It's nice to see someone around here that even comprehends what the issue actually is.PatchAdamz wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 10:34 pm Anti-aliasing filters are the issue here.
[...]
The higher the sample rate, the less need for anti-aliasing filters and thus, the main reason for higher sampling rates.
44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?
-
- KVRAF
- 7641 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRian
- 636 posts since 21 Jun, 2013
44.1 or 48 Khz is not a huge difference.
Much more interesting question is whether the doubled sample rates (88.2k, 96k) provide any benefit, and the answer is a yes.
Doubled sample rates allow for much shorter oversampling filters. In standard sample rates, high quality oversampling will introduce about 0.5ms to 2 ms of latency, depending on quality. While not the end of the world, it can add up. With doubled sample rates this latency can be reduced by the factor of 4x easily.
If interface manufacturers are smart about it, they can use shorter AD and DA filters, which lower the latency even further.
Additional spectral headroom also allows for less aggressive windowing, which in turn lowers the pre-ringing and wobbles caused by gibbs effect.
It's up to debate whether we can actually hear any difference caused by these, but some people claim they do and our ears are not the most linear thing in the world so there may be some evidence to this. And it allows for more accurate non-linear effects, because the shape of the waveform is reproduced more accurately.
Also it greatly diminishes the frequency response altering effect of many effects, such as EQs, reverbs, choruses. For those that don't do oversampling or some kind of compensation, which is a lot of them.
As for the subjective experience, 96k does sound ever so slightly "smoother" in the highs compared to 2x oversampled 48k stuff. Not by a lot though and mostly in the stuff that has a lot of highs, such as unfiltered sawtooth waves.
Maybe a bias, but I also can hear a difference between an ordinary and inverted sawtooth, which we aren't exactly supposed to hear in theory. So our ears may not be so linear to claim exactly no difference between 96k and 48k. But it's a very slight, almost negligible difference.
I certainly wouldn't be against 44.1/48k. Perfectly usable, and plenty of plugins oversample either way these days. But 96k has some uses and it's worth a try if your CPU can handle and these days CPU are pretty capable.
Much more interesting question is whether the doubled sample rates (88.2k, 96k) provide any benefit, and the answer is a yes.
Doubled sample rates allow for much shorter oversampling filters. In standard sample rates, high quality oversampling will introduce about 0.5ms to 2 ms of latency, depending on quality. While not the end of the world, it can add up. With doubled sample rates this latency can be reduced by the factor of 4x easily.
If interface manufacturers are smart about it, they can use shorter AD and DA filters, which lower the latency even further.
Additional spectral headroom also allows for less aggressive windowing, which in turn lowers the pre-ringing and wobbles caused by gibbs effect.
It's up to debate whether we can actually hear any difference caused by these, but some people claim they do and our ears are not the most linear thing in the world so there may be some evidence to this. And it allows for more accurate non-linear effects, because the shape of the waveform is reproduced more accurately.
Also it greatly diminishes the frequency response altering effect of many effects, such as EQs, reverbs, choruses. For those that don't do oversampling or some kind of compensation, which is a lot of them.
As for the subjective experience, 96k does sound ever so slightly "smoother" in the highs compared to 2x oversampled 48k stuff. Not by a lot though and mostly in the stuff that has a lot of highs, such as unfiltered sawtooth waves.
Maybe a bias, but I also can hear a difference between an ordinary and inverted sawtooth, which we aren't exactly supposed to hear in theory. So our ears may not be so linear to claim exactly no difference between 96k and 48k. But it's a very slight, almost negligible difference.
I certainly wouldn't be against 44.1/48k. Perfectly usable, and plenty of plugins oversample either way these days. But 96k has some uses and it's worth a try if your CPU can handle and these days CPU are pretty capable.
-
- KVRAF
- 2960 posts since 9 Dec, 2011 from falling
Your Mom likes 48 kHz soooo … that’s what we’re gonna go with for now.
Bitwig Certified Trainer
-
- KVRAF
- 3017 posts since 5 Jun, 2011 from Preston, England, UK
Lightweight.... That's only 1/3 Probillcarroll wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 1:34 am Your Mom likes 48 kHz soooo … that’s what we’re gonna go with for now.
software is a tool that allows us to complete a given task.
social media is full of tools that distract us from a given task.
myfeebleeffort
https://paulroach2.bandcamp.com/
https://hearthis.at/83hdtrvm/
social media is full of tools that distract us from a given task.
myfeebleeffort
https://paulroach2.bandcamp.com/
https://hearthis.at/83hdtrvm/
-
- KVRian
- 1185 posts since 27 Apr, 2016
FWIW in my work there is a direct anecdotal correlation between poor recording and mixing and higher sample rates, the higher the worse would be a rule of thumb. That is more important than anything for me. It is almost as if skill and judgement was directly replaced by sample rate. There may be a minuscule (in reality) by the time your release a .wav file and none whatsoever at codec streaming service level.
