Is anyone still working at the 44.1khz sample rate?

[mtbh]

After comparing the high-z with guitar and bass .. also with mics.. it is very obvious that there is indeed a difference when recording.
Theory aside, something happens when the signal hits the A-D converters.

Bouncing stems from the same material (as it is often done on youtube in those "is it worth it" videos) in 44 and 96 won't show this difference. It is after the fact ..

So 96 K for me.

If I was only in the box with software instruments, I'm not sure if I would bother, since so many of them oversample.

[Ahornberg]

44.1 kHz at 16 bit is my setting

[Heater]

I can’t hear much above 12k so no point for me.

[gullum]

anything else is overkill if you are not asked to do it by anyone you work for

Screenshot 2021-06-25 at 9.23.21 PM.png (56.58 KiB) Viewed 3096 times

[thedude]

If one uses Subtractor or Thor, wouldn't they want to run at 88K or 96K to minimize aliasing as much as possible? Or is this a myth?

[Loque]

If one uses Subtractor or Thor, wouldn't they want to run at 88K or 96K to minimize aliasing as much as possible? Or is this a myth?

Those are the rare cases from time to time, where i might considere 8x oversampling...

[Carpainter]

If one uses Subtractor or Thor, wouldn't they want to run at 88K or 96K to minimize aliasing as much as possible? Or is this a myth?

Thor doesn't alias as badly as Subtractor, and you're generally going to want to filter out those extreme frequencies unless you going for that dentist drill sound. But yeah, upping the sample rate helps with the aliasing older soft synths exhibit.

[moalla]

48khz 24bit
For some especial electronic stuff, now with a ryzen 3900x it is a pretty nice thing when effects are calculated deeper, deppends on effect, but mostly i can not hear a difference between 48khz and 96khz. So the synths are also mostly programmed for 48khz i think it written in some magazine. 48khz is the Studio and DVD Standard

[chaosroyale]

Not this old chestnut again.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: your ears cannot hear frequencies beyond the limits of a 44.1kHz recording. No, they really can't. And no playback environment on earth, no matter how expensive, can reproduce the full dynamic range of a 24-bit recording. So 48kHz with 24 bit depth is more than good enough as a playback format, with room to spare.

Any differences when working in the box using higher sample rates are entirely due to specific use-cases such as poorly designed anti-aliasing filters, or lack of oversampling in non-linear processes, or just buggy code. Properly designed software with oversampling will not require those rates.

I know a few people like to talk about "extreme sample manipulation" but microphones mostly only record up to 16-20kHz, so 44.1 is enough. If you are making nature documentaries about bats or deliberately using ultrasound generated by synths and re-sampling the part you can't hear, and slowing it down, then higher rates would be useful.

I use 24 bit depth and either 44.1 or 48 depending on the project/client. My work doesn't often coincide with the snake-oil crowd so I don't have to worry about 6bajillion Hz sample rates.

[Billy+]

Bit Depth Sample Rate and Ears.

A Bit is the basic unit of information in the digital world.
Bit depth is how many bits of information contained in each sample.
A higher bit depth is more accurate and has more dynamic range.

A 16-bit recording has a dynamic range of 96db. (Good Home systems)
A 24-bit recording has a dynamic range of 144db. (Good Live systems)

Sample rate is how many samples per second.
A 20Khz frequency using a sample rate of 20Khz will have one sample per cycle.

To get accurate frequency response, you will need the sample rate at least double the frequency you want to sample. (Nyquist Theorem)

Human ears work in the range of 20hz to 20Khz um no they don't, that's why low frequencies in the sub range are felt you miss the presence.
14Khz and above fade with age that's why kids use the mosquito frequency (17Khz) as a ring tone because their teachers can't hear it.

So is it a good idea to use the highest bit depth? Yes
Is it a good idea to use the highest sample rate? Yes

Are you using a relevant setting is really what you should be asking yourself!
Does your capture device have sufficient speed to faithfully capture your recordings?
Does your bit depth allow for the dynamics of the audio?
Does your sample rate allow for the frequencies you want to reproduce?

So what am I using? In the box 44.1 with exports at 24 bit

[buddard]

Yes.

[visheshl]

16/44.1 is where I work...it's sufficient for me even though others might have theories against it.
Human ear can't make out the difference at all.
Higher sampling rates is a gimmick.
But the cpu load is real, that matters to me...any case the final track is going to be converted into a compressed MP3, noone is listening to the full 24/96 uncompressed wav file anyway

Never heard anyone complaint that music files have lower audio quality than video files even though most music used to be 44.1khz and most video was 48 khz

[visheshl]

Not this old chestnut again.

Let's get one thing clear from the start: your ears cannot hear frequencies beyond the limits of a 44.1kHz recording. No, they really can't. And no playback environment on earth, no matter how expensive, can reproduce the full dynamic range of a 24-bit recording. So 48kHz with 24 bit depth is more than good enough as a playback format, with room to spare.

