recording are captured in greater detail than in a lower sample rate.
Again though, this is not always an advantage... that is something you have to decide for yourself. Personally I'm all for it.
|
Bub
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 00:31:52
(permalink)
Zuma
Nuances like harmonics and finger squeaks on the strings, these are the things you'll notice and hear as being more audible. These aspects of a recording are captured in greater detail than in a lower sample rate.
The sampling rate won't matter if you don't have a good enough pre-amp that can reproduce those harmonics and a good enough AD converter to capture the pre-amp signal. Good pre-amps have a range of 5Hz ~ 100kHz and higher. A lot of project studio gear like my FTU only have a range of 20Hz ~ 20kHz even though they say they can sample up to 96kHz (48kHz in reality). Basically what I'm trying to say is ... if you have something along the lines of a Fast Track Ultra ... 'audibly' you aren't going to hear any difference between 44.1kHz ~ 96kHz. Even if you have an EMU or Babyface that supports 192kHz sample rate, if the pre-amp only covers 20Hz ~ 20kHz ... it's not going to make a bit of difference. Now, you will get better recordings if you have a high end pre-amp going in to your lower end interface. Here's a really good article on it. I guess the ultimate combination would be a high end pre-amp feeding directly in to an AD converter at 384kHz?
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
Zuma
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 525
- Joined: 2006/01/13 17:56:03
- Location: SoCal...High and dry in LA
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 01:15:23
(permalink)
I will respectfully disagree with you. The noise floor is still being raised regardless of the quality of the preamp and you are still capturing more of the source than you would be at 16/44.1. Listening at low levels is actually more revealing than high levels. And again, it's the sublties that stand out a little bit more.
I hesitated before posting in this thread because I truly am burned out on the subject and the ongoing debate. I've been involved in some down right nasty, heated flame wars on other forums over the years. It just never ends well, lol. We had one guy on a forum that was particularly vicious about there being no possible audible difference, but he ended up tripping on his own words eventually when he brought up the subject of the noise floor being raised and how this could be a detriment and not an advantage... needless say everybody jumped on his @ss then. Anyway, keep it light hearted and in the end perception is reality.
Peace
|
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8424
- Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 03:17:00
(permalink)
From what I have gathered , it comes down to what you are recording and where it's going. What Zuma is saying explains this. If your are recording loud compressed music, then an MP3 is all you will need to sound OK. But if your music contains nuances that will benefit the listener with clear unobstructed audio then go for gold and up the anti. If your equipment is low grade anyways then don't bother. Changing to a high sample rate won't fix the sound of a nasty pre amp or MIDI patch. So to the OP, I would say, if your signal chain and computer is up to it then go for it.
post edited by Cactus Music - 2011/07/19 03:20:11
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 05:53:19
(permalink)
Cactus Music
So to the OP, I would say, if your signal chain and computer is up to it then go for it.
"Computer being up to it" must also include whole Terrabytes of storage space available as your project files will double in size overnight. Personally, unless I was tracking a 100 piece symphony orchestra, I don't see the point in these elevated sample rates. As someone pointed out above - just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Mr. Ease
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 960
- Joined: 2003/11/24 18:44:01
- Location: West Sussex, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 06:56:41
(permalink)
Zuma
The noise floor is raised when you record at 24/96, so, yeah, there is an audible difference. It's not always an advantage though. It is in a super quiet top notch studio... not so much in a bustling city apartment with a computer and cooling fans running, lol. Trust me, you'll pick up all sorts of little far off noises that you couldn't really hear on a 16/44.1 or 24/44.1 recording. You have to remember that you're capturing more information so to speak of the source recording when you record at 24/96... in that respect it's impossible to not hear a difference if you turn a discerning ear to the subtle nuances present in the recording itself.
