anyone working at 96k?

[TapeOpLarry]

My first response was, "WTF? What year is it on this forum?" But then I thought I should be a bit nicer. I work at 96 kHz 24 bit if given free rein, and it always seems fine, so I keep doing it. In spectral views I see lots of action up there above 20 kHz, so in the name of overkill I just do it this way. I've been trying to formulate a Tape Op End Rant about having some habits where I just overshoot (technically) what is needed in order to focus my brain on the decisions that really matter, like arranging parts and gettin' the sounds to play together nice. Set and forget, because I'm eliminating the (possibly) lesser versions of what I'm doing. Things in this realm include using high end converters so I don't have to do some godforsaken A/B test with 30 different ones and make some fucking decision about insane things like that. Gear is pretty damn good these days, and I've sold off the crap that was intermittent or suspect! Thanks for letting me babble...

[digitaldrummer]

in the name of overkill I just do it this way

I suppose that's one of the reasons I do it too. Some people like the low-end, lo-fi path. I'm trying to make it as good as I can within the gear budget I have.
And if something I recorded ever makes it to a bigger market and they need a higher res recording, then I'd have it. Or if one of the hi-res streaming platforms ever really took off. in the meantime I'm happy with 24/96

[Colorblind]

I really haven’t ventured above 48K, because I’m most often starting sessions with drums and using more than 8 inputs simultaneously. Unless I’m misunderstanding, I think my Apogee AD-16 (what year IS this?) can only convert 8 channels when using optical at 96k, vs 16 channels at 48k.

[roscoenyc]

We've been doing 96k for a long time.
Sounds very good w our Burl rig.
That said, the largest percentage of the UA plugs (the modeled ones) only go to 48k.
Most of their original plugs go to 96. My OX box also only goes to 48. I use the digital outs with it at home.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

so what are your thoughts on plugin processing? it seems that the aliasing can be affected (reduced?) but I also understand that this varies greatly from plugin to plugin and many plugins restrict or filter the bandwidth anyway (and I for sure can't hear 24KHz...)

I know some ME's upsample everything that comes in because they feel plugins work better at the higher rates. When I tested this my conclusion was "meh", so I haven't adopted that practice. But yeah, if you look at any plugin with oversampling options in Plugin Doctor, they're going to show less aliasing the higher the oversampling. That said, these days the aliasing on any good plugin is already vanishingly low at 44.1, it's not really anything to worry about.

[Snarl 12/8]

I've been running my Alesis HD24XR in 96k, 12 channel mode since I got it. Never even tried 48. Which is what I used to use over 44k before I bumped up to 96. I swear I could hear a difference. It feels to me like converters that can do 96 do that natively and have to do math to do 44, but I've never read or heard anything to bear that out.

[AndersonSoundRecording]

I really haven’t ventured above 48K, because I’m most often starting sessions with drums and using more than 8 inputs simultaneously. Unless I’m misunderstanding, I think my Apogee AD-16 (what year IS this?) can only convert 8 channels when using optical at 96k, vs 16 channels at 48k.

Your AD16 can do 16 channels at 96k. It uses SMUX over the 4 lightpipe outputs, 4 channels each. However, you need something that can receive 4 lightpipe inputs, for instance: a Ferrofish A32 Dante or such.

I actually just did this on a session a few weeks ago. Hard to believe these nearly 20-year-old converters still sound better than a lot of the ones currently available.

[AndersonSoundRecording]

In spectral views I see lots of action up there above 20 kHz, so in the name of overkill I just do it this way.

I had been doing sessions at lower sample rates and always took note of the straight line "haircut" at the Nyquist limit in spectrographs - not unlike looking at a waveform that was brickwall-limited.

Once I had the ability to switch over to 96k, I checked the spectrograph and saw the energy way up there very slowly fading out and petering off before reaching the Nyquist limit. To be honest, I never looked back.

If it's solely for video, then I do 48k; but anything where the audio-only version is going to be important, it's 96k, so long as I can keep the track count at or below 32. For higher track counts than 32, my rig is still limited to 44k/48k

[I'm Painting Again]

this dude wrote a paper on optimal sample rate

https://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/l ... _audio.pdf

in my experience with the qualities of audio and picture - since all devices are different etc

i recommend listening to what you have carefully and hearing what you like the best - simple as that

[markjazzbassist]

this dude wrote a paper on optimal sample rate

https://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/l ... _audio.pdf

in my experience with the qualities of audio and picture - since all devices are different etc

i recommend listening to what you have carefully and hearing what you like the best - simple as that

i did a brief skim but didn't see a summation "thus the best is....", so what is it?

[vvv]

If it's solely for video, then I do 48k; but anything where the audio-only version is going to be important, it's 96k, so long as I can keep the track count at or below 32. For higher track counts than 32, my rig is still limited to 44k/48k

So have you had projects where the 96k and the 44k/48k are side by side, and do you perceive a difference?

[I'm Painting Again]

this dude wrote a paper on optimal sample rate

https://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/l ... _audio.pdf

in my experience with the qualities of audio and picture - since all devices are different etc

i recommend listening to what you have carefully and hearing what you like the best - simple as that

i did a brief skim but didn't see a summation "thus the best is....", so what is it?

There is an OPTIMAL sample rate; fast enough to accommodate everything we hear (the audible range). But exceeding this optimal sample rate will only reduce audio accuracy.

I think what Dan is saying is to pick the sample rate that is just enough to capture the frequency range that you want to hear for the program material

anything faster or slower can be shown scientifically to reduce fidelity -"higher speeds/ more bandwidth reduces the accuracy of the conversion" details he says are in his white paper titled "sampling theory"

Theoretically the maximum frequency that can be represented is half the sample rate. - it's slightly different depending on the converters and other factors so like using 44.1 you're recording practically up to about between 20-22 kHz

so at 96 you're recording up to around 48kHz apparently or at least the converters are attempting to sample that information

the more bandwidth you capture apparently the accuracy goes down

That's *I think* what he's saying - but I'm not an expert - seems to make sense tho

interesting side note young people can hear up near 20kHz but most adults can't hear that high they top out maybe 4k less on average

[I'm Painting Again]

all that said

I'm not sure how big a deal it is - it might be splitting hairs

i can't tell a difference in the normal ranges we use for audio

[digitaldrummer]

I still do a lot of sessions at 44.1/48, but I prefer to work at 96K these days when I have the choice. I think probably more important is that not all converters are the same, so until you level up to some modern converters (last 10 years for sure), none of this probably matters at all.

I've got a 4K capable TV but I don't always watch shows in 4K. Sometimes it might be 1080p, but it still looks better than the old TV did with 1080p... and at 4K, well even better yet. I think A/D and D/A converters have seen a similar improvement in quality in the past years. But if you have 20 or 30 year old converters (it's 2023 so that really is possible...) I bet my 44.1 sounds better than your 44.1

[MoreSpaceEcho]

My not-quite-20-year-old converters are Lavrys, you sure you wanna take that bet?