• Register
  • Help

View Poll Results: Sample Rate

Voters
103. You may not vote on this poll
  • 96Khz

    19 18.45%
  • 48Khz

    29 28.16%
  • 44.1Khz

    55 53.40%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Topic: The 96Khz Question

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    The 96Khz Question

    This is a mono source instrument. It will be ram friendlier then stereo but will use an IRF. 2-4 Gigs slated.

    ?/24-bit

    Thanks,
    FB
    Bela D Media | www.BelaDMedia.com

  2. #2

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Blaske
    everybody I run into these days seems pretty happy listening to data scrunched AAC and .mp3 files on their iPods.
    Hahahahaha!! ...and I agree that 48khz seems to be middle ground.
    Bela D Media | www.BelaDMedia.com

  3. #3

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    A friend of mine puts it this way: "96k can kiss my axx."




    Recording at 192, sure. But sample libraries should wait until RAM access and processing power are no longer such precious resources.

  4. #4

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    I thought 44.1 is enough.
    One reason is because of the RAM and CPU usage.
    Or maybe 48 might be fine if it doesn`t effect the processor usage that much.
    The best thing is, you can record and keep the source file in 96,
    and distribute it in 44.1 or 48 at this time, and when computers are
    more powerful, you could make a reasonable upgrade path to 96
    for the people who want it

  5. #5

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    I would throw out the point that resampling from 96k+ down to 44.1k will sound worse than if you'd recorded in 44.1 throughout. That being the case, if your end result is 44.1, then why record at 96k? Now if your end result will be DVD-A or some other high resolution medium, and you have the technical facilities for it, then why not?

  6. #6

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    Quote Originally Posted by faintwhitenoise
    I would throw out the point that resampling from 96k+ down to 44.1k will sound worse than if you'd recorded in 44.1 throughout.
    There are varying opinions on that. I'd say record in high resolution, but distribute for now with standard 44k1.

  7. #7

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    Most film-work is done at 48, and CDs are 44.1; however, many people just run their samplers at 44.1 and fuggetaboudit.

    If this is along the lines of bass/drums/guitar, go for 44.1.

    If it's a vocalist or some other instrument that you expect to be mainly for film and TV, go for 48 if you're a purist, and 44.1 if you're a pragmatist.

    Many systems let you record at 88.2. Maybe some do 176.4? Every time you double the sample rate, you get another effective bit of resolution. That's how 1-bit converters and SACD work. So 88.2 at 24 bits is like 44.1 at 25-bits. Cool, huh?

    If this is a sound effects lib, go for the highest possible sample rate. Why? Maybe you've recorded an arrow going "whoosh". The sound designer wants to make it sound deeper and have a longer duration. So he slows it down by a factor of two. One problem... If recorded at 44.1 the whoosh now cuts off at 10 kHz. Had it been recorded at true 88.2, you still get a 20 kHz W-H-O-O-S-H.

    But for musical instruments? Go for 44.1 as the default, and 48 if you're targeting film purists.

    All the best...

  8. #8

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Blaske
    Even if you recorded at 44.1, you won't have a direct 44.1 throughput if you're using a sampler. Samplers change sample playback frequency to interpolate notes and deal with tuning.
    While that is true with hardware samplers with analog outputs, in the case of software sampling, anytime there is a pitch change the source wav is resampled. In most samplers the quality of this resampling is pretty lousy.

    I've never done any serious testing, but I've always had the feeling that samplers trash audio (to a greater or lesser extent). Some playback plug-ins, like Intakt, severely mulch audio. Running audio through any sampler software sucks some of the life out of it.
    Agreed - if there is any pitch shift for tuning or transposition the quality is reduced unless the interpolation function uses very high resolution.
    SFZ is very good at the highest quality for example.

  9. #9

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    96Khz looks good but I think 44.1 is really enough.

  10. #10

    Re: The 96Khz Question

    Quote Originally Posted by faintwhitenoise
    I would throw out the point that resampling from 96k+ down to 44.1k will sound worse than if you'd recorded in 44.1 throughout. That being the case, if your end result is 44.1, then why record at 96k? Now if your end result will be DVD-A or some other high resolution medium, and you have the technical facilities for it, then why not?
    My experience downsampling material recorded high res is quite the oposite. Particularly if it's recorded and mixed at high res and downsampled/dithered as the last step. But even downsampling on a per-sample basis, there's always the advantage of cleaner filtering in the physics of high-res converters (less phase shift in the audible passband).

    As far as destination goes, that's the rub for a sample library. The vendor doesn't know where I'm going to use their samples. Heck, I don't know myself until a job comes up. I would think a vendor would want to provide options as broad as possible to maximize its market.

    But I have to agree that the technology might not be soup yet. But its close. Right now my only 96k gs3 piano library pushes my system to its limits. My workaround is to freeze and upsample all my vi tracks to incorporate them into hi-res mixes. But the hassles involved with constantly switching sample rates is a pain in the neck. Right now gs3 will run at high res, even with 44.1k libraries, but the performance hit is substantial. I haven't had much luck getting Ni 44.1k libraries to run high res. My hope is that as Win64 and Vista64 establish themselves we might see some higher res sampler and library options open up.

    If I was doing a new sample library myself, I'd do as mathis suggests. Sample at 192/24, perhaps with one of those way-cool Tascam, Fostex, or Sound Devices flash recorders. But only make downsampled versions available at first. That would leave high res options open for down the road. Another possibility is the option of recording notes and pharases to analog tape.

    Howard

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •