Drums @ 48khz

Studio2roll · Post by **Studio2roll** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:12 pm

I'm getting ready to record some new songs with my band. The drums are going to take up 9 tracks, and with my current equipment that means I'll have to record them at no higher than 48khz.

I was just reading some technical papers today where they showed that a 10khz square wave is only really recorded accurately at 192khz, that at 96khz it's somewhat accurate, and below 96khz all you'll get is a sign wave.

Now if I record the drums live at 48khz and then upsample them to 96khz (the highest I can go), it won't fix any of those upper frequency inaccuracies. But, and here's my question, if I then run those tracks individually out through an aphex exciter and then back into 96khz would it make up for some of the lost definition because of it's "Discriminate Transient Harmonics Generator"? Or would Sony's "Transient Modulator" Plug-in do a similar job?

Or am I wasting my time wondering about this and should just record everything at 48khz and leave it that way till mastering?

BradG · Post by **BradG** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:48 pm

You read too much.

drumsound · Post by **drumsound** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:09 pm

Just make it sound great at 48K (or 44.1).

0-it-hz · Post by **0-it-hz** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:50 pm

How many squre wave drums do you have?

I think you will be fine, there are so many other things to worry about...

Anyway, thanks to the iPod and earbuds in general your audience is mostly deaf above 10k

problem solved.

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:56 pm

I think if you tried all the conversion out there to try..you would find that the quality(s) of each individual converter will make more of a difference in overall sound quality/accuracy than than any of the rates or numbers..there are a lot of other factors involved in ADDA conversion other than the sample rate it captures at..

syrupcore · Post by **syrupcore** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:30 pm

agreed, don't sweat it. if you're worried about it, dump a mic! (you must be the drummer) ;)

the riff · Post by **the riff** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:52 am

I've done a lot of recording at 44.1 and 48k and it's never been a problem. The only reason I record at 88.2k (my preference) is because I "can"...

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:43 am

Record at 48khz, the bit depth is a bigger issue, record at 24 bit, other than that you're just wasting time and hard drive space. Record, @ 48khz and 24 bit,a guitar squarewaving at 10khz and then not, see if you can tell the diff. I'll save you some time.
You CAN.
I'd still futz with the exciter though, they're fun, don't overdo it.

Studio2roll · Post by **Studio2roll** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 6:53 am

Thanks for the replies everybody.

I'm not the drummer, I'm the singer, but I'm one of those "the drum sound makes the recording for me" guys.

I made our entire last record at 48khz and it sounded great, I'm just always looking to improve what I'm doing for my own listening pleasure. I know it won't make much of a difference to the people who will buy it.

I'm not looking to record square wave drums either. The square wave was just what they used to test different converters and rates. On the pics of the oscilliscope it just showed that the rise time, and tracing of the 1st and 3rd harmonics was pretty accurate for 192khz, and DSD. For 96khz the rise time was slower, but that under 96khz it didn't even track as a square wave, it was pure sine wave.

I do think that lower track count recordings I've done in 96khz sound better and have more defined low-end and transients than the 48khz recordings I've done. I trust my ears, not my eyes, but I haven't had time to experiment with the idea, and was wondering if it's worth my time at all.

I know I'm going on and on...
Anyways thanks again for the replies.

vsr600 · Post by **vsr600** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:37 am

just for the record so there's no such thing as a true square wave in air. The vorticity and viscosity of air (and Euler's equation) just won't let that happen. You can however have a sawtooth wave in air (in the case of a shockwave) but that requires several hundred dB of SPL at the normal audible frequencies to happen and you're just not gonna do that with a drumkit....

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:59 pm

vsr600 wrote:just for the record so there's no such thing as a true square wave in air. The vorticity and viscosity of air (and Euler's equation) just won't let that happen. You can however have a sawtooth wave in air (in the case of a shockwave) but that requires several hundred dB of SPL at the normal audible frequencies to happen and you're just not gonna do that with a drumkit....

I love this guy.

Some people do record square wave drums these days, so, y'know.
I find that the mind willlead us to think things sound better than they do because the "could" because they're better or more expensive "sometimes" but especially us people who hear too much. A loooong A/B session usually cures this.
That said, I'm ordering my 7th circle pre's.
guilt.

joel hamilton · Post by **joel hamilton** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:10 pm

Well recorded with a nice device running at 44.1 "beats" a shitty recording made on crappy equipment running at 96k in my experience.

Well recorded with a nice device running at 96 sounds nice, but no better than well recorded with a nice device running at 44.1.

I am talking about multitrack information.

FOr a stereo mix, I like 88.2 for some reason.

Personal preference. Enjoy.

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:04 am

Hail! and Well put!
God Bless Joel Hamilton!

fremitus · Post by **fremitus** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:55 pm

word word. cheers to studio2roll for defending his quesion with intellegence and not just some babble that a sweetwater rep could quote you from a one-sheet.

96 is great, no doubt, but not always economical, and even though it's easy to point at something like the ADAT revoluton as being a lame time as far as recording, there are PLENTY of great discs in my collection recorded on far inferior equipment to whatever you're using that even gives you the option of 96.

go kickass at 48...

Mark Alan Miller · Post by **Mark Alan Miller** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:40 pm

Yep - go get the best tones you can at 48k and don't lose any sleep over it.
Tune those drums well, be careful with your mic placement, do everything you can to make the source better and you'll see a lot of improvement. That is, all things being the same, a higher samplng rate won't get you very much, but a little extra care in the source will get you tons.

Message Board

Drums @ 48khz

Drums @ 48khz

Who is online