# Recording at 48k vs 96k



## jmeezle (Apr 25, 2013)

Hey Guys,

I've been recording everything at 48k since I got my recording gear. My Presonus FireStudio Project interface handles 96k (PreSonus FireStudio Project | Sweetwater.com).

My iMac can handle any system load that recording at a higher bitrate might bring on... am I an idiot to not be recording in 96k?


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 25, 2013)

IMHO, you likely wouldn't notice much of a difference. I would prefer the higher sample rate just because it is a more "true" representation of what you're playing at all times... but unless you're the next step in human evolution I doubt anyone would be able to tell that track x was recorded at a different sampling rate from track y.


----------



## Johnathan (Apr 25, 2013)

The Myth that you hear a difference between 44.1k - 48k and so on is false. The only difference sample rate (not bitrate) makes to sound is when you pitch the sound. The higher the samplerate of the recorded audio, the more information you keep when you pitch the sound in any direction.
As for bitrate though it's a different thing. At 16 bit recording you have a headroom of 90dB, at 24 bit you have over 120 db headroom. Wich is a HUGE difference in dynamic. I always keep my mixes at 48kHz at 24 bit. There is really no point going higher in sample rate if you don't do something that is required to be in a higher sample rate in order to be played back correctly.


----------



## Johnathan (Apr 25, 2013)

Sample rate is basically the speed which you capture analog sound digitally. If you want to capture the whole human hearing range (20Hz - 20KHz) you need double the speed of highest frequency in order to capture it, which in this case will be 40KHz. The reason why standard is 44.1 KHz is cause of the architecture of digital and analog filters that is used in analog to digital conversion. 

So, yet again. Sample rate does NOT affect sound quality when over 44.1 KHz, if it's under that value then yes, the sound quality is going to get affected.


----------



## Customisbetter (Apr 25, 2013)

If you plan on using any sort of pitch bending or time stretching use the highest bitrate you get. Other than that don't worry about it.


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 25, 2013)

Don't waste your time, hard drive space, and CPU resources - seriously. I don't even do 48khz - that's the standard they use in video for their audio tracks. You have to resample down to 44.1khz for CD's anyway.

I use 44.1khz at 24bit. I also feel 24bit is fine and it's not worth the extra hard drive space for 32bit. Remember, all those tracks (several guitar takes, bass, drums, vocals, etc) are all mixed together then down to 44.1/16bit for the final anyhow, so you're starting with plenty of resolution and the sample rate easily handles the full range of human hearing. So there's really little need to. Don't forget we also have 192khz audio interfaces. I mean come on... it's mostly about spec hyping.


Rev.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 25, 2013)

I would suggest trying 96k on a couple of recordings and then decide if there is a reason to record at a higher sample rate. The reason I'm answering your question this way is because everybody has an opinion on sample rates. the forum Gear Slutz probably has 1,000 threads dealing with sample rates and the differences. People can also get really angry during sample rate discussions too; its kind of funny.


----------



## Rev2010 (Apr 25, 2013)

Given To Fly said:


> People can also get really angry during sample rate discussions too; its kind of funny.



It's also kind of funny when people take the same project done at different sample rates and do a blind shootout and see all the 96/192khz "audiophiles" identify the clips wrong.

They also do that with mics on Gearslutz. I've seen a number of times guru engineers choose something like a $99 MXL condenser as the best sounding mic in a pool of clips that includes a take with a Neumann U87. I see this with ribbon mics as well. Surprising to see how many times people prefer the clip done with the ~$150 ribbon mic compared to the $1300 Royer.


Rev.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 25, 2013)

Short answer:

Sometimes you will have an interface that sounds better at a certain sampling rate than it does at others, so it's worth testing your system to see if you can tell a difference. Just realize that it is not the sample rate itself that is superior, but that fact that _that specific interface_ just sounds better at that sample rate.


If you want the long answer, let me know and I'll bore you to tears.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 25, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> It's also kind of funny when people take the same project done at different sample rates and do a blind shootout and see all the 96/192khz "audiophiles" identify the clips wrong.
> 
> They also do that with mics on Gearslutz. I've seen a number of times guru engineers choose something like a $99 MXL condenser as the best sounding mic in a pool of clips that includes a take with a Neumann U87. I see this with ribbon mics as well. Surprising to see how many times people prefer the clip done with the ~$150 ribbon mic compared to the $1300 Royer.
> 
> ...


 
Two points about that.

1. Gearslutz is full of people who don't know shit pretending that they are the second coming. Unfortunately, it seems that there are more of these types than the original guys who actually did know what they were talking about these days.

