ORIGINAL: DonM

All:

I concur with much of what is being said, but I would add however.... The difference between 44.1k and 48k in capture frequency (thanks to the Nyquist theorum) correct me if I did the math wrong but about 1/5 of an octave.

ORIGINAL: DonM

UT:

Right! Now I understand.

And you can see from my info that the difference between 44.1 and 48 Khz sample rates is really not that much in octave info. I perform blind tests with my students to see where their octave perception is most acute. As Fletcher and Munson taught us over 65 years ago - that center is around 500 to 3000 hz. The ability to discern about one and 1/2 semi tones above 20Khz is possible but quite amazing. Most folks talk about the 'air' in that location. Which as an on-location orchestra recordist I have a bunch of 'airless" recordings I've done over the years. But I would say that I choose 96khz as a SR for some of my orchestra stuff based on info I've gained from DPA microphones and their thoughts about stereo image and their omni mics.

I'd say that if I were doing only demos and in-the-box mixing... I'd be at 44.1khz... I know that may be shocking to some, but here's my logic. I did say DEMO - typically that's for the band members to learn a tune (wherever they may be in the world) and to get ready to go to real studio (whatever that means eh?) So all of my work is for broadcast or CDA or Film - so I work in the format needed by those delivery mediums - BTW FM broadcast is really about 128 kbs MP3!

As a classical recordist I must say the DSD and DXD stuff is interesting - but again for the 'right' reason. I believe stable stereo image is key (in fact I do part of my final mastering check on Acoustat Electrostatic panels to perform the highest resolution image test I can).

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Don, I think everyone is overthinking this issue.

The reason for that is modern converters are oversampled, meaning we're actually sampling at much higher frequencies than 44.1 or 48 or even 192. It's more like 5.6MHz! That relaxes the filter requirements such that its knee is WAY beyond audible frequencies. It's only AFTER that step that we decimate down to 44.1/48/88.2/96/192 by basically tossing out all the extraneous samples. At this point we have a DIGITAL signal that can be DIGITALLY band-limited to 20KHz without artifacts.

If you can hear a difference, it's due to inadequacies of your hardware. There should be no difference. To insist that there is a difference is to argue against Nyquist himself, whose theorem unequivocally states that any audible wave can be accurately reproduced -- not approximated, but accurately reproduced -- as long as the sample rate is slightly higher than double the highest frequency you need to record.

Well now I'm slighty confused (actually quite a bit) but from this last bit of insight.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the example earlier about cymbals make reference to
it sound "40%" relys on contributions of frequencies up 102kz ?

Or an I just confusing the relationship between ferequencies and Sample Rates?

This is Great information for such a simple mind such as mine. But keep in mind I'm recording this info in my brain at 8 bit 11k :-)

Yeh, that's the gist of it, Jose. You've distilled the whole mess into the one main point: "there would be no audible difference or benefit in recording at higher sampling rates".

Why even have selectable sample rates if everything get's knocked off at 22k on finalization.

Because of various standards ... CD Audio (16/44.1) - DVD-Audio (up to 24/192).

Junski

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Although I can objectively make the case that there is no difference, DVD audio often does sound better to me. I remember the first time I watched a DVD movie on a nice home theater setup - it was the movie Twister, which won an Oscar for sound effects. I went out and bought my first DVD player the next day, mainly for the sound.

So why does it sound better? Don't know. In fact, quite often it does NOT sound better, but I think that's due to a lack of audio standards for DVD (compared to theater presentations). When it sounds "better" is it an illusion, maybe due to hyped frequency response and/or high compression ratios? Don't know.

As for SACD, I think that's pure marketing hype. But that doesn't explain why higher sample rates are even used on DVDs, a practice that limits the number of audio channels you can include on the disk.

So it sounds like I accidentally hit the nail on the head myself when I said that "If you can hear a difference, it's due to inadequacies of your hardware." It may be that DVD players, being more expensive, just have higher-quality filters than your average CD player, and that's why they often sound better.

(Still doesn't answer your question, though, does it?)

ORIGINAL: tazman

I have recorded at 44.1, 48, 88 and 96. I can't tell any difference between 88 and 96 (so usually use 96kHz between the two, personal choice). Between 44.1 and 96, as much as I kept telling myself that theory says I shouldn't be able to tell them apart, I actually can on the drums, namely the cymbals. At 96kHz the cymbals seem to sparkle more.

On the gearslutz forum do a search for sample rate. There were many tests and some top engineering and gear designers have left comments. Basically with today's algorithms it seems that you shouldn't worry about 96kHz to 44.1 or 48 to 44.1, the conversion will be fine (i.e. no need to use 88.2 so that it's nicely divided etc). As far as using 96kHz, the aliasing curve is smoother than at 44.1 and this would be why 96 sounds better than 44.1.

I left a lot of details out so if you want more do the search as I mentioned above.

Cheers,

I record at 88.2khz in the studio pretty much all the time now. The reason is not that the audio itself sounds any different, but that the plugins sound so much better at higher rates.