With Pro Tools 12, you can choose from The answer may depend on the format. These sample rates are measured in kilohertz kHz and reference the number of samples played in one second of audio. However, these sample rates really capture audio at half the frequency listed. For example, when recording When sampling at 48 kHz, you are really capturing frequencies up to 24 kHz.
The difference between However, some people prefer to record at a higher sample rate. Is there any advantage to recording at 48 kHz?
Recording at a higher sample rate offers a combination of pros and cons, depending on the output format. It is important to note that humans cannot hear the difference between While some people claim that they notice a slight improvement in audio quality when selecting the higher audio rate, research indicates that 20 kHz is the limit to human hearing.
This theorem stated that the sample rate needs to be double the highest frequency that you want to reproduce. To ensure that the audio CD covered the entire frequency spectrum that is audible to humans, engineers used the The main benefit of sticking with a The file sizes also tend to be smaller, which may be a factor when sharing audio files with collaborators over the Internet or saving space on your hard drive.
As humans cannot hear the difference between You should also consider the format that you plan to use when delivering your final mix. If you record at a higher sample rate, the sample rate needs to be converted to Older conversion software would produce distortion or a loss of quality when converting integers.
These same issues do not apply when converting However, when converting from 48 kHz to Basically, if you are planning to burn your music to CD, While you cannot hear the difference between Using a 48 kHz sample rate offers slightly more headroom for tweaking your mix. If you decide to go back and edit the master, the 48 kHz sample rate offers more flexibility, especially when working with high frequencies such as the sounds produced by cymbals and high hats.
A higher sample rate also reduces the risk of aliasing. Aliasing occurs when the different frequencies become less distinguishable due to artifacts not getting filtered out. You also get lower latency rates with higher sample rates. Basically, a higher sample rate helps to produce a cleaner sound. However, the difference will not be noticeable in the final output. You may also use a higher sample rate for burning audio to CDs without using 48 kHz.Just in the last couple of weeks, my post house received a 35mm high-budgeted commercial for dailies, with the sound recorded at 96kHz bit.
My eyebrows were raised by this. Technically, the Fostex DVs and s we use can play back 96k, but I'm not sure there's a point to it. We do have one or two newer Yamaha consoles that can handle 96kHz, but we'd still have to SRC down to 48k before the signal left the room. Me personally, my own experience is that anything above 48kHz for dialog makes no sense. I can understand using 96kHz or even kHz for an orchestral recording or for gathering sound effects, and I readily accept the advantages of bit rate for dynamic range, noise floor, and other issues.
But I'm not convinced going at 96kHz buys you anything except a bigger file. And in terms of a post workflow, it forces us to go analog, and everything still goes down to videotape at 48k even in HD.
Conversations with two re-recording mixers told me they've never had to deal with 96k for features or TV in Pro Tools. It's one of those things that's "theoretically possible" as one put it to me tonightbut "as rare as a dog that speaks Norwegian. The spots in question, BTW, were the usual combination of booms and lavs, under hectic conditions, background traffic noise, echoey interiors, etc.
Maybe three lines of dialog in seconds, tops. If this becomes a trend, we're going to have to re-think how we set up our facility. Changing over from 48kHz to 96kHz will be a daunting task. I agree with you--I think 96k has some interest for A: sfx recordists who want to be able slow down their recordings and still maintain full-fi, and B: in music recording where ALL the other parameters score, player, instrument, recording chain, room are ultra high quality.
The Real Differences Between 16-Bit and 24-Bit Audio
For location dialog--I will be frank and say that using 96k for that is just showboating, ignorance or both. I don't think I get a vote about whether 96k will become a trend, but I hope it doesn't.
Seldom do the people proposing these things consider the whole chain, what its purpose is, the release format and so on. I remember talking to a Canadian mixer who was still using his modified Nagra 4-STC with the Bryston DolbySR kit several large car batteries on a follow cart to keep it all running who said he was refusing to "go digital" DAT because he didn't like the sound. So, he was using analog Dolby SR as a big filter on the front end of his recordings, but going digital or not wasn't really up to the sound mixer.
Most people know where I stand on this issue. I believe that anything above 48k is strictly for marketing purposes. Today's A to D converters over-sample and do 1 bit delta sigma conversion so the old excuses for higher sample rates allows for less severe anti-alias filter are moot.