2. Selecting the best mic for a given source is really more about realizing what is wrong with the initial sound (for what you are going for), for example it may need a bit of presence around 5k, and then matching a mic that offers that boost at 5k, than it is about which mic is "better". There isn't truly a "better" mic - its just personal preference. A LOT of stuff in music and audio is personal preference.


----------



## Johnathan (Apr 25, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Short answer:
> ...but that fact that _that specific interface_ just sounds better at that sample rate...



Thats merely just psychological. Sample rate between 44.1 KHz and 192 KHz have nothing to do directly with the sound quality out of an interface. That said, higher sample rate do take more processing power which in some cases can give artifacts (and in some cases even corrupt) to the audio stream, but thats just all about the playback ability, not the sound quality. All the investigation i've seen from AES, EBU, ABU and all other broadcast unions who have conducted blind tests like these all give the same answer. Sample rates over 44.1 KHz does not make any hearable difference to sound quality in a mix.

Save the harddisk space and just use 44.1 KHz if you don't plan to pitch shift the sounds later.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 25, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Two points about that.
> 
> 1. Gearslutz is full of people who don't know shit pretending that they are the second coming. Unfortunately, it seems that there are more of these types than the original guys who actually did know what they were talking about these days.
> 
> 2. Selecting the best mic for a given source is really more about realizing what is wrong with the initial sound (for what you are going for), for example it may need a bit of presence around 5k, and then matching a mic that offers that boost at 5k, than it is about which mic is "better". There isn't truly a "better" mic - its just personal preference. A LOT of stuff in music and audio is personal preference.



There are some "old timers" on Gearslutz who have been very helpful but they generally stay in the specialty forums rather than High End, Low End, etc. Otherwise, your statement is true!


----------



## tedtan (Apr 25, 2013)

Given To Fly said:


> There are some "old timers" on Gearslutz who have been very helpful but they generally stay in the specialty forums rather than High End, Low End, etc. Otherwise, your statement is true!


 
Oh yeah, there are definitely still some great guys over there, they just seem WAY outnumbered these days.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 25, 2013)

Johnathan said:


> Thats merely just psychological.


 


The design of an interface is anything but psychological, and absolutely affects how it sounds. I don't understand how you can believe otherwise.


----------



## Winspear (Apr 26, 2013)

I didn't have time to read through all these posts but:

There is not an audible difference in the sound quality.
It's useful for pitch and time stretching as was stated.


BUT
There_ can be_ an_ incredibly_ audible difference in some software synthesizers (not samplers) which makes them sound much more pleasant generating at higher SRs. There was a very good clip of this on Gearslutz and I have experienced it myself.

Also, processing of certain effect plugins can sound better run at a higher SR and then sampled down for export. This is exactly why some plugins that you will have come across have built in oversampling, or a button to turn that on if you wish.

Because of this, I now run at 88.2khz all the time.


----------



## Johnathan (Apr 26, 2013)

tedtan said:


> The design of an interface is anything but psychological, and absolutely affects how it sounds. I don't understand how you can believe otherwise.



I'm guessing you are talking about the hardware design of an interface, in that case no it's not psychological? Different systems sounds different, yes. A song at 48k, 24 bit is going to sound different in my system comparing to yours. But that has nothing to do with sample rate. Hardware components like resistors, capacitors and transistors makes all the difference in the world to sound.

Why would there be a difference between lets say 48KHz and 96KHz which the thread specifies. These are frequencies that operates more than 3 times our hearing range. The highest frequency a sample rate at 48KHz will pick up is 24 KHz. Since most humans only have hearing to 18KHz, that makes it over 4 000 Hz over the audible limit for humans. And 96KHz captures frequencies even higher than that. 

So, i'll ask you. What would the audible difference be in this case?


----------



## mindwalker (Apr 26, 2013)

There is a sonic difference between recording at 44100 or another higher frequency. I've done a clip where this can be heard https://soundcloud.com/mindwalker/44100-vs-88200-pod-farm-in

I've used POD Farm for this test but a similar thing can be heard with other plugins

However I'm not the sonic difference is coming from the impulse response being mismatched to the new recording frequency. Anyway... I just record at 44100.. better latency and not any better or worse sound quality me thinks


----------



## Johnathan (Apr 26, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> BUT
> There_ can be_ an_ incredibly_ audible difference in some software synthesizers (not samplers) which makes them sound much more pleasant generating at higher SRs. There was a very good clip of this on Gearslutz and I have experienced it myself.
> 
> Also, processing of certain effect plugins can sound better run at a higher SR and then sampled down for export. This is exactly why some plugins that you will have come across have built in oversampling, or a button to turn that on if you wish.
> ...



