88000 sample rate is it good for mixing

[MrM]

isn't it so that only the range of frequencies present in the recording is determined by sample frequency?
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

True; the sample frequency determines the bandwith of the recording. And also there are some filters to cut away anything above the samplefrequency and sometimes some low cutting filters to prevent DC in the signal ; a 0 Hz signal on your speaker is not that healthy, so many digital systems also include - somewhere down the path - a high pass filter to filter out all below 20 Hz.

But sample frequency does MUCH more then just determine the highest frequency in the recording, it aslo hugely affects the quality of the recording, see the pics in my previous post.

[peejunk]

Yes. this topic can be discussed theoretical and mathematical to the point, where it flows out of our asses...

But that's also not necessary. Because everyone should be able to *hear* the difference. So a theoretical prove is completely superfluous

Sure. I was just reacting to his remark that it's purely anecdotal and cannot be quiantifiably proven.

[pitchdrifter]

ok now this might come across rude.. but..

why the f**k don't people who don't KNOW for sure what the f**k they are talking about, shut the f**k up instead of posting so much bullshit in a single thread it makes readers puke!

For real now, opinions are like assholes, everybody apparently has one, but if you don't know for sure, or if you've 'heard' only, don't share it ok? This is a f**king farce!

[Kingston]

See http://www-camil.music.uiuc.edu/classes ... cepts.html

The last pic on the page (sample rate vs sample width) says it all.

Figure 3 on this page: http://arts.ucsc.edu/EMS/Music/tech_bac ... es_16.html also shows the influence.

This looks good on paper but the most crucial point of all was completely forgotten: the AD/DA converter.

Even if we see the recorded data as quantized dots, the DA converter will always try to draw a sine thru them (depending on the actual data fed to it of course), in other words,

There's only one way to draw a sine wave thru two points in time.

This is just about the most crucial rule in all samplerate related talk.

So even if you have increased resolution for your 1khz sinewave, it will sound exactly the same with lower resolution, if the AD/DA is up to the task (most likely not). 44.1 or 96khz, They will sound exactly the same (maybe not for dogs), but only with the best luxury gear.

Let's not even bring any clock related issues to this thread, it's hard enough at gearslutz.com

To summarize: with prosumer type equipment, the better sounding recording at 96khz is most likely due to the AD/DA clock at a higher frequency (ie accuracy). You are only wasting space and CPU power.




Looking from another angle, synths and plugins will sound better, although most of them very subtly and only with the right monitoring equipment. A lot of the time the increased sound quality isn't worth the CPU hit, and even more often there's the danger of placebo .

I tend to stick to 48khz, and use plugins that provide oversampling or that sound excellent with any samplerate and/or use properly antialiased synths only.

I wish there was a standard between 48khz and 88.2khz. Seems to me that with todays CPU power and AD/DA equipment the sweetspot would fall somewhere in the between.

[Josmoker]

The same goes for the sample frequency; it describes the wave better, but not the amplitude of it, but the frequency (or time domain).

Time domain is not the same as frequency domain.

And, people, a few people have said it already, I'd like to emphasize it again: when looking at the influence of sample rate on sound quality you'll have to be specific - the influence differs of course depending on the application.
My take on the subject: Try it* out, have a listen and decide first whether you hear a difference at all and if you do which version you prefer.

*"It" here is short for every sample rate combination of audio material, softsynths, fx you deem interesting.

Cheers, Jo

[MrM]

The topic was about mixing and recording.

About the AD/DA remarks; although they are true, most recordist do not deliver an analog output, but a digital one on CD or DVD-A.
If a lot of edits are done, like heavy filtering, EQ-ing and modulation, then higher sample rate will be more accurate.

[Josmoker]

The topic was about mixing and recording.

Topic: 88000 sample rate is it good for mixing

When did it say anything about recording?
Besides the answers were all over the place ocvering almost every topic loosely related to computer based music making.
I'm no expert in the field, just want to try and keep the discussion on track a little.

Cheers, Jo[/quote]

[MrM]

There's only one way to draw a sine wave thru two points in time.

This is just about the most crucial rule in all samplerate related talk.

Isn't this only true if the time between the two points is the same?

And isn't the time between lower sample rates longer?

[MrM]

When did it say anything about recording?

On page one of this thread.

[Josmoker]

When did it say anything about recording?

On page one of this thread.

Not in the original question nor the topic, though.
Oh f**k it, still believe it was all rather vague - is mixing just mixing a couple of tracks together or does include massive use of various fx and what not?

Anyway, cheers y'all

[MrM]

I see.

Yes, I was thinking about mixing and doing a digital mixdown (= digital recording).

[stefancrs]

There's only one way to draw a sine wave thru two points in time.

This is just about the most crucial rule in all samplerate related talk.

Isn't this only true if the time between the two points is the same?

And isn't the time between lower sample rates longer?

With perfect AD/DA's, any wave data below nyquist can be recorded and reconstructed perfectly, if the "bit resolution" was perfect too (but I guess that one could say that if it's above the natural noise you can reconstruct the wave perfectly too).

[Kingston]

what stefancrs said,

and the AD/DA tech nowadays is slowly approaching theoretical limits. it'll eventually dripple to consumer markets as well.

Basicly, as we can't hear anything under around 20khz, 44.1khz and 96khz recorded and reproduced under ideal conditions will sound and (depending on the AD low-pass filtering) look exactly the same.

Cheapest way to get anywhere near this quality, is to use a decent (m audio delta series for example) soundcard/converter and use an external quality clock like the Apogee Big Ben.


I would still encourage working at higher samplerates as most DSPs (our plugs that is) will sound better.

You can tell the difference quite easily doing EQ sweeps at the higher frequencies with quality plugs. Even with the best antialiased synths the difference can be huge as well. Transients on compressors will sound better as well. the list goes on...

But alas! Our current CPU generation sure is taxing us dearly!

[cptgone]

About the AD/DA remarks; although they are true, most recordist do not deliver an analog output, but a digital one on CD or DVD-A.

a digital output that reaches the listener through... the CD player DA converter!

it's like some people here are saying, higher samplerates sound better, while others say, they only do because of the DA converter's preference for higher samplerates. who's right?

[Kingston]

it's like some people here are saying, higher samplerates sound better, while others say, they only do because of the DA converter's preference for higher samplerates. who's right?

That depends entirely on your AD/DA converter and clock quality.

I could make an educated guess that on KVR most of the time equipment is far from ideal conditions, but I won't.