[LAU] Tracking at 44.1 vs. 48k vs 96k?

[James Stone]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Brent Busby <brent at keycorner.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Len Ovens wrote:
>
>> On Thu, February 7, 2013 6:23 am, James Stone wrote:
>>
>>> Yep - thanks Len - that was certainly my experience with SBLive and
>>> onboard sound.
>>>
>>> With the Focusrite Scarlett 2i4, it actually seems to run with (slightly)
>>> less CPU load at 44.1k than 48k (much less than 96k), and I think it might
>>> make 44.1k a better choice to avoid the extra downsampling etc. for the
>>> final mix in that instance. Not sure if it actually runs natively at 48k or
>>> whatever tho - not sure how I would find that out.
>>
>>
>> The focusrite will clock the ADCs at whatever rate you select, it will not
>> resample. However, the low pass filter at 44.1k will have more effect on the
>> in band audio than at 48k. Do a listening test, if you can't tell the
>> difference with cymbals and such, I guess it doesn't matter. If your mics
>> roll off at 18k (or less) anyway it may not be an issue. But honestly my
>> engineering is not the best here.
>
>
> That's the experience I've had here also with my RME Multiface II:
>
> Despite that it's been regarded as a nice interface (and it is!), I've found
> that it's *much* darker sounding at 44.1/48kHz, and only seems to have full
> clarity in the treble at 96kHz.  Since I really doubt that my ears need the
> ultrasonic frequency response that desperately to get nice treble, I'd say
> it's probably the filters, owing the effect you're describing and others
> have mentioned in other threads in the past.

Hi Brent and Len!

How do I test this? Do I need to record something at the different
samplerates, or is it sufficient to just playback some material? Can't
say I've noticed much difference in sound quality so far, but I
haven't been listening *very* carefully..

James