This is caused of something called truncation or downsampling. Some plugins are designed to only be operable at a certain sampler rate. Going lower than the specified sample rate is forcing the plug in to reduce it's data rate than what it's normally meant to operate in, which will make it sound different. Downsampling is audible and causes the wave form to get aliased. It comes in the form of very weak distortion.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 26, 2013)

Just to be clear, I can't tell what sample rate a song was recorded at (A/D conversion.) But when I listen to iTunes or recorded .wav file through my interface I can absolutely hear a difference in playback (D/A conversion) between 192K and 44.1K. I would be concerned if a person couldn't!


----------



## Johnathan (Apr 26, 2013)

Given To Fly said:


> Just to be clear, I can't tell what sample rate a song was recorded at (A/D conversion.) But when I listen to iTunes or recorded .wav file through my interface I can absolutely hear a difference in playback (D/A conversion) between 192K and 44.1K. I would be concerned if a person couldn't!



Between the process of D/A conversion, in every interface there is a filter that is set to cut off frequencies higher than half of the lowest playback sample rate, Why? It's cause of something called the Nyqist frequency. In short terms the sample rate determines the frequencies that will be sampled. As i wrote above, the frequency that is the half of the sample rate is called the nyqist frequency, everything below that frequency will get sampled correctly. Everything above that frequency will mirror itself up and down the spectrum creating artifacts in the audio. 

In applications where the sample-rate is pre-determined, the filter is chosen based on the Nyquist frequency. For example, audio CDs have a sampling rate of 44100 samples/sec. The Nyquist frequency is therefore 22050 Hz. The anti-aliasing filter must adequately suppress any higher frequencies but negligibly affect the frequencies within the human hearing range. A filter that preserves 0-20 kHz is more than adequate for that.

Since this filter is applied to every playback medium and interface. The difference you talk about will not be present.

There is a big difference in seing the difference than hearing it between 44.1K and 192K  . Based on the fact that you know that a higher sample rate is "better" seing the files quality when hearing them will psychologically make you think it's better quality.

[EDIT]
I'm will clarify that i encourage people to strive for higher audio quality, all though sample rate makes a big difference in playback ability in static mediums data stream such as DVD, Blue-ray when using multichannel audio. Which gives the possibility to play back audio with no or little compression at all which.. indeed does make a huge difference to sound quality.


----------



## jmeezle (Apr 26, 2013)

Appreciate the feedback guys, thanks!


----------



## Orsinium (Apr 26, 2013)

I only use sample rates above 44.1khz when I am doing post production audio because most of the sounds are recorded in 48khz anyway and it helps to not have to wait to convert. I also do game audio and it just isn't practical to work above 44.1khz because of the amount of space I am allowed, also most game engines can only use 16bit 44.1khz .wav files so it really depends on what your doing. In my opinion you do what you must to get the job done.


----------



## sear (Apr 26, 2013)

I do think that it's worth using higher sample rates because it gives plugins more information to work with and theoretically gets you more accurate results, but of course there is a cost in CPU and file size.

For home recording it really doesn't matter. 44.1khz and 48khz are both totally fine, and you can get pro-quality results with 48/24 bit. But, if I was paying money to a big studio with expensive hardware I would expect to see at least 92/24. Remember that you can always downsample but never upsample.


----------



## Speculum Speculorum (Apr 26, 2013)

I will chime in here and put in my two cents. I record at 48 Khz, but that's because I'm currently using Spdif with my Axe-fx II, and it has to run at 48 to connect via spdif. And it's probably the highest I can go on my iMac with the number of tracks I use before my computer just won't handle much more. It isn't a dinosaur, but isn't quite so new either.

I definitely hear a difference between 44.1 and 48 kHz on the top end of my synth stuff, but it's probably negligible once things start mixing up. But I'll second what is being said about some soft synths. Monark is meant to run at 88.2, and there is a very slight (very very slight) noticeable aliasing at 48 kHz. However, it's not enough to make me change my whole workflow.

Now, plenty of records have been recorded and mixed at 44.1. My old standby is 10,000 Days, which I think sounds ridiculously nice. You don't HAVE to record at higher rates to get a great sound. And you have to consider what you're doing. If you plan on just uploading your audio to stream on Soundcloud, there's literally no reason whatsoever to be recording at the highest sample rate that you can. If you're scoring movies or commercials, go as high as you can and hope that the guy on the other end has one clue about how to work with audio.