This is not quite right in that it is only the bit depth (and the particular A-D or D-A) that affects the noise floor and as such you would normally expect a wider dynamic range as you go from 16 to 24 bit sampling. This directly infers a LOWER noise floor, not higher. I suspect therefore that you meant to imply the bit depth increased the dynamic range rather than noise floor. The sampling rate affects the frequency response (all else being equal) but NOT the noise floor or dynamic range. Having said that I am not saying anything in regard of your subjective assessment of the differences as that is purely a personal choice.
post edited by Mr. Ease - 2011/07/19 07:00:05
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 09:46:51
(permalink)
I've read several times that budget quality interfaces may benefit from 96kHz as it gives more "headroom" for transparently filtering out the digital artifacts that reside in the ultrasonic region of a converted signal. Higher end converters/interfaces supposedly have such good filters that the process is transparent even at 44.1kHz. I've never been able to discern a difference with my lowly Focusrite Saffire Pro, though... Next, there's the much debated psychoacoustic benefit of a digital system being able to record/playback ultrasonic frequencies. I would think for anyone to appreciate such an effect, gear of certain properties would be needed: - As Bud said, most solid state analog electronics (preamps and such) have bandwidths into the MHz region so that most probably wouldn't be a limiting factor. - Some microphone manufacturers, including Earthworks and DPA, are making "HD" or ultrasonic microphones (that extend well beyond 20kHz). - Some monitor models, notably those with ribbon or folded-ribbon tweeters, are specified to reach 30kHz and above. Without "HD" microphones and monitors, I would think that the benefit of 96kHz would be limited indeed! I'm not talking about 16 vs. 24 bit of course as I'm sure you're aware of the benefits of 24 bit recording, Pdarg... Sven
post edited by SvenArne - 2011/07/19 09:56:21
|
Zuma
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 525
- Joined: 2006/01/13 17:56:03
- Location: SoCal...High and dry in LA
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 09:50:50
(permalink)
Correct, Mr Ease. I should have clarified that. Bub also brought up a great point that a lot of engineers refer to in regard to all the tests, and that is about the equipment used to record and playback/compare the source(s). I would even go a step further and bring up the source itself. Say head banging metal versus an acoustic session. There are so many aspects and nuances that I totally agree it comes down to personal choice and should be left there. It's a mind boggling debate and I truly am burned on discussing it in detail anymore. It always seems to end up in a mexican standoff between the audiophile crowd and the science crowd, lol. edit: I do, however subscribe to the belief that we are more than capable of perceiving higher and lower frequencies beyond what the ears can pick up. We are more than our five senses and that brings into the equation something totally different about there being a benefit to the extended frequencies.
post edited by Zuma - 2011/07/19 09:55:08
|
pdarg
Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2265
- Joined: 2004/03/26 17:52:53
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 10:39:10
(permalink)
I should probably provide more information.
First, I myself have gone back and forth on this issue; I tried 96kHz earlier and disliked the CPU/storage demands - so I went back to 44.1kHz several years ago. But I have now tested this again for my own benefit, and recording at 96kHz seems to yield better final results - even if dithering to 16/44.1kHz.
Equipment used here is fairly high quality, and the majority of music recorded has an acoustic/alternative/Folk-rock feel to it: Pacifica Preamp; Mics= Gefell M930 and a pair of Josephson C42's; soundcard = LynxTwo-C.
I don't have to worry about tons of tracks, since I don't record that many layers: Voice, acoustic guitar, and then MIDI tracks.
I wouldn't do this if I didn't think it had advantages. The sound comparisons I have done seems to show that the 96kHz sound is more warm, rounded, and less "smeared" [for lack of a better word]. I will admit - however - that the difference is subtle, and the choice may not be for everyone.
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 11:18:52
(permalink)
pdarg
I should probably provide more information.
First, I myself have gone back and forth on this issue; I tried 96kHz earlier and disliked the CPU/storage demands - so I went back to 44.1kHz several years ago. But I have now tested this again for my own benefit, and recording at 96kHz seems to yield better final results - even if dithering to 16/44.1kHz.
Equipment used here is fairly high quality, and the majority of music recorded has an acoustic/alternative/Folk-rock feel to it: Pacifica Preamp; Mics= Gefell M930 and a pair of Josephson C42's; soundcard = LynxTwo-C.
I don't have to worry about tons of tracks, since I don't record that many layers: Voice, acoustic guitar, and then MIDI tracks.
I wouldn't do this if I didn't think it had advantages. The sound comparisons I have done seems to show that the 96kHz sound is more warm, rounded, and less "smeared" [for lack of a better word]. I will admit - however - that the difference is subtle, and the choice may not be for everyone.
