Can someone tell me why you would choose to record in 96khz or 192hz when a cd can only play at 44khz?

[biffcheeze]

Can someone tell me why you would choose to record in 96khz or 192hz when a cd can only play at 44khz?

If I record in the whole tune 192khz instead of 96khz will it sound better once I have rendered the track and put on a cd??

[Shingles]

Can someone tell me why you would choose to record in 96khz or 192hz when a cd can only play at 44khz?

Because clever people want to sell more media and more expensive converters. Bigger numbers command a higher price. It's like having more Mega pixel in the camera on your mobile phone. Everyone ignores the fact that, above 2 megapixels, the lens is the limiting factor.

If I record in the whole tune 192khz instead of 96khz will it sound better once I have rendered the track and put on a cd??

All other things being equal - no.

[matt keen]

Please do some more searching there are lots of discussions about this

[topten]

''One of the problems is that while the final product can use the full 96dB dynamic range of 16 bits, digital audio recordings must always be made with some headroom to avoid the possibility of digital clipping. So, in an effort to use as much of this dynamic range as possible, many people's eyes stay glued to the meters to get a hot signal level. To cope with unexpected peaks when recording live music, however, a typical safety measure is to work at nominal levels that are 12dB or more below digital clipping. (That's in addition to using a limiter as an emergency 'brick wall'.) Clearly, under these conditions, the dynamic range is reduced to 84dB and only uses 14 of out the 16 available bits.

A second problem is that because so many software processes are now being used to modify digital audio data after recording, the quality can suffer during the application of the many arithmetic processes involved.

The answer is to start with a higher bit resolution, which instantly gives a much greater dynamic range. You can then operate with a higher headroom, without worrying so much about compromising audio quality, and you can also keep your eyes fixed on the performance rather than the level meters. The current goal seems to be 24-bit, and to cater for future commercial formats, having the option of a maximum sample rate of 96kHz is also advisable, although this only extends the frequency response to about 40kHz, and has no effect on dynamic range.''
Martin Walker - extract from 'Lower Floors, Higher Ceilings' in the SOS archives.

[biffcheeze]

can you send me a link to these discussions?

[Shingles]

''One of the problems is that while the final product can use the full 96dB dynamic range of 16 bits, digital audio recordings must always be made with some headroom to avoid the possibility of digital clipping. So, in an effort to use as much of this dynamic range as possible, many people's eyes stay glued to the meters to get a hot signal level. To cope with unexpected peaks when recording live music, however, a typical safety measure is to work at nominal levels that are 12dB or more below digital clipping. (That's in addition to using a limiter as an emergency 'brick wall'.) Clearly, under these conditions, the dynamic range is reduced to 84dB and only uses 14 of out the 16 available bits.

A second problem is that because so many software processes are now being used to modify digital audio data after recording, the quality can suffer during the application of the many arithmetic processes involved.

The answer is to start with a higher bit resolution, which instantly gives a much greater dynamic range. You can then operate with a higher headroom, without worrying so much about compromising audio quality, and you can also keep your eyes fixed on the performance rather than the level meters. The current goal seems to be 24-bit, and to cater for future commercial formats, having the option of a maximum sample rate of 96kHz is also advisable, although this only extends the frequency response to about 40kHz, and has no effect on dynamic range.''
Martin Walker - extract from 'Lower Floors, Higher Ceilings' in the SOS archives.

The OP is asking about sampling frequency, not bit depth.

[topten]

It did mention ''..having the option of a maximum sample rate of 96kHz is also advisable,..''

[biffcheeze]

so what about cards that go up to 192khz?

Is there really anypoint?

[muzines]

so what about cards that go up to 192khz?

Is there really anypoint?

It depends who you ask.

If you're asking me, the answer would be.... nope.

There is good data to support the theory that the absolute optimum samples rates should be somewhere between 50-70KHz - any more than that, and it gets too hard to make accurate convertors. But a bit more than 44.1KHz gives the ability to require less agressive aliasing filters.

But in short, while there are in my view a few reasons to go to 96KHz (some virtual instruments really do sound better up there in terms of aliasing performance), there are none to go beyond that. And personally I can't record anywhere near well enough to make 96KHz justifiable for analog recordings.

Like I say, it depends who you ask. But 24/44 is my benchmark, unless video demands a 48KHz sample rate...

[Aural Reject]

This really has been discussed to death - there was a huge thread last year. Either use the forum search function or use google and look for 192 ......

[The_BPP]

God, not this again.

Have a look in the thread I started way back... It'll bore you shitless, but provide plenty of opinions. (and let's face it, some of us have opinions, and some of us have talent).

Look AT THIS THREAD

[Aural Reject]

That'll be the one

[John Willett]

It's all been said.

[Doublehelix]

It's all been said.

Many times, in fact!

[snipsnip]

whats better... pc's or macs?

[Paul Soundscape]

whats better... pc's or macs?

outboard

[Martin Walker]

My finger is now poised over the 'Lock this thread' button in anticipation

Martin

[John Willett]

My finger is now poised over the 'Lock this thread' button in anticipation

[The_BPP]

1) PCs are inherently better than Macs.

2) Anything not recorded at 192kHz is technically, and artistically worthless.

3) I would like someone to write my essay for me. It's entitled... "Why the music industry is crying-out for Music Technology graduates".

Martin, Surely this thread can now be locked?

[Hugh Robjohns]

"Can someone tell me why you would choose to record in 96khz or 192hz when a cd can only play at 44khz?"

Sure the obvious answer is: ...because there are high resolution replay formats available and there are some audible quality advantages to higher sample rates.

The CD format -- adequate though it undoubtedly is for many markets -- is getting on a bit and both the technology and our understanding has improved in the intervening 25 years.

DVD-A offers the option for 24/192 stereo tracks and 24/96 surround tracks. SACD operates with a sample rate of 2.8224MHz. Several record companies now offer FLAC downloads at 24/96 resolution.

So clearly, if you are producing material to be released on one of these formats, a high sample rate source is necesary.

Whether you can appreciate the alleged benefits is something only you can answer. Certainly, there is little public interest in high resolution audio formats at the moment, sadly, but that doesn't mean we should at least try to maximise quality given the opportunity

Personally, I think 24/96 is optimal and I make the majority of my acoustic recordings at this resolution -- mainly because I can easily and I think it sounds better than 16/44.1. I wouldn't bother with 192 myself, and certainly not 384...

Hugh