| Author
|
"professional" samplerate
|
elesede
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
41
Posted : Mar 5, 2010 20:25:31
|
|
I wonder whats the samplerate recomended to work, with 44k would be enough? today people are working on 48,96,196 k? I mean in a professional environment, thanks! |
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 5, 2010 21:27
|
|
44.1 is enough for music |
|
|
|
elesede
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
41
Posted : Mar 5, 2010 22:23
|
what happens is that when you convert a mp3 file gives me a little better outcome 48k for example, with 96 & 196 I can not try because my computer does not support u.u
thanks |
|
|
|
Uedi
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
288
Posted : Mar 5, 2010 22:44
|
Yes, 44.1! Or maybe 48k, 32 bits!!!
I think you don't need higher rates, specially if you're going to convert to mp3.
If doesn't sound good at that rate, it never will at any rate! 
For lossless formats like *.flac, 96kHz - 24bits is enough.
you need to have an audio card that support those rates...
and also software that can encode it!
|
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 00:35
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-05 22:23, elesede wrote:
what happens is that when you convert a mp3 file gives me a little better outcome 48k for example, with 96 & 196 I can not try because my computer does not support u.u
thanks
|
|
no, the outcome is the same. Provided you don't have aliasing in your track...
44.1 khz sample rate is absolutely enough for music, there are tons of topics on sample rates, use the search function!
 Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
*eLliSDee*
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
671
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 10:37
|
my friend tried to convince me that 96mhz does enhance the sound in details, like reverb..
i think that with the higher resolution it can make a difference. IMO
|
|
|
|
Medea
Aedem/Medea
Started Topics :
127
Posts :
1132
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 10:45
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-06 10:37, *eLliSDee* wrote:
my friend tried to convince me that 96mhz does enhance the sound in details, like reverb..
i think that with the higher resolution it can make a difference. IMO
|
|
maybe, if the music is listened by dolphins or bats
http://soundcloud.com/aedem |
|
|
|
frepp
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
30
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 11:10
|
It all depends on what environment you would be using it in.
If it's going to be used commercially, you'd be best off using 44.1kHz/16bit (at least at the last stage of production), since that's a standard everyone can use, but if you are going to play your songs yourself (for instance playing at parties and such) I'd go for a higher rate.
Personally I use 96kHz/24bit or 48kHz/24bit when I have full control of the mixing equipment used. With 'full control' in this case, I mean full control of the digital signal path and the D/A converter.
While I've not been able to hear a difference between 48kHz and 96kHz in most cases (and I have a VERY revealing soundsystem and fairly well trained ears), I'll still use 96kHz sometimes, due the fact that some plugins and instruments work with a native sampling frequency of 96kHz, and it's always better to avoid resampling when possible.
Down- or upsampling between 96 & 48kHz is usually not a big deal sonically though, since due to the nature of digital sound, doubling or halving is a pretty easy thing to do (96 is 2x48), while converting between 48 and 44.1kHz is a bit harder to do well.
In cases where you want the end result to be a CD or mp3 release, it's probably better to use 88.2kHz (2x44.1kHz) during mixing instead of 96kHz. That way, you'd still have a high bitrate, while making the conversion to 44.1kHz easier.
I've never been able to hear a difference between 32bit and 24 bit though, so for me, 96kHz/24bit is the best option. The main reason for me not using 88.2kHz (which would make it easy to convert to 44.1kHz) is that I use a Virus TI as my main instrument, which works at 48kHz, so I'd have to make a less than optimal conversion in order to get it to cd format.
On a good sound system, the difference between 44.1kHZ/16bit and 96kHz/24bit is quite big if you have a decent pair of ears.
eLliSDee: It's 96kHz, not 96MHz  |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 16:04
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-06 11:10, frepp wrote:
In cases where you want the end result to be a CD or mp3 release, it's probably better to use 88.2kHz (2x44.1kHz) during mixing instead of 96kHz. That way, you'd still have a high bitrate, while making the conversion to 44.1kHz easier.
I've never been able to hear a difference between 32bit and 24 bit though, so for me, 96kHz/24bit is the best option. The main reason for me not using 88.2kHz (which would make it easy to convert to 44.1kHz) is that I use a Virus TI as my main instrument, which works at 48kHz, so I'd have to make a less than optimal conversion in order to get it to cd format.
|
|
are you sure it s not 96khz?i thought the virus is working at 96 internally? about 88.2 or 96 you dont have to worry about that the sample rate converters upsample it a lot and then comme back to 44.1 or what ever sample rate you want. |
|
|
|
davinski
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
119
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 18:02
|
i read somewhere that the sample rate is not of so big importance. unless it's lower then 44.1kHz.
The big factor is the bit depth. Try to use 24bit rather then 16bit, cause then u will get more headroom for placing the sounds into the spectrum.(more space for leveling,panning,depth....
|
|
|
|
frepp
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
30
Posted : Mar 6, 2010 21:58
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-06 16:04, PoM wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-06 11:10, frepp wrote:
In cases where you want the end result to be a CD or mp3 release, it's probably better to use 88.2kHz (2x44.1kHz) during mixing instead of 96kHz. That way, you'd still have a high bitrate, while making the conversion to 44.1kHz easier.
I've never been able to hear a difference between 32bit and 24 bit though, so for me, 96kHz/24bit is the best option. The main reason for me not using 88.2kHz (which would make it easy to convert to 44.1kHz) is that I use a Virus TI as my main instrument, which works at 48kHz, so I'd have to make a less than optimal conversion in order to get it to cd format.
|
|
are you sure it s not 96khz?i thought the virus is working at 96 internally? about 88.2 or 96 you dont have to worry about that the sample rate converters upsample it a lot and then comme back to 44.1 or what ever sample rate you want.
|
|
I'm not sure whether the Virus uses 96kHz internally, but at least what comes out of it is 48kHz.
Davinski: The cd format was not made to give the best sound reproduction possible, it was chosen to be "good enough" for most people, and while most people think that 44.1kHz is good enough, there are lots of us that disagree. It's a matter of how you listen and how trained your ears are. For me personally, 88.2kHz is the lowest commercially used samplerate that I've found to give "perfect" sound. If I could choose freely I'd probably choose something a little lower, if I remember correctly when I tested this a few years back, somewhere around 60kHz was where my own limit was, but that's not a commercially used samplerate, so 88.2 or 96kHz was more convenient.
To be clear about this: I think 44.1kHz/16bit is 'almost' good enough, but why compromise where no compromise is needed? =D
In a nutshell, lower samplerate = more grainy overall sound, with less smoothness to sounds that should sound smooth, while lower bitdepth = less resolution of small, low amplitude sounds such as reverb tails and such. |
|
|
|
Josh Inc
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
29
Posted : Mar 7, 2010 02:42
|
samplerate debate..............again.
YAWN!!!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|
|
Greententacle
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
323
Posted : Mar 7, 2010 19:09
|
Most (99 procent, in my ears) Psytrance Qualtiy is total bullshit, so the question should be: Make bullshit in 44.1 or
96 khz.
Sorry for this, but please stop this questions
www.myspace.com/toxicbytes |
|
|
|
makus
Overdream
Started Topics :
82
Posts :
3087
Posted : Mar 7, 2010 21:48
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Mar 7, 2010 23:17
|
44./24 for music, 48/24 for film. especially given that your good ol dynamic range is so much bigger in Film, that is unless you're watching Transformer...
and the only reason they do 48khz in film is because that is the standard rate...
Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