Interesting! Seems weird to me that extending the audio bandwith can make something sound warmer and rounder. But hey, if it works for you! How did you do the test? What was in the test project? I've heard people say that distortion, amp sim and modelled compressor plugins perform better at 96. Was there a lot of that in there? Sven
post edited by SvenArne - 2011/07/19 11:24:11
|
Bub
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 14:02:17
(permalink)
I was on the 96kHz kick for a while, I was even on the 192kHz kick for a while back when I was using my EMU-0404. Sonitus doesn't play well with tracks recorded at 192kHz. At least not on my system 6 ~ 7 years ago when I tried. Talk about huge file sizes! :)
pdarg ... here's what I did when I did the sample rate tests.
I set my sound card to the rate I was testing. My card only supports 24bit native.
I created a new track (or 'sound' as they call it) in Sony Sound Forge 9 that matched the sample and bit rate I set on my sound card.
Then I opened the FM Synthesis generator and set it to 'Sine'. (Be careful, especially with low frequencies. If you turn the volume up you may blow out the cones on your speakers and not hear that you are doing it until it's too late. Look and listen closely while performing this test.)
I did this at 44.1/24 and 96/24. Like I said before the high end was increased by 2kHz up to 18.5kHz, but the low end became very muddy and distorted at 96/24.
I'm at 48/32 now and I'm very happy. I'm using an ART Pro MPA II Pre-Amp. It's range is 5 ~ 100kHz which is pretty darn good for a low cost tube pre-amp imo.
I've heard that too what Sven said about 96kHz and amp sims. I've never heard a difference though in Guitar Rig. In Guitar Rig 4 Pro there is an optional CPU setting you can change from Lo to Hi. That makes a huge difference in sound quality, but personally I've never heard a difference going up to 96kHz with Guitar Rig. Can't say for other amp sims. On the other hand, I never used it with a high gain setting either which is where they say you'll hear the biggest improvement.
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
Mr. Ease
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 960
- Joined: 2003/11/24 18:44:01
- Location: West Sussex, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 15:22:01
(permalink)
Zuma
It always seems to end up in a mexican standoff between the audiophile crowd and the science crowd, lol.
Agreed. The problem as far as I see it is closed minds due to the money or time invested!
edit: I do, however subscribe to the belief that we are more than capable of perceiving higher and lower frequencies beyond what the ears can pick up. We are more than our five senses and that brings into the equation something totally different about there being a benefit to the extended frequencies.
There is no doubt that sub audible content can be detected by mere mortals. We must have all felt the thump in the chest when getting too close to a bass bin! :<) IMHO that is certainly part of the overall "music experience". High frequencies are another debate altogether! One of the universities in Japan (I cannot recall which) did a series of experiments several years ago with supersonic elements that could be turned on and off. Unfortunately there were several holes in those experiments that you could drive a bus through, not least because of a flawed "double blind" process. Sadly that meant that I, for one, could place no value whatsoever on their results and I told them so. The trouble is that there are so many commercial interests going on that there is always the danger of adverse results getting buried or results being (almost deliberately....) skewed. Thus the business situation can affect pure research facilities which have to be funded from somewhere. Just look at how the tobacco companies behaved for so many years! I do know that there is a lot of psychoacoustic research going on at the University of Surrey in Guildford UK (just down the road from me) and one of the areas of interest has been supersonic frequencies. I have not seen any results from their research as yet though.
post edited by Mr. Ease - 2011/07/19 15:24:44
|
pdarg
Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2265
- Joined: 2004/03/26 17:52:53
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 21:26:44
(permalink)
Another way to answer to this question could simply be: what do the high-profile pro's use these days?
