Is the difference b/w 44.1 and 96k really that huge?

[ScienceOne]

Can you really tell that much of a difference b/w 24 bit 44.1 recordings and 24 big 96 k recordings? What is the huge sonic difference?

[bblackwood]

With good converters there isn't much difference at all...

[electrofloss]

no, the difference isn't that huge to my ears, but i'm sure someone will tell you that i'm crazy. i do, however, find the difference between 16 and 24 bits to be huge. i just switched over and find it hard to listen to my old 16 bit stuff.

[CDSager]

I will second the notion that the resolution makes a much bigger difference than the sample rate. DVDs sound sooo good thanks to 24 bits. I have heard recordings done at 32 bits and it is deffinitly sweet.


Rock and Roll

[joel hamilton]

The difference is only really apparent when recording things with long decay tails, or delicate tibres.

I have recorded a rock band at 96k, mixed to 1/4" and captured the sound of the two track at 192k and I really noticed the difference in punch, separation, and clarity. I also noticed that I had no drive space left for anything else....

The day I got the HD3 rig set up at the studio, I recorded a bunch of stuff at all the supported sample rates. The difference between 192 and 44.1 with a bunch of mics on a drum kit was not worth the drive space, but sounded good nonetheless.

I have come to like using 48k for most sessions that are staying in house. I like the way the cymbals sound better at 48.... might just be me, though.

As always, if you record crap at 192 or 44.1.... it is crap.

[Shawn Simmons]

I can hear a difference between 48 and 96 Khz. I A/B'd the two having a friend perform the same song (acoustic guitar and vox) at 48 and 96. For this type of music, the difference was very noticable. At 96, there was more top end, a smoother top end, the bottom was fatter and more defined, and it felt as though I was in the room with him. It felt like a blanket had been taken off the speakers and I was finally hearing the music the way it should sound. And I've found that drums sound punchier and have more life to them, especially if it's a dynamic performance.

Since then, I've done 3 records at 96 Khz. One was a folk/pop acoustic thing that really benefited from the higher sample rate. I mixed it to 1/2 inch analog, then it was mastered back at 96 before dithering down to 44.1. Sounds great. I did another record that was aggressive rock/glam/punk and to be honest, it didn't really make a difference. I should've done it at 48 and saved the drive space and backup time. The third record I did was a mixture of punk rock and mellow spacey songs. The spacey songs sounded great at 96 and on the punk rock songs, I could've gone either way but decided to keep it all at 96.

To me, depending on the music, if you have the ability to record at a higher sample rate, why not do it? Yes, the front end matters (mics, preamps) and yes, the converters matter (I use an HD3 with 192 converters) and yes, the musicians matter (I use only the best....just kidding). But given all that, higher sample rates do sound better.

Shawn

[bblackwood]

To me, depending on the music, if you have the ability to record at a higher sample rate, why not do it? Yes, the front end matters (mics, preamps) and yes, the converters matter (I use an HD3 with 192 converters) and yes, the musicians matter (I use only the best....just kidding). But given all that, higher sample rates do sound better.

Again, with really great converters the diff is minimal.

Filter implementation seems to be the key - the less expensive boxes have to skimp somewhere, and the R&D required to develop a great filter costs tons.

I say use what sounds best on your system, but realize that if you have don't hear a big diff between 44.1 and 96 with db Technologies (Lavry) boxes, it's because they are well designed boxes...

[jislober]

Brad,

I have an old gold series AD122. 48k. I was wondering if you've noticed any drastic improvement in the new, high sample rate lavry boxes versus their older db stuff. I guess what I'm asking is, is it time to upgrade?

Thanks

[bblackwood]

Brad,

I have an old gold series AD122. 48k. I was wondering if you've noticed any drastic improvement in the new, high sample rate lavry boxes versus their older db stuff. I guess what I'm asking is, is it time to upgrade?

Nah. in fact, If I could find one like yours, I'd buy it in a heartbeat even though some clients really want to quantize at 88.2 or 96.

FYI, the 122 in the name signifies the noise floor. The new ones are MKII as they don't change the analog stages, just the converters.

If you just have to sell so you can have the latest, greatest - I want it!

[jislober]

Thanks for the info.

The soft-saturation on the ad122 is pretty cool too. It doesn't quite sound like tape, but it's still really really pretty. Friend of mine's gonna bring over a Hedd 192 this week, and we're gonna a/b the tape emulation effects of that against the soft saturation on the db.

[Mr. Dipity]

Can you really tell that much of a difference b/w 24 bit 44.1 recordings and 24 big 96 k recordings? What is the huge sonic difference?

Keep in mind that while the audible difference may be relatively subtle, keeping your signal chain as high quality as possible will pay off - especially if you are bussing in and out from digital and analog gear. When you process your sound, you are going to lose some fidelity, and introduce some of the feeling of the process you are using.

This is especially true if you are using your audio "creatively" - ie composing at your mixing desk, such as in Dub style, or for film sound design. Pitch down your audio one octave (for an extreme example) and your 44k file is now 22k, while your 96 is still cd (44k) quality. The difference becomes very apparent indeed. Of course, this doesn't just apply to radical pitch shifts - it's just a in-your-face example of the difference.

[@?,*???&?]

100% more frequency spectrum.

Yeah, that's pretty huge.

[bblackwood]

100% more frequency spectrum.

Yeah, that's pretty huge.

But only one octave. Compare that to the 11 octaves from 20hz to 40kHz.

Theoretically, it should still be an improvement, though tests have shown that with good filters, the results are about the same as guessing.

The real thing 96k shows us is that most people are using less-than-ideal converters.

[Professor]

Oh for heaven's sake, don't use 96k. Use 88.2 instead. Well, unless you are actually working on film projects.

Someone up there said they were dithering from 96 down to 44.1 - that will pretty much eliminate much of the benefit of the hi-res recording. That's why all those '96k' machines have that weird little '88.2' setting as well.

All that said, you should probably just use the highest resolution you can manage. If you have the converters and the drive space to run your sessions at 24/88.2 then do it. If you don't have it, don't worry - just keep recording and wait until the dust settles around the debate.
Bit depth is definitely a bigger issue, and it is important to run 24 bit sooner than 88.2k because the difference is staggering. As to the comparison, I would agree that at a certain point it is hard to discern. I've done the double-blind AB test stuff at the Boulder Amplifier listening room with a $22k preamp, $30k power amp, and $60k Westlake monitor setup while the boys were trying out their new $20k DtoA converter. Through careful concentration, it is possible to tell a difference between various settings, but it is way too small to qualify it.

And what the hell are we all worried about anyway? The kids are just going to take the 16/44.1 final product, throw out 12/13ths of the data and listen to the mp3 version anyway. And then they will say, 'it's digital so it sounds great'. We say hi-res, they say no-res, and hey, music is supposed to be free. I can understand where you might be confused about this whole resolution thing.

-Jeremy

[Mr. Dipity]

Oh for heaven's sake, don't use 96k. Use 88.2 instead. Well, unless you are actually working on film projects.

Good point.