Have you even listened to the over saturated crushed mess that is much audio released these days. You think a smidgen of LP filtering issues from using 44.1kHz is going to make a shred of difference ?
Also wide audio bandwidth, has its own set of issues IMD / broadband noise when non linear processes are used and people are loving those.
And here I am starting a new track at 44.1kHz and it sounds great, it also has the bonus of fast workflow when samples are used which are all 44.1kHz and less CPU use (I do notice that a little from 44/48). Smooth, efficient workflow is much more important to creativity and completion than many people give credit for. A finished, good sounding tracks is critical.
Don't forget Youtube is 44.1kHz submission spec and suggesting that video/media use 48kHz for quality is a stretch. As if audio in video has been anything but a second thought when it comes to budgetary concern. (even production concern).
Science says it is theoretically better this is true. (At least in some regards) In reality when down sampled well it pales into insignificance for the very vast majority of listeners, likely all in blind tests in seriously high end equipment. And literally forget about it with most consumer electronics. Unless of course broadband IMD noise from extended bandwidth is audible to you.
In reality it will not make your music sound better if your insistence on all other audio qualities is as of much concern as your high sample rate theorem.
Spending too much time on this matter will hamper your progress if you are serious about audio, there are bigger fish to fry and if you are serious you better get the fryer on as there is much in practical terms to learn. Once you are making the audiophile hits of 2023 then maybe you might want to concern about SR.
I am working with some material recorded at 48kHz, the recordings are quite good but not very good. I can tell you one thing, if they were recorded at 44.1kHz and the recording and mixing was better it would sound better overall by a margin that would clearly show a distinction between professional versus experienced amateur level.
Could the same distinction be said between 48/44.1kHz ? Of course not.
"Professional sample rate" Pedantic and possibly indicative of insecurity, it is one of the most ludicrous things I have seen written about audio thus far.
Use any sample rate you wish to, whatever makes you most happy and capable of finishing well recorded and mixed musical compositions. That is all that really matters.
Have you even listened to the over saturated crushed mess that is much audio released these days. You think a smidgen of LP filtering issues from using 44.1kHz is going to make a shred of difference ?
Also wide audio bandwidth, has its own set of issues IMD / broadband noise when non linear processes are used and people are loving those.
And here I am starting a new track at 44.1kHz and it sounds great, it also has the bonus of fast workflow when samples are used which are all 44.1kHz and less CPU use (I do notice that a little from 44/48). Smooth, efficient workflow is much more important to creativity and completion than many people give credit for. A finished, good sounding tracks is critical.
Don't forget Youtube is 44.1kHz submission spec and suggesting that video/media use 48kHz for quality is a stretch. As if audio in video has been anything but a second thought when it comes to budgetary concern. (even production concern).
Science says it is theoretically better this is true. (At least in some regards) In reality when down sampled well it pales into insignificance for the very vast majority of listeners, likely all in blind tests in seriously high end equipment. And literally forget about it with most consumer electronics. Unless of course broadband IMD noise from extended bandwidth is audible to you.
In reality it will not make your music sound better if your insistence on all other audio qualities is as of much concern as your high sample rate theorem.
Spending too much time on this matter will hamper your progress if you are serious about audio, there are bigger fish to fry and if you are serious you better get the fryer on as there is much in practical terms to learn. Once you are making the audiophile hits of 2023 then maybe you might want to concern about SR.
I am working with some material recorded at 48kHz, the recordings are quite good but not very good. I can tell you one thing, if they were recorded at 44.1kHz and the recording and mixing was better it would sound better overall by a margin that would clearly show a distinction between professional versus experienced amateur level.
Could the same distinction be said between 48/44.1kHz ? Of course not.
"Professional sample rate" Pedantic and possibly indicative of insecurity, it is one of the most ludicrous things I have seen written about audio thus far.
Use any sample rate you wish to, whatever makes you most happy and capable of finishing well recorded and mixed musical compositions. That is all that really matters.
-
- KVRAF
- 7641 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
So the above arguments boil down to:
Yes, higher samplerates are better but,
Yes, higher samplerates are better but,
- no one can record with both skill and higher sample rates at the same time.
- today's records are already garbage, so no one's going to notice the garbage that 44.1kHz adds.
