48kHz or 96kHz...Is 48kHz Good Enough???

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uno
  • Start date Start date
U

Uno

New member
whats up,

I've been saving up my money to buy a new audio recording interface and software and I've been thinking about getting an MBox.

I see that it says it has a sample rate of 48kHz when the other interfaces ive been thinking about (maudio delta 1010 and Emu 1812M) have a sample rate of 96khz.

I want to know does anyone here record at 48kHz over 96kHz....and whats the benefits of recording at 24bit 96khz over 24bit 48khz?

Im asking because I used to have a Maudio 24/96 audiophile (sounded okay)but I dont think I never had it set to record at 96khz. I am trying to get better recording sound quality than that from the 24/96 audiophile.

Does anyone have any info on this?

My PC is a Amd 3200+ 512mb 160gb. I dont know if this enough to even handle recording at 96khz.

One
 
I would say that most people here record at 24 bit 44.1khz. Some people use 96khz and so on but this is the reason many included I use 24 bit 44.1khz.

24 bit recording gives you quite a bit more headroom over 16 bit recording. Give it a shot and see if you notice any difference.

Then record at 44.1khz and then at 96khz and see if you notice any difference at all.

Chances if you are recording fairly hot signals that you will notice some improvement in 24 bit recording. Unless you are recording something that requires a whole lot of detail then you will not notice a difference between 96khz and 44.1khz.

I'd say that if you want to record at a higher sample rate, use 88.2 since it divides pretty well into 44.1 Remember that digital is all mathematics and the better chance of accuracy without rounding errors is the best thing to go for.
 
Thanks for breaking that down for me Sleepy.

Much appreciated.

One
 
you got to think about current medium aswell as the only thing that can hold and reply 96 is DVD-A or sacd. SACD hardware and software cost more than most pro studios are prepared to pay as it doesnt use PCM encoding. DVD-A authoring at 96 not 48 need special hardware and all software versions like wavelab only go up to 48 anyway..........so really now there is no point at all in 96 unless your a high end pro studio.
 
Uno said:
whats up,

I've been saving up my money to buy a new audio recording interface and software and I've been thinking about getting an MBox.
Click to expand...

The first thing you should know is that the Mbox sounds like crap, regardless of what sampling rate or bit rate you use.

You should really be looking at what interfaces have better A/D converters and mic pre's.

(and, by the way, I generally record at 48k/24bit... occasionally at 44.1k/24bit... but never at 96k... and sometimes at 44.1/16bit if an artist or label gives me a session to work on at that rate)
 
I record 24bit@48k as opposed to 44.1k. I notice a bit more clarity in the recordings when using 48k over 44k. The higher 96k is worthless to me unless like definitionofself said "What medium you are going to?". If its a SACD or DVD then use the 96k but if its just an audio CD and/or vinyl you can choose between 44k and 48k.

I would recommend you always keep it at 24bit to co-sign what sleepy said when he compared it to 16bit.
 
Dvyce,

So the MBox sounds that bad??

What would you suggest saving and getting an 002R or getting a EMU 1812M and a recording software program like Cubase SL or SX?

I am familiar with Cubase but for the Price of Cubase SX and The 1812M I could get the 002R.

Does anyone else have any opinions on this?

One
 
Uno said:
Dvyce,

So the MBox sounds that bad??

What would you suggest saving and getting an 002R or getting a EMU 1812M and a recording software program like Cubase SL or SX?

I am familiar with Cubase but for the Price of Cubase SX and The 1812M I could get the 002R.

Does anyone else have any opinions on this?

One
Click to expand...


I heard the 002R is good... I have never tried one, though.

I normally use a full ProTools Mix3+ system and a ProTools HD system... I use them on a daily basis.

I also recently got a laptop system and I got the Metric Halo Mobile I/O ULN2 as my interface... unfortunately, I have not had the time to get into it yet, but I bought the interface based on my tech guy's recommendation... it is inexpensive and (from what I've heard) has really incredible converters and pre's... supposedly much better than ones that are much more expensive.


...if you are looking to get a more professional sound and you will be recording audio through the converters and pre's (meaning, not just taking sounds from sample CD's and soft synths) I would go for the Digi002Rack (if you want to stick with ProTools)... if you will be only staying in the digital domain (meaning, using imported audio from sample CD's and using software synths and software samplers) then the Mbox will be OK for you since you won't have to worry about the converters and pre's.
 
CubaseRox said:
I record 24bit@48k as opposed to 44.1k. I notice a bit more clarity in the recordings when using 48k over 44k.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahaha. You cannot be serious.
 
Ebbiguise555 said:

Bwahahahaha. You cannot be serious.
Click to expand...

I'll explain this once because I dont want to get into a argument about sample rates with someone who acts like an 11 y/o.

You can hear a slight difference between 44 and 48k if your monitoring system is good, i.e. clear sounding monitors, good sound card, and mixer.

You probably wont hear any difference at all if you have sh!tty stuff. Like Cubase 5 on a compaq presario with a soundblaster live card.

Dont take my word for it there are people who would agree that there is a difference between 44 and 48k.

So I guess your laughing at them too. This is why you get called a "hater" on here!

Done!
 
