 sound card sample rates |
|
|
herro ive got an emu 1212m soundcard and ive been using it on 48khz and just wondering if it would be more beneficial to use it on 96khz. not too clued up with this so any hlp would be great cheers
__
do too many cooks spoil the broth or make more of it?
|
|
|
29-06-2008 14:31 |
|
|
Muad'Dib 
Andrejnalin
Registration Date: 02-12-2003
Posts: 4,197
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
If you don't work in a pro environment and cut vinyl or give pro master, I can't really recommend pushing to 96kHz, as you really don't need to. Even 48 kHz is too much for normal audio work (44.1 kHz is CD quality).
The benefits are more bits of data are written, giving somewhat clearer sound without much interpolation on the high frequencies (such as it happens with CD quality .wav files. Try making a sine wave and raising its' frequency from 60 Hz to 20 000 Hz, and you will start to notice the interpolation which comes up at high frequencies. That doesn't happen with 48 or 96 kHz conversion). The other benefit is clearer recording of external sources.
Other than that, for normal audio work, it is useless.
__
Thinking about becoming an Image-Line/FL Studio customer? Want a 10% reduction in price? Use this affiliate link:
http://affiliate.image-line.com/BADEBDG473
There is no such thing without its opposite
-Bene Gesserit
|
|
|
29-06-2008 14:44 |
|
|
thechronic
admin
Registration Date: 01-11-2002
Posts: 5,293
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
Working in 96k gives only a very subtle increase in quality. On the other hand some plugins (timestretching, reverbs etc) can potentially work a lot better in 96k since they have more data to work with.
The drawbacks are that it uses up double the amount of hard disk space and can cause longer processing time / higher CPU usage. Also backing up the data will take more time and space.
You should decide for yourself if you prefer smaller file size over a small increase in perceived quality. If you have the necessary CPU power and harddisk space it would certainly not hurt.
__
If you find spam on the site, please hit the  button and select my name. I'll personally kick it to the murky depths of hell where it belongs! 
|
|
|
02-07-2008 20:14 |
|
|
Digital Cause
Player
Registration Date: 06-07-2006
Posts: 447
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
I used to go to sound engineering college, and while there the whole 96khz, 44khz 16 bit or 24 bit was a huge topic.
During a lesson a tutor played us recordings in both sample rates, and asked us to compare. in most instances most people said they thought the lower sample rate, lower bit rate recording was better. I personally think until you cant get any better at getting a great mixdown (which I doubt anyone apart from MAYBE Noisia can say!) then this is completely irrelevant, especially with contemporary music like DnB where there is almost no dynamic range. (Apart from between silence and the rest of the tune etc.)
I seriously would not wruin the vibe of making good music with this type of thing.
__
www.myspace.com/digitalcause
www.myspace.com/mysterious1000
|
|
|
21-07-2008 22:07 |
|
|
c_ctrl
Wicked Producer
Registration Date: 02-06-2008
Posts: 307
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
I was told at Uni that the only time you'll ever need to use anything higher than 44.1 is when you're producing sound for Hollywood Seeing as that will probably never happen to us, although I am working my hardest to end up there, I think we're fine with CD quality.
__
DeCode & Roary Soundcloud
|
|
|
25-07-2008 17:25 |
|
|
|