- all gains from higher samplerates are lost because people only listen to music on YouTube.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRAF
- 3017 posts since 5 Jun, 2011 from Preston, England, UK
This should be the very first post in this thread. Absolutely spot on!Synthman2000 wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 9:11 am FWIW in my work there is a direct anecdotal correlation between poor recording and mixing and higher sample rates, the higher the worse would be a rule of thumb. That is more important than anything for me. It is almost as if skill and judgement was directly replaced by sample rate. There may be a minuscule (in reality) by the time your release a .wav file and none whatsoever at codec streaming service level.
Have you even listened to the over saturated crushed mess that is much audio released these days. You think a smidgen of LP filtering issues from using 44.1kHz is going to make a shred of difference ?
Also wide audio bandwidth, has its own set of issues IMD / broadband noise when non linear processes are used and people are loving those.
And here I am starting a new track at 44.1kHz and it sounds great, it also has the bonus of fast workflow when samples are used which are all 44.1kHz and less CPU use (I do notice that a little from 44/48). Smooth, efficient workflow is much more important to creativity and completion than many people give credit for. A finished, good sounding tracks is critical.
Don't forget Youtube is 44.1kHz submission spec and suggesting that video/media use 48kHz for quality is a stretch. As if audio in video has been anything but a second thought when it comes to budgetary concern. (even production concern).
Science says it is theoretically better this is true. (At least in some regards) In reality when down sampled well it pales into insignificance for the very vast majority of listeners, likely all in blind tests in seriously high end equipment. And literally forget about it with most consumer electronics. Unless of course broadband IMD noise from extended bandwidth is audible to you.
In reality it will not make your music sound better if your insistence on all other audio qualities is as of much concern as your high sample rate theorem.
Spending too much time on this matter will hamper your progress if you are serious about audio, there are bigger fish to fry and if you are serious you better get the fryer on as there is much in practical terms to learn. Once you are making the audiophile hits of 2023 then maybe you might want to concern about SR.
I am working with some material recorded at 48kHz, the recordings are quite good but not very good. I can tell you one thing, if they were recorded at 44.1kHz and the recording and mixing was better it would sound better overall by a margin that would clearly show a distinction between professional versus experienced amateur level.
Could the same distinction be said between 48/44.1kHz ? Of course not.
"Professional sample rate" Pedantic and possibly indicative of insecurity, it is one of the most ludicrous things I have seen written about audio thus far.
Use any sample rate you wish to, whatever makes you most happy and capable of finishing well recorded and mixed musical compositions. That is all that really matters.
software is a tool that allows us to complete a given task.
social media is full of tools that distract us from a given task.
myfeebleeffort
https://paulroach2.bandcamp.com/
https://hearthis.at/83hdtrvm/
social media is full of tools that distract us from a given task.
myfeebleeffort
https://paulroach2.bandcamp.com/
https://hearthis.at/83hdtrvm/
-
- KVRian
- 1185 posts since 27 Apr, 2016
As it is relevant to the "I can master as good as a mastering engineer" people on here. What I have done to this project using the finest audio equipment known to human kind in precisely judged increments has turned it from being indistinguishable from a creditable attempt at pro recording/mixing to an actual professional sounding result of great fidelity.
Problem with the internet is that there are a lot of people who think they know what they are talking about but fall short coming up with the goods in reality. And in fact actually putting great focus on technicalities, through what ? Some necessary sense of righteousness.
Be careful where you put focus if you want to actually progress in audio.
Problem with the internet is that there are a lot of people who think they know what they are talking about but fall short coming up with the goods in reality. And in fact actually putting great focus on technicalities, through what ? Some necessary sense of righteousness.
Be careful where you put focus if you want to actually progress in audio.
-
- KVRian
- 1185 posts since 27 Apr, 2016
It is about focus and your focus is on one of the least important aspects. No one knows all in a flash of knowledge, learning is incremental and fetishism of high SR over 100's of other much more important aspects of sonic knowledge is an impediment to other people learning, over 5-10 years.jamcat wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 9:33 am So the above arguments boil down to:
Yes, higher samplerates are better but,
- no one can record with both skill and higher sample rates at the same time.
- today's records are already garbage, so no one's going to notice the garbage that 44.1kHz adds.
- all gains from higher samplerates are lost because people only listen to music on YouTube.
No one will say you are a great (and professional
, that statement is off the WTF charts, best joke I have heard in a very long time) sound engineer cause you record at 48/96kHz. Play them a exceptional mix of great fidelity at 44.kHz (or any sample rate) then we are getting somewhere.People would do well to consider order of importance when learning audio engineering.
Long, scare mongering type discussion about sample rates (shaming people that they are not professional due to not using 48kHz ?) a fairly deep technical topic, and a largely inconsequential one in real terms, does not help people make a better recording or mix.
-
- KVRian
- 1185 posts since 27 Apr, 2016
More statements not based in the real world that need calling out. So the mix engineers I have worked with who send me 44.1kHz 24 bit mixes recorded at 96kHz and then sent me 44.1kHz ?
