96kHz or 192kHz interface?

All about the tools and techniques involved in capturing sound, in the studio or on location.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by thiswayup2010 »

Hey.

What's your opinion on it - is it essential to record in 192k? If the final CD or Mp3 is gonna be 44.1k anyway....surely 96k is more than adequate?

Assuming always 24-bit of course.
thiswayup2010
Poster
Posts: 33 Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 12:00 am

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by hollowsun »

Many would argue (myself included) that 96kHz is overkill, let alone 192!

And depends on the music you're recording...

A string quartet with great players and great instruments in a beautiful acoustic carefully recorded with well placed and well selected mics through quality A-Ds MIGHT benefit from 96kHz and you MIGHT hear a difference if you're listening in a well treated control room on top of the range monitors (and you're assuming that your target listeners are audiophiles with a quality hi-fi who MIGHT also hear a difference ... perhaps).

But otherwise.... nah!

essential to record in 192k? If the final CD or Mp3 is gonna be 44.1k anyway

Instead of 'essential', I think the word you were maybe looking for was 'insane'! ;)
User avatar
hollowsun
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2036 Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 12:00 am Location: Cowbridge, South Wales
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by humandrums »

you MIGHT hear a difference if you're listening in a well treated control room on top of the range monitors


id defo have to disagree on this having upgraded from behringer ada8000's that go upto 48khz to motu 8 pre's to go with my motu 828 mk3 that go upto 96khz same mics/monitors/instruments, and i defo defo could notice one hell of a difference, but that might just be me :beamup:
humandrums
Regular
Posts: 135 Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:00 am

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by ConcertinaChap »

Hugh has written a few times on the forum about the maths on this, which AIUI shows that the sampling frequency can represent waveforms at up to half its own frequency. Thus 44.1kHz is capable of frequencies over 20kHz. 192kHz would probably be useful in a studio run by bats but not otherwise.

CC
User avatar
ConcertinaChap
Jedi Poster
Posts: 11390 Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:00 am Location: Bradford on Avon
Making music: Eagle Alley
Recording music: Mr Punch's Studio
Instead of saying you're off down the pub, tell people you're doing your bit to support the flagging hospitality industry.

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by Jack Ruston »

Basically there are advantages of 88.2 or 96 over 44.1 or 48. These are mainly that the reconstruction filter is moved further away from the audible band, and that some processes like compression seem to behave in a rather more pleasing way at higher sample rates.

The amount of 'difference' depends on your converters. Extremely high end conversion tends to sound closer between the rates, because of the quality of the filtering stage. More affordable converters can sound way better at higher rates because the difficult bit is moved away from what we can hear.

Higher rates carry a processing and storage hit.

There is no credible argument for the general use of 192.

Personally I find that there's something nice about 88.2 on gentler acoustic type stuff. Heavier rock...44.1 usually.

J
Jack Ruston
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3813 Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:00 am

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by jaminem »

humandrums wrote:
you MIGHT hear a difference if you're listening in a well treated control room on top of the range monitors


id defo have to disagree on this having upgraded from behringer ada8000's that go upto 48khz to motu 8 pre's to go with my motu 828 mk3 that go upto 96khz same mics/monitors/instruments, and i defo defo could notice one hell of a difference, but that might just be me :beamup:

or maybe you're hearing the difference between a £150 interface and a £650 one?
jaminem
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1259 Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 12:00 am

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by chris... »

humandrums wrote: id defo have to disagree on this having upgraded from behringer ada8000's that go upto 48khz to motu 8 pre's to go with my motu 828 mk3 that go upto 96khz same mics/monitors/instruments, and i defo defo could notice one hell of a difference

That doesn't necessarily prove anything about sample rates.

"Better-sounding kit than behringer exists shocker. Film at 11".

User avatar
chris...
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 2710 Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:00 am Location: Sunny Glasgow

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by narcoman »

ha!

96 does sound better than 48 - but I'd defy anyone to hear it on anything but optimal monitoring in a high end room. The rest is confirmation bias.... Jack outlines the real advantages.

narcoman
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3287 Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Battenburg to the power of 20 - said by Richie Royale in a moment of genius. 4pm. Wed 16th Nov 2011. Remember where you were....

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by Steve Hill »

humandrums wrote:id defo have to disagree on this having upgraded from behringer ada8000's that go upto 48khz to motu 8 pre's to go with my motu 828 mk3 that go upto 96khz same mics/monitors/instruments, and i defo defo could notice one hell of a difference, but that might just be me :beamup:

You're confusing different topics: I noticed an improivement when I upgraded from cheapo Motus such as the 24i/o or the 2048 to Motu 192s. I noticed again when I upgraded to Prism converters. I didn't change the sample rates I was using. I was just experiencing the benefits of better converters.

I am unpersuaded that there is any need at all to record beyond 96k, ever, for any purpose.
User avatar
Steve Hill
Frequent Poster (Level2)
Posts: 3206 Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 12:00 am

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by RegressiveRock »

chris... wrote:"Film at 11".

Gear porn at 12! (is probably the key motivation for 192)! :frown:
User avatar
RegressiveRock
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1495 Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:00 am Location: Buntingford, Herts

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by Edd M »

I was under the understanding that although we don't necessarily hear above 20kHz, we can sense it.

So information up there could help add extra information psychologically, whether it be direction, detail or space recognition.

The opposition does have a point in that if you can't prove it and it doesn't make a difference to you, then why use it? Of course that's true, when has production ever been about doing something because you should?

I tend to agree with those who aim at 48kHz, due to it allowing the data collected in the audible range to be more precise, and perhaps up at 192kHz it'll be the most precise representation of the analogue source.

Realistically, surely having the most accurate representation of the original sound is the most important thing, so we should embrace higher sample rates!
Edd M
Poster
Posts: 20 Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 12:00 am

Re: 96kHz or 192kHz interface?

Post by humandrums »

cut me some slack guys im a drummer!!! i just remember when i was asking on here a while back when i first got the behringers that using them digitally at 48khz i wouldnt really hear an improvement by getting better pre's but that better mics was the way to go (i couldnt afford new pres and new mics at the same time), the setup i have now when i recorded my kit using the same mics in the same room at 96khz again digitally i dunno fair enough if its the better unit than the behringer honest injun i never changed nuffin else in the setup guv, it just sounded so much richer and a much fuller sound with really clean crisp top end in it
humandrums
Regular
Posts: 135 Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:00 am
Post Reply