Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

44/48kHz vs 96kHz or 192kHz - is there a difference? Yes, and it might surprise you!

Karim D. Ghantous

Karim D. Ghantous

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2011
Messages
2,682
Reaction score
89
Points
48
Location
Melbourne AU
In a recent thread, someone asked if it was worth recording at a frequency higher than 48kHz. This article shows you that... surprisingly, a higher sample rate actually degrades the signal:

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

Bit depth is a bit different. A greater bit depth than 16 bits does not degrade the signal, but it doesn't really help, either. So, a CD or DAT is as good as you're going to get, not taking into account the possible improvement that variable bit rates might bring. No wonder that nobody really cares about SACD.

Here's a companion video that explains some basics about audio, which is easy to understand for laymen like me:

http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml (23:52)

Note that what might make sense in imaging (more is better) does not always make sense in audio.
 
Our experience at Manifold Recording is that there is no audible difference between a 96KHz master and a 48KHz master when played back through our various monitoring systems. However, we get better masters when we keep the mixing pipeline at 96KHz as compared to 48KHz. So that's what we do. We very much agree on the importance of bit depth, so we have a minimum of 96/24 at major IO points (MADI In/MADI Out) and we mix at 96/32 (float) internally.
 
Comparing to video, bit depth is equal to dynamic range and sample rate is equal to resolution. Both are important especially when procesing and mixing audio. For example, try Melodyne with 48khz vs 96khz or above. There is so much more resolution that you will notice much less artifacts. Same goes with summing digitally ITB and equing and compresing. Its way better recording and procesing in higher bit rate and sample rate. Ask the mastering guy what he prefers for you to give him as a mixdown master.
 
Michael, that facility is georgeous. Must be an incredible place to create music.
 
Jacobo Martinez said:
Comparing to video, bit depth is equal to dynamic range and sample rate is equal to resolution. Both are important especially when procesing and mixing audio. For example, try Melodyne with 48khz vs 96khz or above. There is so much more resolution that you will notice much less artifacts. Same goes with summing digitally ITB and equing and compresing. Its way better recording and procesing in higher bit rate and sample rate. Ask the mastering guy what he prefers for you to give him as a mixdown master.
Click to expand...

Another consideration is the track limitation, on certain devices as here, fromZaxcom's 2014 Nomad manual:

Nomad can record the following sample-rates: 44100, 47952, 48000, 48048, 88200, 96000. If recordingsample rates of 48048 or higher you are limited to 8 tracks or less.

Then comes the limitation of continuous mirroring at 96000. Certainly not deal breakers, depending...

Your mileage will vary.

Thank you very much

Fury
 
Karim, great links. Very informative and based on the subsequent posts, thought provoking.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the extensive coverage of sound was microphones. If 24bit/48 is more than enough for exhibition, it seems to me something as good as a RODE NTG-2 should be sufficient for recording, with optimal placement of course.
 
Michael Tiemann said:
Our experience at Manifold Recording is that there is no audible difference between a 96KHz master and a 48KHz master when played back through our various monitoring systems. However, we get better masters when we keep the mixing pipeline at 96KHz as compared to 48KHz. So that's what we do. We very much agree on the importance of bit depth, so we have a minimum of 96/24 at major IO points (MADI In/MADI Out) and we mix at 96/32 (float) internally.
Click to expand...
I really enjoyed your construction thread on gearslutz ... https://www.gearslutz.com/board/pho...old-recording-studio-construction-thread.html

I btw also gravitated to 96k workflow then 48k final. I've really noticed on my surround sound mics(Schoeps double ortf), that the phase of a few cm really maters and it's nice to play with it in post(i.e. 96k puts me in the sub cm range while 48k i'm in the cm range, so that little extra bit really helps on getting a good surround sound mix with the phases).
 
Michael Tiemann said:
Our experience at Manifold Recording is that there is no audible difference between a 96KHz master and a 48KHz master when played back through our various monitoring systems. However, we get better masters when we keep the mixing pipeline at 96KHz as compared to 48KHz. So that's what we do. We very much agree on the importance of bit depth, so we have a minimum of 96/24 at major IO points (MADI In/MADI Out) and we mix at 96/32 (float) internally.
Click to expand...

That is good information Michael. I often work with noise reduction in Izotope RX for example if I have a recording of birds in the jungle and I have distant machines that I want to filter out. Would not the noise algorithms work better if we have 96 instead of 48. Basically I'm thinking that the software has more data to find noise patterns in.

Cheers,
 
AndreasOberg said:
That is good information Michael. I often work with noise reduction in Izotope RX for example if I have a recording of birds in the jungle and I have distant machines that I want to filter out. Would not the noise algorithms work better if we have 96 instead of 48. Basically I'm thinking that the software has more data to find noise patterns in.

Cheers,
Click to expand...

I don't know about Izotope RX in particular, but in general it is helpful to do all signal processing (of any kind) well above the filter cutoff. That keeps errors from creeping into the audible range. Just as the eye can see a smudge on what should be a perfectly clean mirror, the ears can hear the difference between a squeak, a creak, and a math error.
 
Agree with other posters, any sound captured live on set should go into a 96/24 format or better so it can hold up to manipulation without significant damage. Just like with imagery, better bit depth in the source material opens the door to post processing techniques that may not be nearly as effective on a 48/16 source.

Cheers - #19
 
I don't believe 96kHz is necessarily at all for dialogue, but it's been argued many times that 24 bits is important for sound processing down the line. I do think 96kHz and even 192kHz sampling frequencies can be important for sound effects gathering, but it's absolutely useless for dialogue for traditional motion pictures and television series. I think there are far, far more important things to be worrying about -- particularly the quality of the mic preamps and the signal chain in general.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/search.php?&searchid=85635458

http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/2050-96khz-pros-and-cons/

I think recording on a cheap recorder at 96kHz or 192kHz defeats the entire purpose, particularly if you're not using a microphone with extensive response above 30kHz and if you're only recording dialogue. And I don't think the playback chain in 99% of most theaters and broadcasting companies can handle it, either.

I have no problem with anybody recording (say) classical music at 96kHz or 192kHz, particularly if it's going to get a high-res audiophile Blu-ray Audio or SACD release. But for motion picture sound, I think it's hopeless overkill, and I don't think there's a rational workflow that can handle it.

Talk to any experienced re-recording mixer or dialogue editor at any post house in the world, and tell me what they say.
 
Marc, please note that Blair's summary, "any sound captured live on set should go into a 96/24 format or better so it can hold up to manipulation without significant damage" does not necessarily mean it must be captured at 96K. It just means that if you are going to do any audio processing, you get far better results doing all processing at 96K (and, obviously, not converting up/down more than once, rather once at the very beginning and once at the very end).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top