----------



## coffeeflush (Apr 26, 2013)

I am not sure on this, ill search around and post proof for what I am saying sometime soon

But when converting to mp3, it does compress the data 16khz onwards, higher resolution with the original wav files and higher bit rate (32 vs 24 vs 16) means less hiss (which is eliminated in dithering more or less). 

Eh screw it, I haven't slept in 3 days and I am not making sense

Nerds of ss.org, knock yourself out. He makes more sense then me

Xiph.org: Video


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 26, 2013)

Johnathan said:


> Between the process of D/A conversion, in every interface there is a filter that is set to cut off frequencies higher than half of the lowest playback sample rate, Why? It's cause of something called the Nyqist frequency. In short terms the sample rate determines the frequencies that will be sampled. As i wrote above, the frequency that is the half of the sample rate is called the nyqist frequency, everything below that frequency will get sampled correctly. Everything above that frequency will mirror itself up and down the spectrum creating artifacts in the audio.
> 
> In applications where the sample-rate is pre-determined, the filter is chosen based on the Nyquist frequency. For example, audio CDs have a sampling rate of 44100 samples/sec. The Nyquist frequency is therefore 22050 Hz. The anti-aliasing filter must adequately suppress any higher frequencies but negligibly affect the frequencies within the human hearing range. A filter that preserves 0-20 kHz is more than adequate for that.
> 
> ...



When audio is being sampled 147,900 times more than normal my ears pick up on the fact it sounds different. 

Also why is it when The Hobbit was filmed at 48 FPS a lot of people people clearly saw the difference. Our eyes see 25 fps as a continuous image, we can't detect the individual frames at that speed. How then is it possible people could perceive the difference of 48 fps? 

If 4x as much sound starts coming out of your monitors I would think most people could detect that. But I'm just a guitar player...


----------



## tedtan (Apr 26, 2013)

Johnathan said:


> So, i'll ask you. What would the audible difference be in this case?


 
I said that sample rates *DO NOT* sound different from one another at least twice in the post that you quoted, but for some reason you want to argue with me saying the very same thing that I've already stated. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, here, since it doesn't appear that English is your first language. Let me rephrase that post for you:

Sample rates _*DO NOT*_ in and of themselves sound different from one another, but some interfaces will sound different when set to different sample rates (e.g., 96k might sound better than 44.1k or 192k on a specific interface, for example). This _*IS NOT*_ because the sample rates sound different in and of themselves, but due to differences in design, manufacturing tolerances and/or quality control of that specific converter/interface. (Note that I've never experienced this myself, but I have heard it from sources I trust, so I allow for it. Plus, it makes sense logically given that the analog stages of a converter are key to its sound, and variability here could well cause this behavior).


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 26, 2013)

tedtan said:


> I said that sample rates *DO NOT* sound different from one another at least twice in the post that you quoted, but for some reason you want to argue with me saying the very same thing that I've already stated. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, here, since it doesn't appear that English is your first language. Let me rephrase that post for you:
> 
> Sample rates _*DO NOT*_ in and of themselves sound different from one another, but some interfaces will sound different when set to different sample rates (e.g., 96k might sound better than 44.1k or 192k on a specific interface, for example). This _*IS NOT*_ because the sample rates sound different in and of themselves, but due to differences in design, manufacturing tolerances and/or quality control of that specific converter/interface. (Note that I've never experienced this myself, but I have heard it from sources I trust, so I allow for it. Plus, it makes sense logically given that the analog stages of a converter are key to its sound, and variability here could well cause this behavior).



The converters on Metric Halo's low end......interfaces only sample as high as 96k as opposed to 192k. I'm willing to bet Metric Halo's converters at 96k are more clear/accurate than a Roland Quad Capture at converting at 192K.


----------



## tedtan (Apr 26, 2013)

EtherealEntity said:


> There_ can be_ an_ incredibly_ audible difference in some software synthesizers (not samplers) which makes them sound much more pleasant generating at higher SRs. There was a very good clip of this on Gearslutz and I have experienced it myself.
> 
> Also, processing of certain effect plugins can sound better run at a higher SR and then sampled down for export. This is exactly why some plugins that you will have come across have built in oversampling, or a button to turn that on if you wish.


 



sear said:


> I do think that it's worth using higher sample rates because it gives plugins more information to work with and theoretically gets you more accurate results, but of course there is a cost in CPU and file size.


 



Speculum Speculorum said:


> I definitely hear a difference between 44.1 and 48 kHz on the top end of my synth stuff, but it's probably negligible once things start mixing up. But I'll second what is being said about some soft synths. Monark is meant to run at 88.2, and there is a very slight (very very slight) noticeable aliasing at 48 kHz. However, it's not enough to make me change my whole workflow.


