Sample Rates Overrated?

Discussion in 'DAW' started by Davey Jones, Apr 21, 2016.

  1. artwerkski

    artwerkski Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    683
    Likes Received:
    544
    Location:
    Neptune
    @lukehh spot on. (awsome diagram btw!) But thats temporary, the playback device structure will considerably change over the next 5, 10 years and although mp3 culture will most definetly not be a thing of the past I think in 'audio-land' 44.1k wav / flac will be the overall, general format. Maybe higher, who knows.
     
  2. Rasputin

    Rasputin Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    233
    You said that you were screwed if you weren't recording in @ super-high specs. I choose to disagree with that because either the additional information being captured is non-existent or of extremely diminishing returns.

    To use your analogy: What are you gaining by capturing a VHS tape at 4K? Nothing. You can up-rez it if you want to add FX/sharpening/etc. but on capture there's no data beyond a certain degree, right? Even 1080P is overkill here, so what's the point of 4K with such a source?

    If people (we make audio/music for humans, right?) can only hear up to 20kHz then what useful info are we capturing beyond 20kHz? Nothing. Now, some converters or their filters may behave differently @ very high sample rates but that's a ADC design issue and nothing inherent to 96/192kHz properties, right? And even if there's truly some universal positive benefit to very high sample rate capture, then it's of such nebulous nature that no two audio pros can even agree on the hows or whys of it. So how is Animal Planet going to tell when I take my 44.1kHz converter captured material and output it at 96kHz?

    Now, 24-bit is something I'd advocate. Converter specs and human ear response warrants that. But capturing beyond that is a waste of time due to thermal noise of the circuit. Of course, as I said previously, upon entering your project then your DAW mixer is upping the bit-depth anyway, so exporting to whatever you want (to appease the BluRay/HDTV gods, etc.) is a non-issue. You can do pretty much all the DAW manipulation you want at that point and not suffer the quantization effects, but that's by virtue of the summing bus bit-depth and not because you captured at some excessively high bit-depth.

    My point is that using your converters @ 44.1kHz/48kHz & 24-bit is going to suffice for anything. It doesn't matter what specs the people you're collaborating with are demanding for a project because all the relevant info on capture has been captured.

    I can easily have a 44.1kHz/24-bit vocal WAV on my HDD and pass you a 192kHz/32-bit output and you're not going to have any way to prove, disprove, or even suspect that I didn't capture it that way. There's no dithering, so you're not going to be able to hear that. The noise floor is way under what you could possibly hear. There's nothing you're going to hear above 20kHz. So what are you going to point to?
     
  3. Iggy

    Iggy Rock Star

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    434
    Location:
    The stage, man
    Thanks for clearing that up! What you're saying goes back to the difference of opinion of whether or not recording something at sample rates and bit depths beyond 44.1 kHz/16-bit, and you appear to be of the belief that it doesn't. You do realize that some people argue even recording at the highest digital resolution possible doesn't match the resolution of good analog tape, right? You can argue the differences among the different formats all day long. Unfortunately, I'm on the side that strongly believes there is an audible difference between the sample rates and bit depths. Have you yourself ever experimented with mixing a song at 96 kHz/24-bit, then executing the same mix by recorded and mixing at 44.1 kHz/16-bit? I'm not talking about down-conversion or up-conversion, I'm talking about recording audio at 96 kHz/24-bit, mixing the audio at the same resolution, then mixing down to a two-track audio file at the same resolution so that you end up at the same resolution through the entire process … then doing the exact same thing again, except at 44.1 kHz/16-bit (note: for this experiment to work, you'd have to use a MIDI project, as there would be too many variables trying to record the same live instruments and vocals twice)? There is most definitely a difference: at a higher resolution, you have more headroom and extended definition, especially in bass and high-end reproduction. If you yourself can't hear it (or definitely see it, since you can even hold up your down-converted waveform against the higher-resolution one and see that one has more headroom than the other), it might be a problem with your monitoring setup. There are recording and post engineers out there with what I can only assume is dog hearing and they can definitely hear the difference.

