| Author
|
What sample rate?
|
minkamod
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
3
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 20:47:22
|
Hey there!
This is my first post in this forum, after a looong time of reading.
I've searched the forum, but didn't find anything about it.
The question is, what sample rate are you working with? I know regular Cd's are sampled in 44.1 KHz and DAT in 48 KHz. The thing is that I've got a latency by 4 msec on 48 KHz and only 2 msec on 44.1 Khz..
I don't hear any differens between 44.1 and 48 KHz, but is there any point of choosing 48 khz, or above?
So, what's your sample rate?
Thanks in advance!
Regards, Binmink
  "if music was bread, the butter would be psychedelic" - binmink 2005 |
|
|
|
psychedeliquent
Fractal
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
18
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 20:58
|
|
if is your aim the cd medium, work with 44.1kHz, or 88.2kHz samplerates, best results, most propably without jitter
http://www.surf10rec.net |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 21:59
|
You ideally want to record at a sample rate that is 2 times (so either 88.2 or 96kHz) that of which you will render it at to avoid aliasing (see wikipedia for what aliasing is).
This does use a lot more cpu though.
http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
minkamod
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
3
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 22:10
|
|
I know about aliasing, and i know the higher sample rates will make a better "quality", But the question is if it would make any differens if the final product is a audio CD?
"if music was bread, the butter would be psychedelic" - binmink 2005 |
|
|
|
Freeflow
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
60
Posts :
3709
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 22:42
|
i work in 24bit 44.1khz! at least right now..
this has been discussed before.. why you work with higher samplerates and bitdepth is cause of the many calculations your audio goes through with FX and manipulation..
maybe you could compare too headroom 
this is what i have heard, dont mean its correct though..
|
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 23:05
|
|
Kane
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
1772
Posted : Jan 14, 2009 23:34
|
The fact is that sample rates above 48khz generally aren't higher quality than 44.1/48.
The idea is that 44.1 is theoretically perfect, but there are several flaws in practice that you can only do your best to minimize. In order for a PCM wave to be able to reproduce the original recording perfectly with no distortion, it would have to be 100% bandpassed and 100% timepassed simultaneously. This isn't possible because there is no "brickwall" ideal filter, and there will always be alias distortion in sampled audio.
Certain things like guitar and violin recordings will sound better at 96khz because they have very sensitive high frequencies and supersonic harmonics. Although you can't hear up to 48khz, what you can't hear affects what you do hear. Imo it's pointless in electronic music, and you should focus on bit depth instead of overloading your cpu with useless frequencies to process.
I work at 24/44.1 all the time, but I've mastered at 24/96 upon request, usually for non electronic music.
You believe in the users?
Yeah, sure. If I don't have a user, then who wrote me? |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Jan 15, 2009 02:35
|
|
Kane
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
23
Posts :
1772
Posted : Jan 15, 2009 03:58
|
How are they higher in quality if there's no audible difference in most cases? The fact that they're "faster" doesn't necessarily mean that they can reproduce the recording any better than a 44.1khz wave, especially if you're just going to bandpass them anyway.
You believe in the users?
Yeah, sure. If I don't have a user, then who wrote me? |
|
|
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Jan 15, 2009 04:17
|
|