 

I came across a link this morning to a blog post written by Bootsy (the plugin developer who codes the Variety Of Sound plugins) discussing this very issue. To be clear (so Jonathan doesn't start misquoting me again ) this is about processing a recorded sound using plugins in the box - _*NOT *_sample rate differences themselves. Here's the link: working ITB at higher sampling rates


----------



## tedtan (Apr 26, 2013)

Given To Fly said:


> The converters on Metric Halo's low end......interfaces only sample as high as 96k as opposed to 192k. I'm willing to bet Metric Halo's converters at 96k are more clear/accurate than a Roland Quad Capture at converting at 192K.


 
MH probably does sound better (I haven't heard either unit, personally), but that is the power supply and analog circuits (before the ADC and after the DAC) that sounds better. The converter chips themselves aren't that drastically different from each other once you move out of the consumer electronics stuff (phones, cheap mp3 players, etc.). Hell, even Metallica's black album still holds up and they used 16 bit converter technology from over 20 years ago on that album.


----------



## 7stg (Apr 26, 2013)

My first attempt at posting vanished into the ether. Here are my thoughts.

* Higher sample rates capture transients better.
* 16 to 24 bit depth does make a big difference.
* Plugins often sound better with a higher sample rate.
* Converters and clocks matter. 
* Lesser quality models will not sound as good at a certain bit depth/ sampling rate, and low quality converters and clocks may be more picky.
* Hard drive space is cheep WD Black 4tb is under $300.
* Processing power and number of tracks is a limiting factor.

Run a couple of tests through a couple scenarios and see what is best for your setup.

There are better codecs than mp3. I use AAC or FLAC.


----------



## axxessdenied (Apr 27, 2013)

I began recording most of my stuff at 96kHz... tried 44.1kHz, my guitar tones from my pod didn't seem to translate quite the same like before. Quickly went back to 96kHz 
Could just be my interface prefers 96khz


----------



## MF_Kitten (Apr 27, 2013)

The main difference is that plugins like compressors and limiters and reverbs etc. have more accurate information to calculate from.


----------



## ArlingtonBeech (Apr 27, 2013)

I think 16 bits to 24 bits and 44.1kHz to 48kHz make bigger difference than 48kHz to 96kHz.


----------



## Andromalia (Apr 27, 2013)

I'm using 48K because I use the axefxII as a sound card. Never noticed a difference with 44.1, seriously.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 27, 2013)

ArlingtonBeech said:


> I think 16 bits to 24 bits and 44.1kHz to 48kHz make bigger difference than 48kHz to 96kHz.



16 bits to 24 bits definitely makes the biggest difference compared to difference in sample rate.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 27, 2013)

Andromalia said:


> I'm using 48K because I use the axefxII as a sound card. Never noticed a difference with 44.1, seriously.



So you use the AxeFX II also acts as an audio interface?


----------



## Sinborn (Apr 27, 2013)

As far as I know, there's one very good reason to record at higher than 44.1/48k. DSP processing leaves artifacts in the processed sound, usually in the high end. Using a higher bitrate will move these artifacts up higher in the audio range, past your ability to hear them.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 28, 2013)

tedtan said:


> Short answer:
> 
> Sometimes you will have an interface that sounds better at a certain sampling rate than it does at others, so it's worth testing your system to see if you can tell a difference. Just realize that it is not the sample rate itself that is superior, but that fact that _that specific interface_ just sounds better at that sample rate.
> 
> ...



When I've had certain interfaces, they sounded DRAMATICALLY different at different rates. Luckily, what I'm using now isn't so pronounced. I'm wondering how you feel about this, I play bass too. I seem to notice diffs when playing bass at different rates. I like 48k as a good round solution. Actually, for guitar, there seems to be more pronounced high end with 48k. I don't use 96k, I don't want to do that. 

I've heard several VST/plugin maker raving about the benefits of higher sample rates and "aliasing" I wouldn't know what "aliasing" was even though my ears aren't too bad. I wonder what you think about that?


----------



## Winspear (Apr 28, 2013)

Sinborn said:


> As far as I know, there's one very good reason to record at higher than 44.1/48k. DSP processing leaves artifacts in the processed sound, usually in the high end. Using a higher bitrate will move these artifacts up higher in the audio range, past your ability to hear them.



Exactly - this is what I meant earlier 
No there is no audible difference in sample rate on recordings beyond a certain point - but it certainly can make a drastic difference to processing throughout the mix.


----------