    But that's apples and oranges; much better ears than either of ours are debating this thing ad nauseum every day. What I'm still unclear about is why anyone would be against recording and mixing at higher quality … even if you yourself can't hear the difference. If your computer can do it and your interface can do it, why would you voluntarily choose to record and mix at a resolution they weren't even recording and mixing at when the first digital recorders came out back in the Eighties?!? Yes, I completely understand that you believe there is no difference, but I can promise you that no professional audio facility on Earth is recording and mixing at that resolution -- maybe they just enjoy wasting their time with "imaginary" sample rates and bit-depths that were invented by Big Audio for the purpose of making them blow thousands of dollars on high-end boutique converters and DSD decks? Despite the fact that the professional recording industry is in such bad shape at the moment, they would, going by your argument, be much better off just recording through the mini-plug of a MacBook Pro at 44.1 kHz/16-bit?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
  4. Rasputin

    Rasputin Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    233
    I know Neil Young believes in analog voodoo :)

    Seeing more headroom doesn't mean anything if you're not using it; it's just empty bits of potential. Does capturing a signal at 32-bit sound better than capturing at 24-bit when the signal is at the same level, even though there will be visibly more headroom? Nope. Like I said, capturing at anything beyond 24-bit is pointless because of the limitation of electronic engineering principles. You can theoretically capture a louder signal, but it's pointless because of inherent circuit noise. Now once you've thrown it into your DAW... that's a different story. But everyone (hopefully) is using a DAW that is doing all the magic it needs to at a bit-depth higher than whatever you're outputting at render, so whether or not Animal Planet is requesting 32-bit or not is a moot point.

    Please explain to me scientifically what you could possibly be hearing in a 192kHz file that cannot be present in a 48kHz file. How can extending frequencies captured into the ultrasonic range give better bass response?

    Your point that this could be debated to death by much better ears is exactly my point: Extremely diminishing or non-existing returns for very high sample rates.

    As far as why anyone would be against recording at excessive rates: file size (memory, storage, and transmission), CPU time, loss of ADAT/Lightpipe converter channels, legacy software, and not wanting to replace hardware when there's no benefit.

    Sure, some of those issues become less-and-less important with the diminishing cost of computing, but they're still issues.

    I think it's important to point out (although I know people already have) that there are valid reasons for internally processing at oversampled rates and high bit-depths. That's different than recording or listening to 192kHz/32-bit from your DAC.

    People are going to believe what they want to believe though, surely. I mean, if you're getting better results from your converters at that rate, then maybe they work better at that rate. Or maybe it's all placebo. Either way, have at. It's not like either camp is detrimentally affecting the other, aside from marketing pressure perhaps.

    Recording through a miniplug speaks to converter quality and nothing else. And no, I don't advocate recording 16-bit although if recorded exceedingly well (maximizing your bits) then it's certainly far from detrimental. It's far easier to maximize that 155dB or so of relevant headroom in 24-bit.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2016
  5. Matt777

    Matt777 Rock Star

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    410
    I think you misunderstood my point - there was no “point”. I only asked a question (and I ask people that supposedly know more than I do): I have an external card that goes up to 24/48k. Should I ditch it (because it can’t do 192k – ergo I’m “screwed”). Should a new card be my first(!) investment. And I think you know what I meant by “proper” (take one between 500-3000$ and read the specs – that’s what I meant). And let’s suppose there is no external recording going on – “EDM”, whatever that is, “in the box” production.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2016
  6. Iggy

    Iggy Rock Star

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    434
    Location:
    The stage, man
    Don't be fooled -- I think most of, if not all of us, know one or two things the others don't, but we're all more or less on the same footing. ;)

    Does the resulting music you currently make with your card sound good? If so, I don't believe you're screwed. It sounds like you're doing so out of necessity, and certain types of music, especially EDM (lots of distortion, a solid-bar audio waveform after mastering), aren't as dependent on high-fidelity as orchestral, rock, etc., things with more dynamics and a wider audio spectrum. Should you feel the need to branch out, a 192 kHz/24-bit interface can be had for a lot less than $500 these days, just to get you in the ballgame. Deals are everywhere. However, I've turned in stuff that was recorded at 48 kHz/24-bit and tried up-converting to 96 kHz, only to have audio engineers tell me they could hear conversion artifacts (HOW?!?), or they could see it on broadcast scopes (again, HOW?!?). I'm not doing any EDM, nor am I mastering to a solid bar waveform, so my transgressions might have been more obvious. But 48 kHz/24-bit that is most likely going to end up a 44.1 kHz/16-bt .mp3 at 320 kbps (more likely, a spectrum-destroying 128 kbps) or on a CD is fine. It's when a post engineer asks you for a film score or a broadcast master at least at 48 kHz/16-bit (or 24-bit, depending), or when the day comes when 96 kHz/24-bit is considered the "standard" for streaming audio (or the same post engineer asks you for music mastered at 96 kHz/24-bit for Blu-ray), that you will likely encounter problems.

