[ryo[_2_]]

i'm going to engineer a recording toghether with a (very good) sound
engineer.
he has a *large* amount of hi-end machines (pres, microphones,
compressors...) and years of experience on pro-tools (hd).
i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use and he said:
"44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are useless. trust me.".
with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly surprised.

i'd like to read your opinion about.

--
ryo

[Mike Rivers]

ryo wrote:
i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use and he said:
"44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are useless. trust me.".
with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly surprised.

i'd like to read your opinion about.

For the most part, he's right. But there may be something to be gained
by going to 96 kHz depending on what you're recording and how you'll be
mucking with it in the mixing process. I wouldn't argue strongly for a
higher sample rate, particularly if the intent is release on CD or some
lower resolution format like MP3 or on-line streaming audio.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Richard Crowley]

"ryo" wrote ...
i'm going to engineer a recording toghether with a (very good) sound
engineer.
he has a *large* amount of hi-end machines (pres, microphones,
compressors...) and years of experience on pro-tools (hd).
i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use and he said:
"44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are useless. trust me.".
with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly surprised.

i'd like to read your opinion about.

Can *YOU* hear the difference between 44K and 192K?

Sounds like a very practical fellow who doesn't fall for the latest
whizzy gadget or fad.

[Scott Dorsey]

ryo wrote:
i'm going to engineer a recording toghether with a (very good) sound
engineer.
he has a *large* amount of hi-end machines (pres, microphones,
compressors...) and years of experience on pro-tools (hd).
i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use and he said:
"44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are useless. trust me.".
with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly surprised.

i'd like to read your opinion about.

For the most part, this is true. Higher sampling rates give you wider
bandwidth. For the most part, wider bandwidth just gives you more trouble
with noise and intermodulation distortion, since you probably can't hear
ultrasonics.

There have been a lot of studies about ultrasonic perception, and what it
comes down to is that nobody knows if they really make a difference or not,
but if they do it can't be a huge one.

And I can tell you that you aren't going to get anything above 20 KHz
coming out of an SM-57 in the first place.... so being able to record
it is not useful.

Anyway, you're going to release the thing on a 44.1ksamp/sec CD at the
end, right?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 3:38*pm, "ryo" wrote:
i'm going to engineer a recording toghether with a (very good) sound
engineer.
he has a *large* amount of hi-end machines (pres, microphones,
compressors...) and years of experience on pro-tools (hd).
i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use and he said:
"44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are useless. trust me.".
with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly surprised.

i'd like to read your opinion about.

--
*ryo

Just from listening, I found that going to a bit rate of 24 bits was
more of a factor in the sound than going from 44.1 Khz to a higher
rate.

[Paul Stamler]

"ryo" wrote in message
...
i'm going to engineer a recording toghether with a (very good) sound
engineer.
he has a *large* amount of hi-end machines (pres, microphones,
compressors...) and years of experience on pro-tools (hd).
i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use and he said:
"44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are useless. trust me.".
with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly surprised.

i'd like to read your opinion about.

I don't know whether there's any sonic difference with higher sampling rate
systems; if I hear it, it's very small (not nearly as big a difference as I
hear between 16 and 24 tracks). As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still
out on whether there's any real improvement recording and playing back at
higher rates. But if the final product is to be a CD, then you have to
downconvert a higher sampling rate to 44.1kHz anyway, and I have yet to hear
a sampling rate converter that's completely free of audible artifacts.
Someday there will probably be one, but we ain't there yet. So I record
everything (musical) at 44.1kHz to avoid downconverting.

An old rule from analog often applies to digital too: The less you mess with
a signal, the less you hurt it.

Peace,
Paul

[ryo[_2_]]

thanks all for your answers.

and yes, of course the final medium will be a normal audio cd, so the real
question was "could higher sampling frequencies help the final result, in
the normal recording-editing-mixing-mastering sequence?".

anyway, after an initial surprise, i'm sure that 24bits are more important
than using higher sampling freqs, that the audio cds are 44/16 and that
avoiding frequency conversions is a good thing.
but i'm glad receiving your opinions.

regarding richard crowley's question ("Can *YOU* hear the difference between
44K and 192K?"), i think that in a commercial product i could even not be
able to hear the difference, but if the difference should be there, i'd
switch to 192 ;-)

regards

--
ryo

[Arny Krueger]

"ryo" wrote in message


i'm going to engineer a recording together with a (very
good) sound engineer.

he has a *large* amount of hi-end machines (pres,
microphones, compressors...) and years of experience on
pro-tools (hd).

i asked him which sampling frequency he's going to use
and he said: "44khz/24bits. higher frequencies are
useless. trust me.".