Cause that would make a lot of sense.
-
- KVRAF
- 7641 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
This discussion is about sample rate, so my focus for this discussion is… sample rate.Synthman2000 wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 10:39 am It is about focus and your focus is on one of the least important aspects.
It’s not difficult at all to select 96kHz in the song properties when you start a new song. You might think otherwise from the way some people here are wailing, but it actually takes almost no effort at all, and then it’s done and you can put ALL of your focus on recording music.
That’s not what makes someone a professional. Getting paid is. But if someone is paying you to record them, they’re going to expect industry standard practices. Like recording at 24/96.Synthman2000 wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 10:39 amNo one will say you are a great (and professional
That’s true. And just about everyone learning it is learning because they want to make their own music. And by far the most important thing isn’t going to involve audio engineering at all. It’s going to be songwriting.Synthman2000 wrote: Tue Sep 12, 2023 10:39 am People would do well to consider order of importance when learning audio engineering.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRian
- 1185 posts since 27 Apr, 2016
Not all professionals record at 24/96 as I have cleared up. Petty, confusing generalizations that do not help people record and mix better.
We are speaking of sample rate yes but without the context of an end result which is a good recording and mix there is not much point discussing sample rates.
We are speaking of sample rate yes but without the context of an end result which is a good recording and mix there is not much point discussing sample rates.
-
- KVRAF
- 7018 posts since 19 Apr, 2002 from Utah
IMHO, I think everything can be boiled down to this:
1. The science is there to prove that "working" at a higher rate can be beneficial for purposes of dealing with aliasing.
2. The final end product rate (44.1 or 48) is not so important when reaching beyond the frequencies of hearing.
3. There are likely many things in the recording/working chain that will affect things negatively much more noticeably than the aliasing from using lowered sample rates, such as how properly was everything recorded, or what you are recording in the first place.
4. What matters more, is the quality and strength of the songwriting.
It almost always comes down to the quality and strength of the songwriting over the quality of the recording when determining a hit. I'm more convinced than ever after this thread that the quality and strength of the songwriting is the weak point of my personal situation, and I'm not going to worry to much in the future whether the destination format is 44.1 or 48.
A turd is still a turd no matter how carefully you polish it, and a diamond in the rough song can still be a hit regardless of faults in the recording.
1. The science is there to prove that "working" at a higher rate can be beneficial for purposes of dealing with aliasing.
2. The final end product rate (44.1 or 48) is not so important when reaching beyond the frequencies of hearing.
3. There are likely many things in the recording/working chain that will affect things negatively much more noticeably than the aliasing from using lowered sample rates, such as how properly was everything recorded, or what you are recording in the first place.
4. What matters more, is the quality and strength of the songwriting.
It almost always comes down to the quality and strength of the songwriting over the quality of the recording when determining a hit. I'm more convinced than ever after this thread that the quality and strength of the songwriting is the weak point of my personal situation, and I'm not going to worry to much in the future whether the destination format is 44.1 or 48.
A turd is still a turd no matter how carefully you polish it, and a diamond in the rough song can still be a hit regardless of faults in the recording.
Vendor‑Dependent Copy Protection: Customers lose. Pirates win.
(Also: I'm Accused of lying about Linux—it boots, runs my pro audio workflow, stays stable, updates--though yearly dismissed as “niche”. Yet I'm the deluded one.)
(Also: I'm Accused of lying about Linux—it boots, runs my pro audio workflow, stays stable, updates--though yearly dismissed as “niche”. Yet I'm the deluded one.)
-
- KVRAF
- 3639 posts since 21 Nov, 2015
A few Quotes by my favorite Mastering Engineer, Stephan Mathieu on this Topic.
https://www.schwebung-mastering.com/mixBit Depth and Sample Rate
Ideally, you will work from beginning to finish your project in WAV or AIFF format with a bit depth of 32 or 24-Bit and a fixed sample rate of 96kHz and deliver your mix in this native format.
Please do not up or down-sample your audio; always stick to the native sample rate of your session. Sample Rate Conversion can easily mess things up when not done right.
If your session is 16/44.1k, that’s fine – leave it like that.
https://www.schwebung-mastering.com/servicesYou will receive a set of WAV files at the native bandwidth (ie. 24/96k) for digital distribution. My studio is registered with Apple to deliver Apple Digital Masters. Please see below if you need additional formats.
You can be creative in any right place on Earth, and not only in the wealthiest cities. Bring the world feelings from everywhere, and not only feelings of capitalistic or jail environment.
― Aleksey Vaneev
https://linuxdaw.org
― Aleksey Vaneev
https://linuxdaw.org