is 24/44.1 better than 24/48 ?

Depends on the quality of your audio hardware (ADC/DAC) and the target 'resolution' (Audio-CD: 16/44.1 - DVD-A 24/192) ... by recording using 'native' samplerate you don't need SRC then later (SRC changes the data in any case). If you get much better quality by using higher samplerates then just use it and remember use as good as possible SRC software then for to convert to the target samplerate.

As you already mentioned, 24-bit is recommendation in any case.

In your own situation, you can actually find this information quite easy by searching some measurement data for your card or by measuring it with RMAA software.

Here is one good example of the difference coming from bit-depth:



and here the difference coming from samplerate:



The card in measures were SB Audigy 2 which is not very usable for other than this type testings..


Junski

Yeah, you need to decide or find out what your target final file format has to be, and base it off of that, if possible. The main rule of thumb is that you want to do SRC (sample rate conversion) as RARELY as possible, preferably NEVER. SRC is BAD in general and should be avoided until absolutely necessary. And if you do HAVE to do SRC, then do your homework on a good program to do it... there was a thread recently on this topic in this fine forum so do a search. Not all SRC programs are equal, some of them are quite terrible to your audio. Fortunately, Sonar 6 appears to have a half-decent SRC algorithm. But you still should avoid it when possible.

Oh, and forgot to mention. Sample rate (48KHz, 44.1KHz, 96KHz, etc.) is obviously different than bit depth (16- 24- 32-bit, etc.). As for bit depth. Do all your projects in 24 bit at least. Then in the mastering stage for CDs, dither it down to 16 bit. For the mastering stage for other medium, you may want to deliver a different bit depth. Find out what the target final file format requires. But start with at least 24 bit.

If you are confused by the terminology, read up things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth

Good luck!

Good info guys.
Now I have read somewhere that acoustic instruments benefit the most at higher sample rates.
I do a lot of acoustic mixed with hard rock gut wrenching distortion guitar. :-) But in a very melodic way.

But my point being would I benefit recording my acoustic stuff at 88. nor 96 and the rest at 44.1?
Or should I recordd the acoustic at higher rates first and convert it by itself and then reimpliment it back into the tracks?

I know I read that Sonar will support different sample rates in one project but the project only reads on sample rate at the botton task bar. Right?
Or did I misunderstand that feature of Sonar. I use 6PE.

i tend to think that the DAT at 48khz just had more high freq information on it.

Well that makes sense. Basically what happens is that whenever you record an instrument at 44.1 KHz you're capturing frequencies at half that frequency (Nyquist frequency) which is 22.05 KHz. At 48 KHz the highest frequency captured is....you've guessed it....24 KHz. So you've gained more top end even though it's in an inaudible range.

Funny, it's inaudible, but that in no sense means you cannot hear it. Maybe time for some redefinement of terms, before kids think we're talking poop here. How DO you describe that audible inaudible difference properly?

Ok, I guess I deserved that for not explaining. Here's a piece of an article I found online by Michael Fraser:

"...the real benefit to 96kHz is not the increased resolution, but the MUCH shallower brickwall (anti-alias) filter afforded by the 48.1kHz Nyquist limit. With 44.1, you have to go from full signal acceptance at 20kHz, to ZERO acceptance at 22.05kHz (the Nyquist limit of a 44.1kHz sampling rate). That is, for a 24-bit signal, -144dB in about 1/10 of an octave (slightly less steep in practice). This is a VERY steep filter. For a 44.8kHz Nyquist limit, your filter goes from full acceptance at 20kHz to zero at 48.1kHz (MUCH less steep). This has REAL sonic benefits. BUT, you will have to downsample if you're distributing to CD, so the benefits might not last.

It's not a "numbers game". It's a real consideration for many people. For me, I use 24/44.1 and it sounds great."


Here's another one by Shawn Micheal:

"As for sample rate, there has been much research that proves that there is a major difference between the human ear ability to hear test tones and upper order harmonics. Music reproduced with a minimum bandwidth out to 70kHz is capable of flooding the brain with endorphins, whereas the brain releases NONE when maximum bandwidth only goes out to 20kHz. When I was a kid listening to music really was better, emotionally that is.

