• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Topic: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    I've been giving this a lot of thought - recording live instruments at 88.2kHz to capture "more air" or harmonics and then a nice downsample to 44.1kHz.

    What I found interesting whilst "Googling" is that a post on the Nuendo forums claims that mixing in your DAW will sound better at 88.2kHz as well.

    The claim is, that many plugins work by sample rate, even if they say they are working in milliseconds. Therefore, your plugins have more to work with or something. (I would assume that this would only be with 88.2kHz source material though?)

    Has anyone ever of heard of this? And is anybody mixing at a higher rate than 44.1kHz?
    ---------------------------
    - SCA - Sound Studios -
    www.sca-soundstudios.com
    ---------------------------

  2. #2

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Hey Scott,

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Cairns
    I've been giving this a lot of thought - recording live instruments at 88.2kHz to capture "more air" or harmonics and then a nice downsample to 44.1kHz.

    What I found interesting whilst "Googling" is that a post on the Nuendo forums claims that mixing in your DAW will sound better at 88.2kHz as well.

    The claim is, that many plugins work by sample rate, even if they say they are working in milliseconds. Therefore, your plugins have more to work with or something. (I would assume that this would only be with 88.2kHz source material though?)

    Has anyone ever of heard of this? And is anybody mixing at a higher rate than 44.1kHz?
    I wouldn't recommend mixing at a higher rate unless the native format in which your mix will be used supports this rate aswell. Otherwise, you'll need to resample it at the output stage, which will always result in a slight (depends of the resampling algorithm) degradation of quality. While it's true that some plug-ins can profit from a higher sampling rate even if the input sampling rate is lower (for example, a reverb plug-in could render its trail on 88.2khz even if the input signal is 44.1khz), I doubt this would justify the resampling if you need 44.1khz material eventually anyway.

    Cheers,
    jan

  3. #3

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Scott, I have heard what you are talking about... that is also why Cubase and Nuendo have a 32-bit option, even though sound cards do not support it, internal mixing and effects do, and that is where it is needed. The more data the internal processing has to utilize, the higher quality results they can produce.

    I work at 24-bit/48-kHz for almost everything as DVD is usually my final output source. Plus, the downsampling from 48 to 44.1 when needed, is fine to my ears (though I hear its not for some).

    I think that if you have the processing and computer resources to work eveerything at 88.2kHz, then I would. It is always better to have more than you need... Plus this is where most of the natural overtones and harmonics are captured, is at the higher resolutions, so this will definetly give you the "air" you spoke about.
    Alan Lastufka | www.BelaDMedia.com
    Producer/Artistic Design | Content Producer

    20 Things

  4. #4

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Hi Jan, thanks for responding. Isn't downsampling from 88.2 to 44.1 an even division, therefore giving little or no truncation? I thought the anti-aliasing and filtering came into play when you were trying to convert uneven divisions of sampling rates, for example; 96 to 44.1 or 48 to 44.1...
    ---------------------------
    - SCA - Sound Studios -
    www.sca-soundstudios.com
    ---------------------------

  5. #5

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Hey Scott,

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Cairns
    Hi Jan, thanks for responding. Isn't downsampling from 88.2 to 44.1 an even division, therefore giving little or no truncation? I thought the anti-aliasing and filtering came into play when you were trying to convert uneven divisions of sampling rates, for example; 96 to 44.1 or 48 to 44.1...
    Truncation has nothing to do with this, perhaps you're thinking of bit depth conversions? When downsampling, you basically "leave out" samples. The problem in this process is that frequencies above the nyquist limit (half the sampling rate) of the target rate result in aliasing artifacts when treated this way, and thus must be filtered away before the process. This is not an easy task, since it needs a filter with a very steep slope (you don't want any frequencies above the nyquist limit, but you don't want your audible spectrum after the conversion be affected either)

    Cheers,
    jan

  6. #6

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lastufka
    Scott, I have heard what you are talking about... that is also why Cubase and Nuendo have a 32-bit option, even though sound cards do not support it, internal mixing and effects do, and that is where it is needed. The more data the internal processing has to utilize, the higher quality results they can produce.

