| Author
|
Why you should raise your sample rate!
|
talolard
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
64
Posts :
282
Posted : Dec 5, 2006 19:03
|
i think the big difference isn't in the sampels but in all the effectss and synths you use. some of them, most of the ones i've experimented with, don't up theyr sample rates for processing or at least they sound different when i do it.
it doesnt matter, at least from this perspective, if you work with 44.1 audio sampels or 96. the important thing is that anything that does processing, be it an effect or a synth, does it in a much bigger "resolution" and is theyre for ,audiably, more precise.
  Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.
natanofgaza@yahoo.com |
|
|
|
UnderTow
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
1448
Posted : Dec 5, 2006 21:15
|
Actually, it doesn't increase the resolution. It just increases the bandwidth. To increase resolution, you need to increase the bit depth.
Anyway, it really depends on the converters and the plugins wether increasing the sample rate improves the sound or not.
So the bottom line is to try it for yourself in your own setup with the tools you use and decide for yourself wether it is worth the extra CPU load, drive space and data bandwidth usage. Personaly, I'm happy at 44.1Khz.
Going to 48 Khz doesn't make much sense to me. All your samples will need to be converted to 48 Khz first and you have to convert the final product back to 44.1Khz at the end. This in itself will affect the sound.
If you do choose to do this anyway, at least use a high quality sample rate converter. Voxengo R8brain (free) is better than the sample rate converter included in most DAWs.
PS: Oh and if I had to choose between upgrading my CPU/motherboard/RAM/disks to run at 96Khz or invest in a better sound card, my choice would be the better soundcard.
UnderTow |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Dec 5, 2006 23:23
|
I've made a simple test and you can do it your self and quickly hear the difference.
I've picked up a nice fat preset on VST MiniMonster and assign an LFO to cutoff frequency so that it goes from min. to max value (full sweep). I've exported a loop on 44.1, 48 and 96 khz.
I've imported waves into another Cubase arrangement and let Cubase do the converting. The difference is obvious. 96 kHz has a clear sweep all the way. 44.1 gets a bit distorted near the 10 kHz and when it reaches 16 Khz it's completly distorted.
More "frames" per second - less rounding errors - less mud in the sound.
And you don't have to change the samplerate of samples if you use them in VST sempler. If you're importing them as waves Cubase does it automaticly and it works just fine.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Dec 5, 2006 23:40
|
what about 88.2? 
|
|
|
|
Trip-
IsraTrance Team
Started Topics :
101
Posts :
3239
Posted : Dec 6, 2006 10:58
|
shamantrixx
what you're saying is,
if I take some 44.1khz sample, put it in the sampler VST on a 96khz running DAW - run it through a filter and it will sound 'better' than the same sample put through the same filter running at 44.1khz on the same DAW?
I do wonder how this can happen, but I'll try this out anyway.
Crackling universes dive into their own neverending crackle...
AgalactiA |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Dec 6, 2006 22:52
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-06 10:58, Trip- wrote:
shamantrixx
what you're saying is,
if I take some 44.1khz sample, put it in the sampler VST on a 96khz running DAW - run it through a filter and it will sound 'better' than the same sample put through the same filter running at 44.1khz on the same DAW?
I do wonder how this can happen, but I'll try this out anyway. |
|
The sample it self will be the same, but any effect, lfo, filter etc. that you apply to it will sound a lot better 'cause you'll have more reference points within a second of sound. More reference points - more sharpnes, depth and space to sound.
simple as that.
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
AvS
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
464
Posted : Dec 6, 2006 23:34
|
As said before it totally depends on the soundcard.
Years ago when i had an M-audio Audiophile i made the same test; Recorded a synth in 44.1 and 88.2. The 88.2 recording definetly sounded better.
Got some way better converters today (RME).
Made the same test a few months ago and i COULD NOT hear any difference between 44.1 and 88.2 khz. And why should there be a difference? If the converters do what they are suppose to do, there should be no difference since 44.2 can capture frequencies up t 22.1 khz and noone can hear that high freqs.
And ofcourse, as said erlier, if you want to use the recording in a sampler or just speed it down then record with a high sample rate
This is actually really interresting. It's just like filming with high speed cameras and viewing it at a slower rate. With audio you just hear sounds that you cant hear in the real world.
I recorded an analog synth' sawwave with open filter the other day at a high sample rate and slowed it down to half speed and it sounded exactly like i just played it at an octave below. It still had harmonies all the way up to inaudible freqencies wich means that the saw wave it generates has got harmonic content all the way up to atleast 44100 hz!
|
|
|
|
Stregone
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
63
Posts :
1252
Posted : Dec 7, 2006 12:03
|
Of course it is better to work on as higher as possible frequency at the moment when you modify something, eq, effects and so on...
44.1 is not a good quality at all, is a compromise quality which was choosen for the cd format, if you work on a higher frequency, at least 48, better 88.2 or 96, you will have a better and clearer definition... and at the end reconvert to 44.1 for the cd support.
Working on less then 24 bits... at those days is for sure a bad idea.... as quite all professionals work at least on 24 bits, you'll hear a big difference if you stay in 16.... |
|
|
|
talolard
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
64
Posts :
282
Posted : Dec 7, 2006 13:27
|
I'll summarize
three points have been made
1. your final output is a function of your weakest link. if you have bad convertewrs you will get bad sound if you have good converters you will get good sound
2. sample recorded at 44.1 will not sound better if it is converted to 192k or 96k or anything else.
3. processing done at higher sample rates will be more precise than processing done at lower sample rates. this is because thier are more "frames per second" for what ever proccesor to do what it does. this leads to a subjectivly better sound.
only the third point is any justificationn to switch to higher sample rates. i found it to be such a substantial difference that i have switched for life.
Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.
natanofgaza@yahoo.com |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Dec 7, 2006 14:19
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-12-07 13:27, talolard wrote:
1. your final output is a function of your weakest link. if you have bad convertewrs you will get bad sound if you have good converters you will get good sound
|
|
but the wave file ll be the same.it s when you record external signal good converters is a must.(but yes it help for mixing too ) |
|
|
|