My impression is that 96kHz is getting more use these days in higher end digital studios.
|
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8424
- Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 21:41:11
(permalink)
I don't see how storage would be a big concern to anyone anymore. Our own personal output would never fill a 2 TB drive, And a professional studio would simply charge the artist ($100?) for an external drive more or less like we used to charge for the 2" tape reels. If people didn't want to pay for it we erased and re used the tapes next time needed. It was their choice. In away now that I think about it, upping to a higher sample rate is like turning up the tape recorder speed.
post edited by Cactus Music - 2011/07/19 21:44:56
|
timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 22:28:53
(permalink)
In away now that I think about it, upping to a higher sample rate is like turning up the tape recorder speed. I always liked 15 ips vs 30..
|
Bub
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/19 23:47:54
(permalink)
pdarg
Another way to answer to this question could simply be: what do the high-profile pro's use these days?
My impression is that 96kHz is getting more use these days in higher end digital studios.
I would think that true professional studios, not talking about the guy down the street who's recorded a few bands that made it big eventually, but the big boys that work for multi-multi million dollar record labels that have million dollar studios, would use 192kHz and higher. They are going to have top end pre-amp's, mic's, properly treated rooms, etc etc ... that would benefit from being captured at a 192kHz sampling rate. I don't think we'll ever really know though. I've found that even with all the books that have been written on mixing/mastering, what really goes on in the big studio's is kind of kept secret.
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/20 02:05:45
(permalink)
Bub
I don't think we'll ever really know though. I've found that even with all the books that have been written on mixing/mastering, what really goes on in the big studio's is kind of kept secret.
There are volumes on this at Gearslutz and in magazine interviews with engineers etc. My impression is that they're all over the place, sample rate-wise. 192 kHz still seems to be rare though. No wonder, since even the most badass MAC/PC would perform suboptimally at 192, especially considering the volume of tracks and plugins used in pro sessions. Sven
|
Cactus Music
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8424
- Joined: 2004/02/09 21:34:04
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/20 13:40:35
(permalink)
I don't think we'll ever really know though. I've found that even with all the books that have been written on mixing/mastering, what really goes on in the big studio's is kind of kept secret.
Interesting comment as I just finished reading the editorial in Professional Sound Magazine http://professional-sound.com/contents.htm ( page 9 link =online digital edition upper right corner) He talks about in the day's gone by how "Knowledge was power" In other words you did not readily share your information/ techniques and skills unless someone paid you for it because therefore people had to hire you to troubleshoot/ instal or repair a system. He goes on the explain how the younger generation does not adapt this attitude anymore. I believe there is probably way to much information about things like "what goes on in a big studio" these days. Unless you have the proper training to understand what they are saying you might end up believing the wrong thing. This is the danger of "teaching" yourself a trade. Bottom line- we are in trouble if this is the way of the future and people become "smart" by reading "how to" on the internet. The information is all there, but are you qualified to understand it? The old school apprenticeship style of learning is fading away, for us in the audio industry it will be a mess if the majority of "engineers" have never set foot in a professional studio to be taught by experienced mentors. And yes there are Audio engineering schools who will take your coin, You can only hope that your teacher has set foot in a studio. Well, I gotta go, got to look up how to build a leach field, my septic system backed up..
post edited by Cactus Music - 2011/07/20 20:06:52
|
Bub
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/20 14:42:24
(permalink)
SvenArne
Bub
I don't think we'll ever really know though. I've found that even with all the books that have been written on mixing/mastering, what really goes on in the big studio's is kind of kept secret.
There are volumes on this at Gearslutz and in magazine interviews with engineers etc. My impression is that they're all over the place, sample rate-wise. 192 kHz still seems to be rare though. No wonder, since even the most badass MAC/PC would perform suboptimally at 192, especially considering the volume of tracks and plugins used in pro sessions.
Sven
This is where I just don't get it sometimes ... I had no problem at all doing a 15 track project with my EMU - 0404 @ 192kHz. Sonitus would act up some times but that's the only problem I would have. I ran it on a P4 3GB Processor with 2GB ram. I'll admit I don't subscribe to any magazines, so I do miss a lot in that regard, but as for searching on the net for what they use in pro studio's like EMI etc etc, I haven't seen a lot in way of details. I like skimming Gearslutz from time to time but it's hard to weed out the good info from the bad sometimes if you know what I mean. I just saw a thread there about 384kHz/32bit. I've seen AD converters that are up to 384kHz now and I have seen articles where the engineers are using 192kHz so I think it's really hard to say definitively what goes on in pro studios.
