24bit - 192khz

is there any advantage over 16-44.1 ?

other than suckin up WAY more hard drive space ?

i use Acid Pro if that makes any difference

You have to understand why you use these rates. The 16bit relates to how much data is stored in each sample, and the 44100 is how many samples a second there are. If you look at nyquist theory, you will see that a sample rate of 44100 will give you a frequancy range of around 20hz to 20,000 hrz, which is the full human hearing range. So most people will argue no, there isnt much point. However, when you are using plugins which support higher sample rates, they will handle events better and will give a nicer sound (suposedly). I know most recording is now done in 24 bit. 96000 hz, and there is a slight difference to a trained ear.

Its up to you at the end of the day...

a lot of research shows that although we can only actually 'hear'
frequencies below 20khz our brain still recieves the signals for the
frequencies above that and they ilicit a neural response...

its all to do with psychoacoustics!

Go and google it, some of those people into psychoacoustics dont give a flying **** about music at all, they just love playing with ears...

Odd indeed! :roll:

24bit/96Khz does sound better, because of the higher sample rate, more frequencies are noticeable (to the trained ear of course)

I'll try and dig up the article. But, basically, I pretty much agree with the theory that using a 192khz sample rate is overkill that is probably taxing your system in other ways which you could be otherwise taking advantage of with something else.

The sampling rate largely breaks down to enabling the highest possible frequency heard in a recording. As it stands, whatever the sampling rate is, half of that will be the highest frequency that will be recorded.
So, for a 192,000hz sampling rate, the highest frequency to be recorded would be 96,000hz. The human ear, when it is completely undamaged, really can't hear frequencies above 20,000hz. After dealing with noises and general sound pollution through life, it's likely that the average ear isn't going to hear something at 20,000hz either. Some people, however, claim that higher frequencies, while not being able to be heard, can be felt. I've gotten some interesting sensations playing with sound spectrum tests within the 44.1khz rate so there may be some truth to this.

So, breaking it down, if you want to have a recording that can record a high enough frequency to allow sound to theoretically/possibily be felt rather than heard, you probably don't need to go above a 96khz sampling rate. 192khz just seems like overkill. Different in bit depth, however, is a completely different story and a 24 bit recording theoretically may "sound better" than a 16 bit recording. However, it's largely subjective and related to the sounds in your track. To try and make this simple, the bit rate relates to levels in a sounds waveform. So, while these numbers are going to be wrong, just use them for visualisation. In a 16 bit recording, you get 16 levels for recording a soundwave. In a 24 bit recording, you get 24 levels. Technically, recording at a higher bitrate will allow you to capture a closer representation to what a analog soundwave should look like. Now, will you hear that necesarilly? In a lot of cases, probably not. A trade off to keep in mind when recording at higher
bitrates and sample rates is that it will take up a lot more room than a standard 16bit/44.1khz recording on your HD. But,t hat may not be an issue for you. Generally, I use 24bit/96khz for recordings. But, I must admit, I'd be lying if I said I could really notice a difference between that and 16bit/44.1khz recordings.

This article will explain to you precisely why 24/96 is better than 16/44:

http://sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=639

It essentially comes down to significantly more dynamic range (on the "bit" side of things) which results in cleaner mixes, and more frequencies (on the sampling rate side of things) as mentioned.

does anyone here have an audio interface that supports 192??

i was going to get a motu 896HD, but i didnt think it was really necessary yet.

the reason i ask is that i just got the 192kgz drivers for my EMU 0404.

so, was curious to know if its worth using thes settings as opposed to 16/44.1

you know, if its there, why not use it type thing, but obviously, the size of a file eats much more hd space.


many thanx anyhoo too all who posted. yet again, BOA peepz come up trumps :clap: :clap: :clap:

I cannot find the actual article because I can't browse his site with my web browser (that's a non-issue. I'm using Lynx right now). But, the person who wrote a good paper on why 192khz is unnecesary and may even be worse than 96khz is named "Dan Lavry." Do a search on his name and the topic from google and the paper should come up if you're curious to read some geeky engineer jargon.

well for me, i dont see the need for 192kHz at all. but extra bitrate is good for extra dynamic range as someone said. are u happy with the quality of cds, cos they are 16bit/ 44.1 , they sound dandy to me. i think the new sacds are 24bit 48kHz.

its important for manufacturers to hype up the importance of such things for extra sales. maybe there is a slight difference between it, but for me the most important thing of any music, is the content and not the sound quality. i love northrn soul, even tho it sounds like its been recorded inside a baked bean can.

it's like the argument as to whether we are phase death or not.

Yeah I personally do my recordings in 24/48 off the analog desk, and then downsample them to 16/44 for mp3s and such.
And HOLY do you notice a big difference in clarity and sparkle... especially in the top end.
24bit recordings have a nice shimmer to them. Once you take it down to 16bit from there, it still sounds great compared to doing it as 16 off the bat.