7 Feb
2013
7 Feb
'13
11:17 a.m.
Are there any advantages to using 96k (or 48k?) if the final target is
44.1k/16bit? I am thinking that tracking at 44.1k / 24 bit should be
more than sufficient for most (non-pro) purposes?
I read somewhere about higher bitrate being important for headroom for
audio processing plugins, but does samplerate also have an effect on
this?
James
7 Feb
7 Feb
11:33 a.m.
Ooops.. Sorry - just seen this was discussed last month.]
Please ignore the noise!
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:17 AM, James Stone <jamesmstone(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Are there any advantages to using 96k (or 48k?) if the
final target is
44.1k/16bit? I am thinking that tracking at 44.1k / 24 bit should be
more than sufficient for most (non-pro) purposes?
I read somewhere about higher bitrate being important for headroom for
audio processing plugins, but does samplerate also have an effect on
this?
James
5:48 p.m.
On Thu, February 7, 2013 2:17 am, James Stone wrote:
Are there any advantages to using 96k (or 48k?) if the
final target is
44.1k/16bit? I am thinking that tracking at 44.1k / 24 bit should be
more than sufficient for most (non-pro) purposes?
I read somewhere about higher bitrate being important for headroom for
audio processing plugins, but does samplerate also have an effect on
this?
48k seems to be the standard the ADCs are built for. The non-pro audio
cards (AC97 and HDA) are designed around 48k. In fact AC97 codecs sample
at 48K and resample down to 44.1k sometimes badly (SB Live!). Go back a
month in this list a month or so for more reasons why 44.1k is less than
good for recording.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
5:14 p.m.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Len Ovens <len(a)ovenwerks.net> wrote:
On Thu, February 7, 2013 2:17 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.
James
Are there any advantages to using 96k (or 48k?)
if the final target is
44.1k/16bit? I am thinking that tracking at 44.1k / 24 bit should be
more than sufficient for most (non-pro) purposes?
I read somewhere about higher bitrate being important for headroom for
audio processing plugins, but does samplerate also have an effect on
this?
48k seems to be the standard the ADCs are built for. The non-pro audio
cards (AC97 and HDA) are designed around 48k. In fact AC97 codecs sample
at 48K and resample down to 44.1k sometimes badly (SB Live!). Go back a
month in this list a month or so for more reasons why 44.1k is less than
good for recording.
6:08 p.m.
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.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
8 Feb
8 Feb
2:06 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Len Ovens wrote:
On Thu, February 7, 2013 6:23 am, James Stone wrote:
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.
Some hardware isn't just 96kHz -- it's designed for it, and the filters
won't let it sound good any other way. If you have such an interface,
the sample rate question is already answered for you. You just have to
listen to it at the slower sample rates and see if it still sounds good.
If not, you may end up choosing 96kHz just because that's what your
audio interface's filters like.
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
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.
8:10 a.m.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Brent Busby <brent(a)keycorner.org> wrote:
On Thu, 7 Feb 2013, Len Ovens wrote:
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
On Thu, February 7, 2013 6:23 am, James Stone
wrote:
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. 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.
3:05 p.m.
On Thu, February 7, 2013 11:10 pm, James Stone wrote:
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..
The material has to be generated at the test sample rate. Taking some
music from a CD and listening at different playback rates will not say
much. It is recording you want to test, so you should record at different
rates. As I said before though, it is not just the soundcard but
everything before that too. If you are recording with an sm58, it's
characteristics will probably define the sound more than the sampling
rate. (for example) The differences will be in the 15 to 20 khz range...
beyond most dynamic mics.
--
Len Ovens
www.OvenWerks.net
8:15 p.m.
On 02/08/13 01:10, James Stone wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Brent Busby
<brent(a)keycorner.org> wrote:
Just listen through your interface, and compare to what you hear
directly from a mixer (or some similar method). If it sounds much
darker through the interface at 44.1kHz, that samplerate may have been
an afterthought to the creators.
--
+ Brent A. Busby + "We've all heard that a million monkeys
+ Sr. UNIX Systems Admin + banging on a million typewriters will
+ University of Chicago + eventually reproduce the entire works of
+ James Franck Institute + Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet,
+ Materials Research Ctr + we know this is not true." -Robert Wilensky
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.
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..
4308
days inactive
4309
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Brent Busby -
James Stone -
Len Ovens