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
pianodano
Max Output Level: -67 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1160
- Joined: 2004/01/11 18:54:38
- Location: Va Beach Virginia
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/20 17:10:13
(permalink)
I think it all depends on the distribution medium. If CD is the target, what is the point? MP3 ? 8 bit would prolly do. Vinyl on the other hand, well higher or highest quality is certainly better. Regardless of what sample rate that is used (and I am not familar with anything above 96K) I just can't hear the magic that is always imparted to a track such as a drum stereo bed or bass that is obtained with a really good analog machine. The shimmering cymbals and awesome bass obtained because of normal head bump cannot be matched in the digtal domain. Beautifully delicate acoustic guitars are a thing of the past. I just hear a certain unquantifiable harshness unless the tracks are recorded to a analog machine first and then dumped to digital. Yes I know about the machine plugins and other wizbang gizmos but nothing beats a nice analog machine for the rough tracking of a rythm section. This is not to say that music recorded completely in the digital domain is not still music and fine quality too. It certainly is. But audiophile grade. Hmm. YMMV of course.
Best, Danny Core I7, win XP pro, 3 gig ram, 3 drives- Lynx Aurora firewire- Roll around 27 inch monitor, 42 inch console monitor- Motif xs controller - Networked P4's and FX Teleport for samples- Muse Receptor VIA Uniwire for samples and plugs- UAD QUAD Neve - UAD 1- Sonar X1 but favor 8.5 GUI - Toft ATB 32 - Vintage hardware - Tascam MS-16 synched via Timeline Microlynx -Toft ATB32 console
|
Kev999
Max Output Level: -36 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3922
- Joined: 2007/05/01 14:22:54
- Location: Victoria, Australia
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/20 22:12:11
(permalink)
I recently tried working at 96kHz. The only real problem that I encountered was with a particular UAD plugin, the EMT-140 plate reverb, which won't work at all. Everthing else seems to work ok.
SonarPlatinum∞(22.11.0.111)|Mixbus32C(4.3.19)|DigitalPerformer(9.5.1)|Reaper(5.77)FractalDesign:DefineR5|i7-6850k@4.1GHz|16GB@2666MHz-DDR4|MSI:GamingProCarbonX99a|Matrox:M9148(x2)|UAD2solo(6.5.2)|W7Ult-x64-SP1
Audient:iD22+ASP800|KRK:VXT6|+various-outboard-gear|+guitars&basses, etc.
Having fun at work lately
|
pdarg
Max Output Level: -52.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2265
- Joined: 2004/03/26 17:52:53
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/20 22:31:37
(permalink)
Thanks for the continuing comments.
I am going to conduct some experiments tomorrow again. I will try to share what I discover.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/21 00:47:09
(permalink)
pdarg,
if 96 kHz sounds better to you - use it. Fast computers and large storage are cheap. If you sound better, you'll make better and quicker decisions and get rid of any lingering "I'm only using 44.1" is the problem. And if high-quality digital formats (24 bit/96) make a come back, your stuff will be ready.
The best theories I've heard for 96 sounding better is some of the home studio converters didn't have the best filters in the early days and there is simply more info in a larger file. But like timbo I always prefered 15 inches per second on tape. Maybe I'm just cheap.
I venture that most people and studios use 44.1 (or 48 for video). I do, and several of the local "pro" studios do, too. And if it makes you feel better (or want to justify it to others) just say Rupert Neve thinks higher rates are better. If it works for him, sonicially, I wouldn't second guess it.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
Bub
Max Output Level: -3.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 7196
- Joined: 2010/10/25 10:22:13
- Location: Sneaking up behind you!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/21 02:23:52
(permalink)
I don't think we're all on the same page when we're defining 'pro studio'. Yeah, if you have a studio and are making money, you're technically classified as a 'pro' but that doesn't make you a 'pro', and there are many different levels of 'pro'. A guy I was talking to at a job site one time gave me a demo CD his dad made of his band at his studio. His dad had the studio for quite some time in our area. It was so sharp, glassy, and compressed that I had to turn the treble all the way down on my car stereo to be able to listen to it. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not talking about the guys down the street who set up shop and drop 25 ~ 30 grand on some equipment. I'm talking about the guys in 7 figure studios with consoles that cost almost as much as my house.  I find it very hard to believe they are capturing their pristine environment and equipment at a sample rate that can't capture the sonic range they are putting out. But, I could be wrong. I've heard some fantastic recordings done on home PC's ... Like AT said, whatever sounds best is what to go with, but do some tests. I was thoroughly shocked when I tested my FTU and found that 44.1 sounded better than 96. I loved the low latency, but I've learned to just use the onboard effects when recording and now I have 0 latency. I could set my buffers to 4096 and it won't matter. I'm almost tempted to throw my old EMU-0404 back in and do some of the tone tests I did on my FTU.