You're a fookin JOKE dude...There is NO way in hell you can HEAR a difference between two of the exact same recorded pieces of music, with one being done at 24/44.1 and the other at 24/48

Thats just ridiculous.
 
definitionofself said:
you got to think about current medium aswell as the only thing that can hold and reply 96 is DVD-A or sacd. SACD hardware and software cost more than most pro studios are prepared to pay as it doesnt use PCM encoding. DVD-A authoring at 96 not 48 need special hardware and all software versions like wavelab only go up to 48 anyway..........so really now there is no point at all in 96 unless your a high end pro studio.
Click to expand...
thank you! it annoys me when people say there audios better at 96 etc but in order to make a PLAYABLE audio cd its got to be 16 44.1! so it wont sound any better then anything recorded at 96 its down to good mastering and production! remember your ears are your BEST instrument!! D
 
Here are some things for you to think about regarding sample rates and bit rates:

First of all, if you are not using real pro equipment all around (high quality converters, pre's, audio cards, mics, etc, etc) then it really does not matter whether you record at 44.1 or 96k or 16 or 24 bit... because your initial signal that you are recording in the first place will not be that good.


Second, don't think of the sample rate in terms of the final audio format. Meaning, don't think "well, my CD is only 44.1/16 bit so therer is no point in recording at any higher rates."

At higher recording rates, when you have dense mixes (mixes with a lot of tracks and sounds playing together) you will hear a difference in how well the tracks "lay" together.

Also at higher rates, when you apply processing to sounds (time stretching, pitch shifting, etc) there is more data to work with. There is more detail there in the audio file for the computer to use in making the approximation in what it thinks a slowed down or stretched version (or whatever) should sound like.

...and when all these things sound better, your final 44.1/16bit dithered down version will sound better, too.
 
CubaseRox said:
I record 24bit@48k as opposed to 44.1k. I notice a bit more clarity in the recordings when using 48k over 44k.
Click to expand...

Bump for Cubase :)

How's that extra 3.9k sounding? Soooo much more clearer huh?


lmao
 
I really don't want to choose sides here, but I also hear a slight difference in 44.1 and 48, but it is very slight...

For those who question 96k(resampled down to 44.1) vs original 44.1k, there was a thread at a website(I'll try to find the link), where there where the two examples(one with FM7 and another was a acoustic guitar, with compression). And especially with FM7(a Vsti) I noticed a good difference on that was a a cheap intergrated soundcard going through some cheap computers speakers.

dvyce, you make a lot of good points, but talkin to some professional engineers, they believe (and I, with testing) that the difference between 96k and 44k is smaller in better gear. At higher bitrates, alias, jitters, etc don't occur as often due to the definition. One of the factors of buying better converters is to not worry about as errors when with a lower bitrate. But alot of people that can afford those converters usually record at 96k, anyway.

In my experience, most people who are happy with the sound of original 44k, have never used 2 inch tape. But I could be wrong.
 
I couldnt possibly understand how anyone could hear an even slight difference between 44.1 or 48k recordings when put against each other in a pepsi challenge, there is just no way....And I would bet big money to back that up. But anyways, I digress.


Ralph- You mentioned about those that like 44k have never heard 2 inch tape (or something to that effect)...what did you mean by that, if you care to elaborate at all?....just curious-



555
 
He means that if you heard 2-inch tape then you'd really notice that the quality is lacking in 44.1khz material.

Correct me if I am wrong Ralph.
 
Sleepy is correct. The same can be said about great analog EQ, and other analog gear. Most of the best digital EQ's upsample, so if you record at 44.1k, it processes at 88k or more(ie. Sony Oxford EQ, Voxengo Glisseq, George Massenburg's MDW EQ, and I believe Uad's Pultec.)

Ebbiguise555, the difference in 44.1 and 48k is very slight, very. Almost like the difference between true red or ferrari red(if that analogy works). The only way to test the theory, is to record a midi track or vsti with some effects, one at 44 another at 48 with the same exact setting. Then resample 48 down to 44. Then with two stereo tracks, put the two files next to each other, and phase inverse one. If they are identical you should hear silence, if not then you know that they are different. But to be honest a consumer will never notice a difference, so 48k really isnt worth it.
 
Last edited:
Check it out:

Let's say you have a musical note. A440, for reference.

The A one octave below that will be half the frequency, or A220. One octave up will be A880, double the frequency. An octave above that is A1760, and an octave above that is A3520.

You can see what's happening here. At low frequencies, an octave may be contained within a span of 220Hz. At higher octaves, a 220-Hz change in frequency represents a smaller pitch change, as our ears perceive it.

So, what's the difference come out to at 44.1 vs 48KHz? Well, in musical terms, it's almost 1 1/2 half-steps. 147 cents, to be exact. The pitch difference between any two adjacent black keys on a piano, for comparison, is 200 cents, or two half-steps.

In my experience, the artifacts from sample-rate conversion are gonna sound much, much worse than if you just recorded at 44.1 in the first place.
And especially with FM7(a Vsti) I noticed a good difference on that was a a cheap intergrated soundcard going through some cheap computers speakers.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Do you mean that you used a cheap soundcard and cheap speakers?

Cheap soundcards (Soundblasters are notorious for this) resample all audio to 48KHz. So, when you think you're recording a 44.1 signal, you're getting a signal that was first sampled at 48KHz, then downsampled through the $5 SRC chip in your Suckblaster to 44.1. Is that gonna sound worse than if there was no sample-rate conversion? Of course it is. But don't mistake the inadequacies of consumer-grade trash electronics for controlled conditions.

-Hoax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top