Sounds like a very knowlegably guy.

with all this 192khz gear around, i was strongly
surprised.

Just about every new piece of pro digital audio gear does at least 24/96,
while 24/192 gear is a little less common.

So, just about all of us are looking at a lot of 24/96 and 24/192 gear, and
very many of us are setting it for 44 or 48 kHz sampling.

There's a recent article in the Journal Of The Audio Engineering Society
(very authoritative and peer-reviewed) that basically says that sample rates
higher than 44.1 KHz have no audible effects on recordings for distribution
to consumers.

[Ben Bradley]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:32:17 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote:


I don't know whether there's any sonic difference with higher sampling rate
systems; if I hear it, it's very small (not nearly as big a difference as I
hear between 16 and 24 tracks).

Bits, not tracks, but you knew that...

As far as I'm concerned, the jury's still
out on whether there's any real improvement recording and playing back at
higher rates. But if the final product is to be a CD, then you have to
downconvert a higher sampling rate to 44.1kHz anyway, and I have yet to hear
a sampling rate converter that's completely free of audible artifacts.
Someday there will probably be one, but we ain't there yet. So I record
everything (musical) at 44.1kHz to avoid downconverting.

Can you hear artifacts of 88.2kHz converted to 44.1kHz? (presuming
a good conversion algorithm, of course) I even forget if 88.2 is even
commonly available in audio interfaces, as the popular "oversampling"
rates for audio recording are multiples of 48kHz. As one might expect,
it's a DSP maxim that a 2-to-1 or other small-integer-ratio sample
rate conversions are a lot easier to do (and to do WELL) than between
"odd" rates not related by simple ratios.

With all this in mind (though I doubt I could personally hear the
artifacts you mention), it's regrettable that 88.2 isn't more popular.


An old rule from analog often applies to digital too: The less you mess with
a signal, the less you hurt it.

Peace,
Paul

[David@liminal]

On Sep 14, 2:49*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

For the most part, this is true. *Higher sampling rates give you wider
bandwidth. *For the most part, wider bandwidth just gives you more trouble
with noise and intermodulation distortion, since you probably can't hear
ultrasonics.


I read an article by Roger Nichols (I think in the UK magazine Sound
On Sound) where he asserted that higher sample frequencies make a more
positive difference to the bottom end of the frequency spectrum than
the top. If that sounds counter-intuitive, he did give an explanation
as to why this might be that convinced me (in theory) at the time, but
I can't remember what it was. My limited use of 88.2 and 96khz took
such a toll on my computer that I never got around to really putting
this to the test. Any thoughts?

DP

[jwvm]

On Oct 1, 6:24*pm, "David@liminal" wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:49*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:



For the most part, this is true. *Higher sampling rates give you wider
bandwidth. *For the most part, wider bandwidth just gives you more trouble
with noise and intermodulation distortion, since you probably can't hear
ultrasonics.

I read an article by Roger Nichols (I think in the UK magazine Sound
On Sound) where he asserted that higher sample frequencies make a more
positive difference to the bottom end of the frequency spectrum than
the top. *If that sounds counter-intuitive, he did give an explanation
as to why this might be that convinced me (in theory) at the time, but
I can't remember what it was. My limited use of 88.2 and 96khz took
such a toll on my computer that I never got around to really putting
this to the test. *Any thoughts?

DP

Perhaps he felt that the antialiasing filter was not fully effective
and there was a small amount of leakage above the Nyquist limit. The
resulting aliasing would be primarily at low frequencies.

[Scott Dorsey]

David@liminal wrote:
I read an article by Roger Nichols (I think in the UK magazine Sound
On Sound) where he asserted that higher sample frequencies make a more
positive difference to the bottom end of the frequency spectrum than
the top. If that sounds counter-intuitive, he did give an explanation
as to why this might be that convinced me (in theory) at the time, but
I can't remember what it was. My limited use of 88.2 and 96khz took
such a toll on my computer that I never got around to really putting
this to the test. Any thoughts?

My thoughts are mostly that there are big problems with confounding
variables and that a lot of converters sound different at different
sample rates for reasons due to internal converter distortion troubles.
So I can believe he heard something, I'm just not sure if what he heard
is beneficial or degrading, or what to do about it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."