post edited by Bub - 2011/07/21 02:29:32
"I pulled the head off Elvis, filled Fred up to his pelvis, yaba daba do, the King is gone, and so are you."
|
SvenArne
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2719
- Joined: 2007/01/31 12:51:29
- Location: Trondheim, Norway
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/21 02:38:10
(permalink)
pianodano
I think it all depends on the distribution medium. If CD is the target, what is the point? MP3 ? 8 bit would prolly do. Vinyl on the other hand, well higher or highest quality is certainly better. Regardless of what sample rate that is used (and I am not familar with anything above 96K) I just can't hear the magic that is always imparted to a track such as a drum stereo bed or bass that is obtained with a really good analog machine. The shimmering cymbals and awesome bass obtained because of normal head bump cannot be matched in the digtal domain. Beautifully delicate acoustic guitars are a thing of the past. I just hear a certain unquantifiable harshness unless the tracks are recorded to a analog machine first and then dumped to digital. Yes I know about the machine plugins and other wizbang gizmos but nothing beats a nice analog machine for the rough tracking of a rythm section. This is not to say that music recorded completely in the digital domain is not still music and fine quality too. It certainly is. But audiophile grade. Hmm. YMMV of course.
Head bump is just a name for the eq curve that a certain tape played on a certain deck at a certain speed imposes on the recording. It's the complex distortions you get with tape that's difficult to reproduce with digital, not head bump. 8 bit adequate for MP3? You're kidding? Try bit reducing a fairly dynamic MP3 recording and listen for yourself. The MP3 format is definitely capable of using all your 16 bits of dynamic range. Vinyl on the other hand... I found this Wikipedia article surprisingly good for understanding the limitations of digital and analog! Sven
post edited by SvenArne - 2011/07/21 02:48:11
|
DonaldDuck
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 789
- Joined: 2007/03/14 16:46:29
- Location: Tha South baby!
- Status: offline
Re:Recording at 96kHz
2011/07/21 04:11:12
(permalink)
You are correct in that assuption that most professional studios use 96k (with most doing classical at 192k). When I was getting my college degree a few years ago, I worked (interned) in Nashville studios, and every "Professional" studio used 96k. Even most "demo" studios used at least 48k. I don't know of ANY professional studio (meaning major label recording studio) that uses 44.1 or 48k. I'm not interested in joining a scientific debate of the ins and outs of digital audio. With some here, they love to wrap facts around their own opinions. So, trying to point out true FACTS is a waste of time.... Ultimately, facts don't matter. Music is subjective anyway. Some people think Kurt Cobain was a great vocalist while others (me) thinks his voice sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. If YOU like it a certain way, it really shouldn't matter what others think. Just switch over your converter to 96k, and hit record. If you want to record at 96k and like the results, rock on! I do, and I like the results.... Way back when.. it was discussed (argued really) about the benefits of doing 32 bit mixes when the max bit depth was 24 bits on the converter. Why in the world would we possibly need a 32 bit file when CDs are 16bit? HMMMM. Now, Sonar can mix at 64 bits and then convert that down to 32 bit file, which is then dithered down to 16bits. Anyone see the correlation here??? (side note: Does anyone remember the first soundcards recording at a whopping 8bits? :) )
post edited by DonaldDuck - 2011/07/21 04:12:32
-Donald The Little DAW That Could: Q6850 (OC to 3.6 GHz) | Win7 Pro 64 | 8 GB DDR2-1200 RAM | Sonar Producer 8.5.3 and X1 | Tascam DM4800 | UA 2192
|