Best Sample Rate?

[nickb2009]

Whatever works for you?

We've been having some discussion about what the "ideal" sample rate is for using MTS. Are there any real benefits that anyone would notice in using rates such as 88.2/96Khz? At present we use 48KHz. And most of the work is now done with VST instruments.

Would appreciate some experiences and feedback.

Thanks

[Mac]

I use mainly 24/44.1 for most of my work.

Some people use 24/48 because it is a direct /2 of 96KHz and converting any 96KHz imported files is arguably "cleaner" in the math.

The 24 bit depth yields the advantage of outstanding dynamic range and not using the higher bitrates makes for lots smaller filesize, which can translate to more tracks and less problems, less taxing on the disk resources.

Since the target medium is likely either CD or mp3 file, which must be 16/44.1, I don't see any advantage to recording higher than 44.1 at this time. You would only have to convert it downward anyway. Converting the 24 to 16 at the end is a piece of cake for the softwares.


--Mac

[nickb2009]

Thanks Mac......

Coming from the old school of bouncing recordings between 2 cassette recordings (with not-too-bad results) I am beginning to believe these high sample rates are just a selling ploy to make you buy newer equipment. A few quickly conducted tests and no real evidence anyone can even notice the difference between recordings made at 44.1 and 96KHz....

[sinbad]

I'm surprised that this hasn't sparked a lively discussion here, in any other forum you would not have got away so lightly. Normally there are heated arguments surrounding this theme, you can read articles about sound quality versus bitrate etc until the cows come home, but you won't find concensus. It all boils down to what you can afford, and what type of music you want to make I guess. In a digital world, theoretically the higher the resolution, the nearer you get to the original. In practice, if you add to that all the tollerances and quality fluctuations of components, then you are entering an esoteric surreal situation of subjective opinions and ideals. In this world the bigger and more expensive, the better! I think we should keep in mind the reason why we make music in the first place, because we enjoy it. Once we start to record it, it never sounds the same anyway. (If it sounds better we're cheating ) There is an argument for higher frequencies and bit rates for the raw audio data to give you the bit depth for adding effects, or avoiding clipping etc. It is like asking yourself whether you need a Neumann mic if you're going to render everything down to 16/44,1. If you like the sound, then you need one!
Here is an article about sound quality in todays world. It also reflects on the quality of life I suppose. Who has heard a live Stradivari? not many of us, who has seen the Mona Lisa? But there again there are a lot of town kids have never seen a cow or a pig, that's life,

and my 2 euro cents.
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_hear_hear/

[nickb2009]

Thanks Sinbad,

A very interesting article.....I'm sure perceptions and opinion has a lot to do with these matters. I know there was a lot of research into this conducted by Edward C. Carterette and Morton P. Friedman, which has touched on the whole science of the human hearing and emotional responses.

"objectivity"....... I'm always reminded of a former music producer who loved bands/musicians who asked for the recording to be made "louder" but hated them when they asked him to make it sound "better"......"please explain what you mean by better?"

"Mona Lisa"....Have to confess to have seen it. We live in Southern England and a quick ferry ride to France is a nice day out. Although I'm not sure the Louvre actually have put the real one on display. All I can say, it was a good job Da Vinci was not paid by the quantity of the work. How many years did he take to paint it?

Nick B

[Mac]

My fav are the ones who insist on 24/96 as being "best" -- and then proceed to record half the track count using 16 bit synth or samples...






--Mac

[sinbad]

I know people who buy expensive amps to hook up to their iPods for pristine listening in the living room. It's what grabs ya I guess

[Support]

I've heard a Stradivari live for half a concert. Then she broke a string and she continued on another violin. The difference was at least 10 times the difference between 96 kHz and 44.1 kHz

[nickb2009]

"Stradivari".......Isn't that something to do with the back end of a horse being scraped over the inside of a sheep? Personally I'm going to wait for the VST version.

[Support]

Don't forget to tie the sheep part to a tree!

Looks like your VST version is available already: http://www.garritan.com/stradivari.html

Haven't tried it myself, but I know GPO is way cool, so I guess the Stradivari is too.

[nickb2009]

BLIMEY

I was only joking about the VST Stradivari......interesting though......I suppose I'd have to use the 192KHz sample rate to make sure I capture all the tonal characteristics of the Strad

Thinking about Stradivari's, I remember a BBC "Horizon" documentary (featuring IRCAM, the human perception of music, computer music, etc) a few years ago. It seems Strads are good either because of diamonds in the varnish, the mineral content of the river water in which the logs were floated down to Cremona, or a combination of both. Worryingly it surmised Stradivari violins were reaching their "sell by" date. I suggest eBay would be a good place to offload any at that point.

[Mac]

The real Stradivarius study project, circa 1998 or so, found out by using several modern measuring techniques coupled with some rather old technologies like dial calipers and such, plus use of computer modeling, that the real secret to Antonio Stradivarius' loud violins (that is really what is coveted, the fact that these instruments are able to convert more of the string energy to moving air) -- is a result of the way he carved the top and the back and got a special "wiggle" from the bridge, which excited the top a lot more than others.

Still the stories of the special varnish, etc. lives on. The real truth is that ALL varnishes and finishes during that time were home made and the recipes reflect all sorts of difficulties in the obtaining of chemicals and substances, location, etc. Wasn't like you could go down to the local Ace Hardware and pick up a can of Formby's or the like. (grin)

There were a couple of other violin makers from the town of Cremona who made loud violins also, many were contemporaries and many of their violins are now enjoying the status that they should.

How do I know about all this?

I was one of the research engineers who were approached by one of the scientists and asked if I could design a sensor that they could use to enter data into computers quickly and accurately as they were allowed to actually touch a real Strad when the time came.

Can't tell you about the sensor design, it is still proprietary and is now used in all sorts of technologies where exact noninvasive 3D measurements right down to the vibratory level are the goal.


--Mac

[submission]

If your final recording is going to be in 44100hz ( CD audio ) record in 44100Hz , you gain nothing by recording in 88200Hz then converting down to 44100Hz.

The only way the audio quality of an 88200Hz or 96000Hz file can be heard is by playing the "ACTUALL" 88200Hz / 96000Hz file itself .

Also , don't record in odd sample rates like 48000Hz and 96000hz if converting to 44100Hz , Because the blocks of samples per second can not posibly line up , so the converters must make an assumtion as to where the sample might have been ( simply a computer mathmatical guess ) , 48000Hz is for DVD audio .

As for Bit rate ( 16bit , 24 bit , 32 etc ) higher bit rates will give the audio more head room for adding FX , etc .

Submission

[NystagmusE]

you guys are funny hehehehe