24/96khz

[@midnight]

As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

[@midnight]

Question though:

Will I have trouble running drum samples that are 44.1?

[meloco_go]

Question though:

Will I have trouble running drum samples that are 44.1?

Depends, if you mean triggering I don't bother as I'm not triggering 100% and in the blend it sound ok.
If you mean virtua instruments than some samplers work better than the other, so I usually create parts in whatever the native rate of the samples is and then convert them offline.

[Dean Aka Nekro]

As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

[t3toooo]

[hibidy]

Now we all know cables, samplerates, higher fidelity/better sound, soundcards all sound the same! (extreme sarcasm)

I did some experimenting with sample rates after the clean install on my main computer here, and it's mixed results. With bass (not surprisingly) 48k sounds better than 44.1k. Guitar is stranger as 48k sound "fizzier" with amp sims.

96k is just TOO harsh on the CPU (though you obviously get a bit better latency) even with my i7 860. I guess though with reaper it would be ok

[kmonkey]

Question though:

Will I have trouble running drum samples that are 44.1?

You can try. If this doesn't burn your computer you are ok then...


(for christ sake why whould you have any problems which you can't detect in listening session or any problem at all by running 44khz samples in 96khz??? Wow does that problem exist in 2012???)

[khanyz]

I've mostly found that 88.2k is the best choice if you've got sounds from lots of different sources. It also plays better (pun intended) when you're mastering. I do offline resampling to it though, as I do with noise/gate processing.

[tenshin111]

[...] crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

Mmmm, yummy!

[rifftrax]

Creamy inaudible goodness

[jancivil]

As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy, crisp analog round fat gooey goodness.

See: Placebo Response.

Have another person make you do a blindfold comparison. Also compare that with a test where you are falsely told one or the other situation.

[Sampleconstruct]

Now you must get the smallest available SSD drive for all your audio projects, when it's full after about 1.5 projects you made just backup everything on floppy disks and start from scratch.

[Compyfox]

He has one advantage though: no OS needed for certain plugins.

But one major disadvantage:
Use SKnote's GTS-39, fixed 8x OS. At 96kHz, that's 768kHz. This devil is known as non-CPU friendly (even in i7's) - I'm curious how that one perfoms if used on like... 16 channels.


Nah seriously... do whatever the funk you feel like.
Though I don't see a reason until you do 80% film stuff and 20% music.

[milosh_]

Most of music is landing on portable players as 320k mp3 these days

[nilhartman]

As of today I am now in the land of 96khz. Already everything is sounding more open and airy

When using soft synths, 96kHz often makes a huge difference. You might also notice some significant improvements in the low end, right ? If a synth is poorly coded it can really be night and day. Back when I was using Reason (rewired to Reaper for what it's worth), it was shocking how the very same pattern playing the very same patch would sound thiner at 44,1kHz.
Same goes with lots of saturators/non-linear effects.
For tracking (which I almost never do), I guess going from 16bit to 24bit is the most useful though, more than higher bit rates.