Subscribe to RSS
Humans can only hear on average up to about 17khz and a very few people can hear some small amount of sound up to 20 khz. So Dialogue is even more severely limited in bandwidth with the majority of intelligible bandwidth to be in the 5 to 6 khz range. Most of the sounds that exist in the dialogue recording chain above 14khz are unwanted and typically removed before final distribution.Yes, I have searched the forum. Yes, maybe I am dumb.
But it seems I cannot find the answer. In other words, is there any real need for the higher bit depth and sampling rate? Thanks for answering. Last Edit : by William. I heard someone saying that increasing the sampling rate improves the SNR. I simply don't get it.
It would be grateful if someone can enlighten me on this as well. Thank you. I totally agree with you all. Increasing sample rate and bit depth is not perceptible, excepting for some animals. Sony claims to consumers his high sample rate, bandwidth etc but do not claim that 0. Moreover, even if you have a HD Player with kHz bandwidth, you have to get the same characteristics for the whole audio elements amplifiers, loudspeakers.
I am sorry. I agree that it makes no difference to end users The affects of this are mostly negligable and hardware also works to minimize the affects I'll look for some articles about this "phenom" I actually looked them up a year or two ago cause an audiophile engineer I know was telling me about it and I didn't believe him The trouble is, there is no way I can say for certain that i am not simply hearing large errors introduced by my headphones. And since headphones on the market do not seem to be designed for such high resolution there is not much i can do about that.
I have to step out and disagree that there is no audible difference between bit and bit recordings. To hear the benifits of bit vs. The fact is that no everyone can hear the difference, and that's fine. However, even with a capable ear, the individual has to know what he's looking for. We're talking about very subtle points here, the difference is not going to be night and day. You need very good equipment to make bit listening worth your while. It doesn't matter if the recording is bits - if it was poorly recorded, and poorly produced, it's going to sound poor.
Adding another 8 bits is not a magical fix-all. OK, so here are some more technical questions I found How are these numbers chosen? Any technical and practical advantage over And why creative cards resamples to these sampling rates? Or are there any other reasons for the numbers higher than 16bits?
Again, any technical and practical advantages over 16bits, besides keeping accuracy and preventing errors from various quantization before final down-mixing? But, oh well, they are only theoretical after all.Log in or Sign up. Recording Forums.
Tags: 24 bit 96khz pro audio. I have heard a lot of guys say the music being recorded today punk, rap, pop etc will not take advantage of 96 kHz sample rate. I tried a few projects at 96k and things sounded better to me but my machine was overloading. Makes me want to build a super computer! What do you guys think, is 96 khz worth it? Joined: Feb 10, I can easily tell the difference.
Recording at If you're mixing one or two sources, 48 is fine. It's a step closer to analog. MercuriMar 9, Joined: Dec 9, Re: 24 bit 96khz vs 24 bit 48 khz final round Most of the studio owners say it's not worth it for them at this time. I record lots of bells, chimes, pianos, vibraphones, fine cymbals, woodblocks, etc. At 48khz I like my Manley pres, at 96khz I love them. Although the high end is perhaps the most radical difference, I hear an increase in articulation and texture at all frequencies.
The trick is finding quality downsampling if mixing in digital. This can be a problem. If you're mixing to analog, a good mastering engineer will be able to sample the analog at I'll be sending my analog tape or files to Bob Katz, who can handle either with aplomb.
Ted NightshadeMar 9, Re: 24 bit 96khz vs 24 bit 48 khz final round Present session storage technology makes running 96k a no-no for me, add to that, much higher back up costs and I am off the "96k fence" and wandering round a free man again, on the For the time being.I am about to suggest something quite simple —that you have in your hands to fix with a minimum amount of effort— that will allow your audio world to get in sync with the video world seamlessly, in perfect harmony, while preserving your sovereignty as a standalone audio medium.What is High-Resolution Audio?
Ahead are all of the justifications. But what do those numbers actually mean? They mean that with With 48 kHz production, 48, samples are made per second.