When recording I believe that the sample rate and bit depth used should be determined by the source material AND the final product."


Hope this explains it better .

How DO you describe that audible inaudible difference properly?

If it's truly inaudible, then by definition it cannot be sensed by the human ear and is therefore irrelevant. (I am not talking about subsonic frequencies that can be felt as vibrations but not heard, but rather frequencies above the range of hearing, theoretically > 20KHz but for most of us anything over 15KHz to 18KHz.)

However, ultrasonic frequencies are not necessarily inaudible except when they exist as pure sine waves. In the presence of other frequencies, anything other than a pure sine wave, ultrasonic components interact with each other and with audible frequencies, generating sum and difference frequencies that are indeed audible.

Remember that much of the texture of sound that we hear in an acoustical space is the result of room dynamics, resonances, and acoustical summations and cancellations. The interplay between all of the components result in sum and difference frequencies that account for a great deal of the richness of complex sounds.

Cymbals are a good example because even though their fundamental frequencies are fairly low (a large crash cymbal might be down around 1.5-2KHz) they generate a very complex waveform with frequency components that extend way out past audibility. Those high frequencies combine to form new frequencies that the cymbal itself did not generate, but that only came into existence as acoustical phenomena. It's the main reason cymbals sound so different live than when recorded. As those frequencies decay at different rates, the sum and difference frequencies ebb and flow, creating the rich dynamic texture that is the holy grail of every recordist to capture.

So there is a definite advantage to preserving "inaudible" frequencies during the analog phase of recording, especially for instruments that have a rich high-frequency component, such as cymbals and acoustic guitars. Of course, those frequencies will be completely eliminated during the A/D conversion process if your sample rate is 44.1KHz, as they must be. Consequently, you are only going to record audible frequencies below 20KHz no matter what pains you took to capture higher frequencies within the analog realm. But it shouldn't matter -- the acoustical magic has already happened prior to conversion, and those synthesized frequencies formed by the interaction of ultrasonics are already in there. As Nyquist theorized and Shannon proved mathematically, a 40KHz sample rate can accurately record and recreate any audible frequency.

The question, then, is what advantage there might be in preserving those ultrasonic frequencies throughout the entire process, including within the digital domain, so that they have a second shot at acoustical interaction at playback time. The answer is a definite "maybe". You'll hear the effect on some instruments, but not on others. Whatever portion of your music was derived from synthesizers and samplers will not benefit. Unless you are recording primarily live acoustical instruments, you'll just be wasting disk space.


Geez, I hope this is making any sense at all. I am on medication this week, as I am recuperating from a heart attack that whacked me this past Monday night. I'm supposed to kick back and do nothing, but blathering on about digital audio is as close to doing nothing as I can manage.

"...the real benefit to 96kHz is not the increased resolution, but the MUCH shallower brickwall (anti-alias) filter afforded by the 48.1kHz Nyquist limit. With 44.1, you have to go from full signal acceptance at 20kHz, to ZERO acceptance at 22.05kHz (the Nyquist limit of a 44.1kHz sampling rate). That is, for a 24-bit signal, -144dB in about 1/10 of an octave (slightly less steep in practice). This is a VERY steep filter. For a 44.8kHz Nyquist limit, your filter goes from full acceptance at 20kHz to zero at 48.1kHz (MUCH less steep). This has REAL sonic benefits. BUT, you will have to downsample if you're distributing to CD, so the benefits might not last.

This may be misleading, because while it's true that you need a very steep filter when sampling at 44.1KHz, nobody actually samples at that rate anymore. All A/D converters these days oversample at 64 or 128 times the sample rate, for the very reason cited in the Micheal Fraser quote -- so the anti-aliasing filter can have a gentle slope. When we say we're sampling at 44.1KHz, what we're really saying is that we're sampling at 5.6MHz and tossing away 127 of every 128 samples.