    Let me clarify again: it's dangerous to say "You can record at 44.1 kHz/16-bit and then just up-convert when somebody asks for higher quality." Because 1) it's not "higher quality", it's the same 44.1 kHz/16-bit file you recorded, except now, there's conversion artifacts and the file is bigger and 2) people with much better ears and much better monitoring systems, not to mention, a lot more experience than we can dream of can hear the difference. Anyway, you weren't asking that. It sounds like you're at least taking advantage of the limits of your card and recording, mixing and mastering at the highest fidelity you possibly can, which happens to be the advice any recording engineer would give you.
     
  7. Rasputin

    Rasputin Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    233
    That likely speaks to the quality of the SRC than the supposed difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz. Try SoX or iZotope next time and see what happens.
     
  8. Iggy

    Iggy Rock Star

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,092
    Likes Received:
    434
    Location:
    The stage, man
    I do all my SRC via iZotope M-BIT+, always the highest settings (shaping: Ultra, etc.). However, we're not even talking about SRC, we're talking about up-conversion; specifically, you claiming that you can take a 44.1 kHz/16-bit file, up-convert it to 96 kHz/24- or 32-bit and that no one would know the difference between that or a file that originated as a 96 kHz/24-bit audio mix.
     
  9. korte1975

    korte1975 Guest

    why need 144db headroom when the music today has max 6db dynamics ? also, the music from the last 10-15 years was so rubbish that when i think that they were made with high end converters and $1000 microphones and pro tools hd rigs i have to throw up
     
  10. phloopy

    phloopy Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,830
    Likes Received:
    1,749
    This might be said already - havent had time to read all comments!

    I guess it´s basically in the recording phase it´s importent you are working with high sample rates for getting as much "space" in the sound as you posseble can!

    Personally I´ve downrated several Kontakt libraries from 24/48 to 16/44 and frankly I cant hear any loss of quality - might be my increasing loss of hearing :)

    In this way I have a bunch of great libraries wich only fill up about 1/4 space compaired to the original size!

    Sample rates might be a little overrated - at least in some cases!!
     
  11. Rasputin

    Rasputin Platinum Record

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    233
    Well, clearly you give huge weight to whatever you hear or think you're hearing in your workflow. I think it's negligible. We'll have to agree to disagree because we're simply in an intractable position. People will have to use their own brains and decide for themselves, I suppose.
     
  12. RMorgan

    RMorgan Audiosexual

    Joined:
    May 17, 2014
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    508
    88,2kHz is allegedly better than 96kHz for music, because music is mostly down-sampled to 44,1kHz, so you have an exact 2x ratio, which is supposedly beneficial for nerdy mathematical reasons.

    I usually record at the highest quality as possible, but use 44kHz 24bit when mixing. If you use these settings, remember to turn on the oversampling option on your plugins, to avoid aliasing. Most plugins will cause quite a lot of aliasing at 44kHz, specially those which deliberately add harmonics, like vintage emulations.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Interesting Interesting x 1
    • List
  13. midi-man

    midi-man Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Messages:
    1,592
    Likes Received:
    796
    I also use 48 k and 24 bit. To me 48 sounds better and the 24 bit helps with the noise floor.
     
  14. Von_Steyr

    Von_Steyr Guest

    Sometimes i like to retreat to my 48bit 384khz mobile interface.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • List
  15. 5teezo

    5teezo Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    2,063
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    Do professionally mixed and mastered Audio CDs sound "squashed and muddy" to you ? To me, they don't ;)
     
  16. Von_Steyr

    Von_Steyr Guest

    Most people also listen to audiophile grade material to 12$ headphones.
    Most people dont notice a difference between an analogue and digital recording.
    Most people ehh...just enjoy some master reel italo disco mix ...:wink:
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  17. timer

    timer Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    136
    Words of wisdom.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  18. timer

    timer Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    224
    Likes Received:
    136
    Could someone please post technical info on today's standard sample rates?
    Last time I checked CD master was 44,1k, DVD and mp3 used to be 48k, are they still?
     
  19. 5teezo

    5teezo Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2012
    Messages:
    2,063
    Likes Received:
    1,172
    LOL, you dodged. When you grew up, there wasnt even 24 bit out and now you wanna be like super audiophile on some analog tape shit via youtu.be link. Real reel audiophile. Lmao
     
  20. Von_Steyr

    Von_Steyr Guest

    Yes,i was very scientific with my answer,wasnt it obvious?:like:
    [​IMG]
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Sample Rates Overrated Forum Date
UVI Workstation question about Sample Rates Software Feb 15, 2024
arturia CMI V lockup on oddbal sample rates Software May 18, 2023
Kontakt Libraries - Sample Rates Kontakt Oct 7, 2021
Gregory Scott (The House of Kush) on high sample rates Mixing and Mastering Oct 3, 2020
Help with sample rates.. Working with Sound May 25, 2016
Loading...