With 96 kHz production, 96, samples are made per second. Whether expressed in the thousands of Hertz Hz or as kHz, recognition is given to Heinrich Rudolf Hertz —the German physicist and the first person to provide conclusive proof of the existence of electromagnetic waves. I say that the audio CD has lost its importance because:. This request has nothing to do with improving audio quality. Rather it is to be more cross compatible with the video world and multimedia iBooks which uses 48 kHz audiowhile retaining your sovereignty as a standalone audio medium.
I see benefits of each world. I also love when one medium can complement the other during the production stage, rather than fight with one another, which happens when the audio-only world is forcibly limited to the ancient Many audio producers are often requested to produce audio for video, obviously at 48 kHz.
Those same audio producers are also asked to produce for audio-only projects. Having to remember to switch their system each time between 48 and The majority should rule over the minority.
I am saying that since the audio CD is now the least important in consumption numbers of sales and playback devices, the audio CD should be the only distribution medium version that should be forced to be down-sampled to I have received positive feedback from users worldwide, and I have also sat with friends with multiple types of devices as they subscribe and listen with perfect fidelity, including older iPhones and Android devices.
I have not found a single device that is incapable of playing a 48 kHz MP3 properly, and I have not received a single comment to indicate that they exist anywhere.
The following video standard consumer and professional production formats use 48 kHz audio sampling exclusively:. Both DVD and Blu-ray video disk use 48 kHz or an even multiple of 48, like 96 and kHz, which are very easily scaled to 48 kHz without complex math or adding aliasing. Online services like YouTube and Vimeo can accept both standard video with the standard sampling rate of 48 kHz, or non-standard video with This article shows some technical background, why this is the case.
Please also read the article: Do we need 96kHz? The advantage of higher sampling frequencies From the theory the current 48kHz frequency seems to be sufficient since it can represent up to 24kHz which is the half of the sample rate and defines the so called Nyquist's frequency. Using an appropriate reconstruction filter, all frequencies below this border might be correctly restored.
Practically this required an ideal anti aliasing filter which does not exist and cannot be constructed neither in analog nor in digital domains. The subsequent image shows natural frequencies from 10Hz up to kHz "whales to bats" and the audible range which can be recognized by most humans shown as an average sensitivity curve for medium loudness. Therefore a well defined filter has to be selected offering a good compromise between ripple and band stop capabilities.
On the other hand, the loudness of the upper bands is usually significantly lower than in the lower bands thus a trade off between a correct frequency representation and linearity seems possible. The orange curve in the following image shows such a filter having low ripple and is steep enough to meet a 48kHz sampling frequency. Though using 96kHz makes things much easier.
A more flat and therefore nearly ripple free filter can be used, because the headroom is much bigger. The filter just has to make sure, that there are no or nearly no frequencies beyond 48kHz which is the Nyquist's frequency when using 96kHz. Of course there will be a debris also with 96kHz but it will do no harm even with such a flat filter like shown in the graphics, since the caused mirror frequencies will stay in the non audible range and disappear from the signal during reconstruction.
Conclusion and Summary With 96kHz there will be practically no loss of sound quality during recording when using an optimized filter for 96kHz. With 48kHz even with optimized filters, some small errors will occur for upper frequencies. Advanced Audio Recording. Comparison of 48kHz and 96kHz sample frequency for audio recording In recent years 96kHz sampling frequency was recommended for modern audio recording.
Read more about this issue here: Comparison.Forum Rules. Remember Me?
Q: Should I record at 44.1 kHz or 96 kHz?
Advanced Search. Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Last Jump to page: Results 1 to 10 of Thread: Sign in to disable this ad. Just curious. I recently upgraded my gear from 48khz to 96khz. There's quite a difference but was it really necessary? I don't think the human ears can hear much of a difference. However anything higher then No it wasn't necessary but it will help. It wasnt necessary but an absolutely fantastic decision!
In my opinion, absolutely everything before the master engineer should be recorded and mixed down at 24 bit 96 kHz. The human ear can't "hear" above 20khz. But there is soo much energy above that we perceive that adds so much motion to a track.
But with the beauty of digital why lose quality if you don't have too. Also enough CPU is important Can you guys explain why exactly its important to mix and export in the way you explained A steady drip of water puts a hole n a rock Like old folks pissin i guess it all depends on.
Join Date Feb Location America. Posts 3, Thanks 50 Thanked Times in Posts. Basically it's like this, the higher the bit depth and samplerate the easier it is to make a loud mix without clipping.