"As for sample rate, there has been much research that proves that there is a major difference between the human ear ability to hear test tones and upper order harmonics. Music reproduced with a minimum bandwidth out to 70kHz is capable of flooding the brain with endorphins, whereas the brain releases NONE when maximum bandwidth only goes out to 20kHz. When I was a kid listening to music really was better, emotionally that is.

This was a study done in Japan by some major audio manufacturer (like Sony or somebody) where an MRI was used to determine whether or not people could actually hear ultrasonic frequencies. Subjects were asked to A/B music with and without ultrasonics and to subjectively rate them. Subjects could NOT tell the difference, and there was no statistical correlation between their subjective ratings and ultrasonic content. However, the presence of ultrasonic components did cause a measurable effect in the MRI. Their conclusion was that we may be able to subliminally detect them, but that detection does not permeate our consciousness at all.

Found this beauty:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ashon/audio/Ultrasonics.htm

[edit] Well, losing a few kg's didn't hurt me, but no smoking - oops.

Do take good care of yourself, we can't miss your input here, going AWOL on us is out of the question, we're simply not having it.

ORIGINAL: bitflipper

Thanks, Rob. Yeh, this pretty much means I have to give up the last of my bad habits for good. I am doomed to a life without drugs, alcohol, tobacco, salt or saturated fat. Music is all I have left!

Ouch!

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. That really isn't that much relative to the position it appears in in the human listening range and the overall bandwidth of octaves we hear. Mathematically correct - I don't dispute that but I would add the following. The place where sample rate really matters (IMHO) is in stereo image. Keep in mind the human ear(s) can differentiate very minute shifts in localization at a broad range of frequencies. High sample rates reduce the effect of jitter and the introduction of 'blur' into the stereo image. Most of you know I do a lot of stereo baroque orchestra stuff (search on the Brockes Passion audio samples from last spring) and the improvements in stable image during capture and mix at high sample rates really matters. This is arguably why DSD and DXD are so popular among the classical elite in Europe right now. Neve, and others have agreed that PCM sample rates can reveal detail that is 'super aural' (Geoff Emorick is quoted as hearing a 3db bump at 54khz on a 'faulty' SSL console once) but while that might appear the benefits of super sample rates - that hardly translates to the average consumer and most folks playback gear. But to my point Stereo Image blurring can be heard with modest gear - and especially in earphones ala the iPod army that's out there.

Just my two cents about the importance of SR and the implied benefits of DSD and DXD.

-D

Keep in mind the human ear(s) can differentiate very minute shifts in localization at a broad range of frequencies.

Indeed, I think that's closely involved. From the link in my previous post:

"A second explanation that may not necessarily have to refute the 20 kHz hearing limit entails engineering details slightly beyond the scope of this class. A well-respected high fidelity digital audio company, dCS, has published a white paper describing the engineering issues involved with reproducing high-sample rate material and standard sample rate material. Due to what is called the Gibbs phenomenon, typical sharp anti-aliasing filtering for standard 22 kHz sample rate material as is necessitated by the Nyquist theorem results in a ringing transient response. The energy contained in this transient ringing "smears" or "defocuses" the sound, impairing the ability to localise sounds.

Higher sample rates mitigate this problem. dCS produces an ultra high-end upsampler and DAC that converts standard 16 bit/44 kHz CD material to interpolated 24 bits at 192 kHz, improving the sound by all subjective audiophile criteria - air, soundstage, imaging, ease - to no end. Given that there is no real information being added to the signal, the engineering explanation dCS offers gains credibility."

[edit:] @bitflipper
Yeah, I got lucky - has a few interesting links down below as well - my weekend's GONE already

[edit2]

I am recuperating from a heart attack

Please get well soon and take very good care of yourself.

We need you on this forum.

Best
John

24/96, at the smell of hope of ones fingers that lies my passion I hide under a blanket. But I heep that hidden.

I am recuperating from a heart attack

Please stay strong. My father has had 3 heart attacks... Cancer, and kemo... Tripple bypass.... And we play 18 holes of golf every Tuesday morning.. Stay strong, and nothing can stop you