    I work at 24-bit/48-kHz for almost everything as DVD is usually my final output source. Plus, the downsampling from 48 to 44.1 when needed, is fine to my ears (though I hear its not for some).

    I think that if you have the processing and computer resources to work eveerything at 88.2kHz, then I would. It is always better to have more than you need... Plus this is where most of the natural overtones and harmonics are captured, is at the higher resolutions, so this will definetly give you the "air" you spoke about.
    Hi Alan, thanks, yes I work at 32bit float currently for the reasons you mentioned; adding digital effects and having more bits to work with, etc.

    I have been particularly interested in recording acoustic instruments at higher sample rates though. Was just curious what everyone else is doing.
    ---------------------------
    - SCA - Sound Studios -
    www.sca-soundstudios.com
    ---------------------------

  7. #7

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Morgenstern
    Hey Scott,
    Truncation has nothing to do with this, perhaps you're thinking of bit depth conversions? When downsampling, you basically "leave out" samples. The problem in this process is that frequencies above the nyquist limit (half the sampling rate) of the target rate result in aliasing artifacts when treated this way, and thus must be filtered away before the process. This is not an easy task, since it needs a filter with a very steep slope (you don't want any frequencies above the nyquist limit, but you don't want your audible spectrum after the conversion be affected either)

    Cheers,
    jan
    Sorry, your right, artifact is the word I'm thinking of, not truncation (as in bit depth truncation.)

    Jan, what about instrument recording at higher sample rates? Is this something you do?
    ---------------------------
    - SCA - Sound Studios -
    www.sca-soundstudios.com
    ---------------------------

  8. #8

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Hi Alan,

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Lastufka
    Scott, I have heard what you are talking about... that is also why Cubase and Nuendo have a 32-bit option, even though sound cards do not support it, internal mixing and effects do, and that is where it is needed. The more data the internal processing has to utilize, the higher quality results they can produce.
    Bit depth is really a different animal, this is were using a higher spec than the final output stage really makes sense, since most signal processors respond well to the additional headroom and you can use dithering measures in the output stage in order to avoid the quantization noise mere truncation introduces. Also, contrary to sample rate conversion, no filtering is neccessary.

    I think that if you have the processing and computer resources to work eveerything at 88.2kHz, then I would. It is always better to have more than you need... Plus this is where most of the natural overtones and harmonics are captured, is at the higher resolutions, so this will definetly give you the "air" you spoke about.
    I agree if you will use the material in a 88.2 environment, but if you'll resample it in the end, the overtones and harmonics will vanish anyway.

    Cheers,
    jan

  9. #9

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Hey Scott,

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Cairns
    Sorry, your right, artifact is the word I'm thinking of, not truncation (as in bit depth truncation.)

    Jan, what about instrument recording at higher sample rates? Is this something you do?
    If I'm sure I won't need the material for projects with higher native sampling rates, no. Apart from the required resampling, the clock jitter amount of most A/D converters increases with the sampling rate, so I wouldn't trust any non-high-end converter to accurately map the higher frequency range anyway.

    Cheers,
    jan

  10. #10

    Re: Anyone working at higher than 44.1kHz?

    Best bet we have found is to mix analog out through some wonderful DAC's into a second rig or Masterlink @ 24/96. (We prefer Mytek DAC's here. Truly wondeful pieces.) Note that if you cut to Masterlink I would suggest using some great external ADC's to get in. (Once again we use Myteks)

    FWIW, We can blind test identify stuff which was mixed or cut at 24/96 here almost every time. (If they have been cut with good gear anyways). Sounds far more 'real' if we can use that term. Sorta has more dimension and space around it. I know that sounds pretty vague, but our ears definitely love it. The trade off of course is that 24/96 or above can really bring your CPUs to their knees if you do your entire session within it. But even mixing only, at 24/96 gives the mastering stage FAR more stuff to work with, given that you have used good converters in the above scenario.

    Regards,
    DLevy
    mgr, Legacy Lab

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •