I ran across this gem in another forum:

I have a friend who plays 44.1k and 96k demos with buttons clearly labeled with "44.1" and "96". Everyone who listens agrees the "96" button sounds better. Except he mislabeled the buttons... Everyone is actually picking the 44.1 sound because they think they are supposed to think that one is better.

He doesn't say whether the "demos" are 16/44.1 or in their original formats, and he doesn't say whether they are being auditioned on high-end playback systems or consumer hi-fi equipment. But it would be an interesting experiment to try, especially for you folks who participate in active local user groups where you could play the demos for a number of experienced recordists in addition to "regular folks".

Thanks for all of the amazing posts here. I'm definitely learning a lot.

What I'm unclear about here is if there is an audible advantage to recording at higher sample rates when it comes to summing multiple tracks with or without the presence of hypersonic material. I'm curious both at a pure summing level and when there are plugins involved (and I agree some plugs sound better at higher rates.)

Peace,

ORIGINAL: daverich
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.

Sonitus EQ for instance gets a great top end at 88.2

I just wanted to jump in on this point from Dave... speaking of Bob Katz,

See this somewhat older thread on upsampling for mastering where a lot of this bandwidth stuff was discussed: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=383093&mpage=1

In particular, look at this informative response from Steve D: http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=383093&mpage=1#384098

The thread discusses advantages of higher sampling rates, specifically for mastering. One of the topics that was brought up was something outlined in Katz' book -- non-linear processing should operate at higher sample rates to avoid aliasing of frequency components introduced by the processing (Mastering Audio, pg 226).

So... yes, as UnderTow says: choose your plugins carefully... then you should trust that plugin processing at 44.1kHz or 48kHz or whatever will give you the "right" result (i.e., no harmonic distortion artifacts). In short, look for the well-engineered plugins that utilize upsampling and proper filters, I think.

Interestingly, Steve D's post indicates that through his digido conversations with Bob Katz he concluded that upsampling (for mastering) only makes sense, basically, if you're doing SRC through top-end hardware converters. If that's the case -- then at mixing aren't we subject to the limitations of the SRC built into these upsampling plugins???

If we are subject to "inferior" software SRC within the plugins themselves, then one solution would be to record at the highest rate, then drive the plugins at that same native rate.

If the software SRC built into the plugs is not inferior, however, then the general rule would likely be a.) choose the right plugins, and b.) record at the target rate for the project (CD, DVD, etc.).

Since I always record at 44.1, I'd like to pose a (maybe dumb) question to those of you who record at higher sample rates: if you bring up a 96KHz wave on a spectrum analyzer, do you actually have anything in there above 20KHz? Or does the converter band-limit everything at 20KHz regardless of the sample rate? In other words, are you actually recording ultrasonic material? (OK, so that's 3 questions, sorry)

Sorry to jump your post, bitflipper... but to follow up a bit more on Dave's recommendation for processing plugins at higher native rates:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/119029-up-sample-not.html

With upsampling plugins you run the risk of bad SRC on the way back down to 44.1 or 48, and as one of the posters points out:

There is always a cost form the added processing of sample conversion. If you oversample and downsample just once, the penalty is small. Any processing device that oversamples has this loss. Stacking multiple oversampled processes reduces audio quality. I'm talking about the plugins/outboard that claim to process at a higer rate internally. Put many devices of this type in the chain and you get a hit in audio quality. Is the quality hit important? It depends on the project.

I think the safest approach is the one that Dave uses, unless you really trust the engineering behind your plugins. If you're bandwidth limited it's probably fine to track at 44.1, then either mix to stems and upsample the stems to 88.2 or 96 before applying non-linear plugs, or just upsample everything to 88.2 or 96. Of course, you could also just track everything at 88.2 or 96 from the get-go, but for large track counts that could be asking alot of your hardware...

For software SRC Bob Katz seems to be happy with Voxengo R8Brain Pro: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/77212-r8brain-pro.html#post791777

Hey Keith,

Thanks a lot for the info. This has assured me that I was on the right track by assuming that recording at higher sampling rates does actually benefit the music--even if it was due to wrong assumptions. Take care!

ORIGINAL: keith

...

So... yes, as UnderTow says: choose your plugins carefully... then you should trust that plugin processing at 44.1kHz or 48kHz or whatever will give you the "right" result (i.e., no harmonic distortion artifacts). In short, look for the well-engineered plugins that utilize upsampling and proper filters, I think.

...

If the software SRC built into the plugs is not inferior, however, then the general rule would likely be a.) choose the right plugins, and b.) record at the target rate for the project (CD, DVD, etc.).

Maybe another side-track from original subject but,

what would be the best way to keep this possible issue down or tracked? Are ther some software for to measure harmonic distortion (or other possible bad behaviouring) 'on the fly'? My method has been lately (if needed) using the C. Buddes Plug-in Analyzer (standalone software), which I use for measure plugins either one or several at a time in series or/and parallel, just in same order as those are set up in project. I know it's not the best possible method since data in measures is different from the data in project and from all other settings as like gain/level settings are not equal but, since I have not found better method yet ...

Junski

Depends

I know it's not the best possible method since data in measures is different from the data in project and from all other settings as like gain/level settings are not equal but, since I have not found better method yet ...

Maybe this guy found a good test without realizing he did:

http://forum.cakewalk.com/tm.asp?m=1070975

ORIGINAL: bitflipper
Since I always record at 44.1, I'd like to pose a (maybe dumb) question to those of you who record at higher sample rates: if you bring up a 96KHz wave on a spectrum analyzer, do you actually have anything in there above 20KHz? Or does the converter band-limit everything at 20KHz regardless of the sample rate? In other words, are you actually recording ultrasonic material? (OK, so that's 3 questions, sorry)

Sorry I don't have some spectrum shots to show you, but yes there is stuff above 20kHz. I normally record at 44.1 or 48 kHz depending on final delivery format, but I was curious about the whole 96 kHz thing as well. So I did some recordings of cymbals with an Earthworks mic (flat response out to 30 kHz) into a MOTU 828 mkII at 96 kHz sample rate. There was plenty of stuff above 20 kHz that got recorded. Then I tried recording a clarinet, and there were still plenty of harmonics being recorded above 20 kHz. They were down around -85 dBFS and lower, but they were there.

So at least with that combination of mics/converters there was plenty of material being recorded above 20 kHz.