lower sample rate is better?

[bewing77]

I have a question. Not extremely important practically, but I'd like to know anyway

Is the recordable frequency acording to the Nyquist theorem the only thing that is affected by samplerate? To me it would seem that there would be oterh issues involved to. Say you are recording a sine wave at 20 kHz. At that frequency the sine wave 1/20000 second to go through one period. If we are sampling that sine wave at 44,1 kHz that means that 2,205 samples are taken during that time. That should be fine if those 2 samples happen at the peak and bottom of the sine, but what if both samples happen at points close to zero amplitude? When replaying that piece of sample it should be played back as silence since that is what we recorded, right? So isn't it correct that sample rate also effects the accuracy of the recording at high frequencies? Anyone care to explain if I am wrong?

[valley]

Is the recordable frequency acording to the Nyquist theorem the only thing that is affected by samplerate? To me it would seem that there would be oterh issues involved to. Say you are recording a sine wave at 20 kHz. At that frequency the sine wave 1/20000 second to go through one period. If we are sampling that sine wave at 44,1 kHz that means that 2,205 samples are taken during that time. That should be fine if those 2 samples happen at the peak and bottom of the sine, but what if both samples happen at points close to zero amplitude? When replaying that piece of sample it should be played back as silence since that is what we recorded, right? So isn't it correct that sample rate also effects the accuracy of the recording at high frequencies? Anyone care to explain if I am wrong?

That's correct. Nyquist doesn't state the required sample rate, it states the *minimum* required sample rate.

Frequencies just below the half-sample rate line are not garaunteed to be captured. CD sound at 44.1KHz cuts pretty close to what is generally held to be the upper range of hearing for most people. In truth, the average 35 year old cannot hear anywhere near 20KHz, however.

[valley]

and I should point out that the above is deliberately hand-wavey, as this is actually a huge and complex subject.

[DWS]

Speak to your mastering engineer about their preference.

I just did and they said 48, with no details provided. I am working on that and will let you know. - s

[DWS]

Speak to your mastering engineer about their preference. If you are going to pass through the analog domain and then resample it then it is a matter for your engineers and his/her preferences re: his/her converters.

I mastered a CD a few years ago w/ Joe Gastwert and he preferred the sound of his best converters @ 44.1 to 44.8. At that time I did not have a high sample rate option so don't know how he feels about 96!

Thanks for the advice. I did, and they basically told me that, since I would hit an analog chain eventually, I should record with as high a rate as possible (for me that's 48 ) --
"because you'll simply get more samples for your digital audio, and we'll be running that higher-sampling-rate source into our converters."

-Scott

[IIRs]

Speak to your mastering engineer about their preference. If you are going to pass through the analog domain and then resample it then it is a matter for your engineers and his/her preferences re: his/her converters.

I mastered a CD a few years ago w/ Joe Gastwert and he preferred the sound of his best converters @ 44.1 to 44.8. At that time I did not have a high sample rate option so don't know how he feels about 96!

Thanks for the advice. I did, and they basically told me that, since I would hit an analog chain eventually, I should record with as high a rate as possible (for me that's 48 ) --
"because you'll simply get more samples for your digital audio, and we'll be running that higher-sampling-rate source into our converters."

-Scott

Fair enough.

I would still maintain that anyone planning to do their own CD mastering using Final Mix (or any other 100% digital mastering chain) would be better off using 44.1 or 88.2KHz..

[DWS]

Fair enough.

I would still maintain that anyone planning to do their own CD mastering using Final Mix (or any other 100% digital mastering chain) would be better off using 44.1 or 88.2KHz..

After reading the posts here I believe you - and may do just that because of the cost of mastering. - Scott

[semiquaver]

I would not recommend mastering your own work if you can afford not to.

The purpose of mastering is in part to correct the bias of your ears and studio set-up.

A good mastering engineer hears a lot of different music and will have perspective as to how yours deviates and a feeling for the appropriate tools to make corrections. It is a very articular talent and one that requires regular practice.

In my experience a great mastering engineer is more important than your sample rate - the best I worked with brought the signal out analog and really saved my bacon - and I had pretty nicely recorded stuff to start with!

If you are going to do it yourself, I would think twice before using multiband compression. A regular mastering compressor with an eq can do a lot of what you are looking for and there are very subtle strange things that happen w/multiband compressors. I am not saying that they don't have their use or that many great pop records weren't mastered that way - but they are not a panacea to be slapped after everything no matter what ala finalizer.

[kL]

That's right. The majors hated that idea that anyone who bought a CD owned an exact copy of the master. Hence, the "professional" sampling frequency of the DAT. (Of course, during that period most people were mixing to half inch analog anyway...)