Any differences when working in the box using higher sample rates are entirely due to specific use-cases such as poorly designed anti-aliasing filters, or lack of oversampling in non-linear processes, or just buggy code. Properly designed software with oversampling will not require those rates.

I know a few people like to talk about "extreme sample manipulation" but microphones mostly only record up to 16-20kHz, so 44.1 is enough. If you are making nature documentaries about bats or deliberately using ultrasound generated by synths and re-sampling the part you can't hear, and slowing it down, then higher rates would be useful.

I use 24 bit depth and either 44.1 or 48 depending on the project/client. My work doesn't often coincide with the snake-oil crowd so I don't have to worry about 6bajillion Hz sample rates.

[Kalm]

Currently testing 48. Want to push to 96 when I get a new machine.

[chaosroyale]

A 16-bit recording has a dynamic range of 96db. (Good Home systems)
A 24-bit recording has a dynamic range of 144db. (Good Live systems)

Those dynamic ranges for 16 and 24 bits are correct; but no live system in the world has a dynamic range anywhere close to 144dB!!! Lets start with the fact that the noise floor is very loud already in a live setting, reducing the dynamic range a considerable amount. Even if your live setup was in a perfectly silent room, and you were willing to go deaf by playing at 144dB, the dynamic range of live systems is no better than home systems. They have to make compromises in order to achieve their higher loudness.

Sample rate is how many samples per second.
A 20Khz frequency using a sample rate of 20Khz will have one sample per cycle.

To get accurate frequency response, you will need the sample rate at least double the frequency you want to sample. (Nyquist Theorem)

Human ears work in the range of 20hz to 20Khz um no they don't, that's why low frequencies in the sub range are felt you miss the presence.
14Khz and above fade with age that's why kids use the mosquito frequency (17Khz) as a ring tone because their teachers can't hear it.

Again, the numbers are correct but you have misunderstood what it means.

A sample rate of 44.1 can perfectly reproduce all frequencies from ZERO to 20kHz. More than necessary for a human. (and good luck finding a playback system that can do that)

So is it a good idea to use the highest bit depth? Yes
Is it a good idea to use the highest sample rate? Yes

No. It is a good idea to use the highest bit depth and sample rate up to the point where you can reproduce everything perfectly, so about 24 bits and 48 kHz. Anything above that is literally meaningless, barring the special-case exceptions I already mentioned.

[Billy+]

IMG_2737.JPG (74.46 KiB) Viewed 2831 times

Dual 8" KARA High Power Line Array Speaker Concert Sound System Pro Audio Speaker 140dB Pro Sound Speaker

Quick Details:
500W 8"x2+3" line array with 18mm birch plywood cabinet for event, club and church.
60Hz-19KHz Frequency Range
Peak power 2000W
Components 2 x 8"/3" Neodymium drivers
Dispersion 110° Horizontal.
SPL max141dB
8"x2+3", 500Watt
Dual 8" KARA High Power Line Array Speaker Concert Sound System Pro Audio Speaker 140dB Pro Sound Speaker


Description:
KARA+ SB18 line array system is designed for church application and small living event and indoors applications with high requirements on high SPL, good sound quality, long throw distance, and wide dispersion. SMOOTH and FLEXIBLE.

Low vs high sample rate

IMG_2738.PNG (100.14 KiB) Viewed 2829 times

More is better
Fact

[orthodox]

SPL max141dB

Learn about SPL. It has nothing to do with dynamic range (except that both things are measured in dBs).

Low vs high sample rate

More is better
Fact

Your picture clearly shows that there is no difference. The sine wave remains the same. Where is the fact you're talking about?

[drno]

We always tend to forget one thing, the movement of the speaker cone, it is not a sampled jumping movement, for sheer physics the movement is smooth so that the digital to analog transducer will follow a sinusoid path of the waveform.

[deigm]

If there is a human on earth that can pick which sample rate they're hearing in a blind test I will gladly eat my hat.

[EdGrip]

44.1/16 on my poor ol' laptop. I'd switch to 48 but I'd rather save the extra bit of juice.

A push towards less compression rather than higher sample rates would be good; a return to stereo in home audio would be better.

[buddard]

The staircase is not an accurate representation of a sampled signal. A better representation would be single points that are then interpolated between since the signal is filtered in the DA conversion..

If the sample rate is higher than twice the highest frequency in the sound you want to represent, then those frequencies are reproduced perfectly. So a perfect 20kHz sine wave sampled at 44.1kHz will come out as a perfect 20kHz sine wave on the other end. That is a consequence of the Nyquist Theorem.

As for dynamic range, 16 bit is more than enough to provide the dynamic range that we can perceive without experiencing physical pain. However, there’s another very good reason to use 24 bit, and that’s headroom while recording. With such a high bit depth there’s no need to go anywhere near clipping the signal.

Edit: Here’s is a video that explains this very well:

[ShawnG]

I still use 44.1 for the most part, but the amount of people in this thread who say they use 16 bit depth when working on audio boggles the mind. use 24 while working for the extra headroom, export it to 16 bit at the end, be kind to yourself.

[bxbrkrz]

I still use 44.1 for the most part, but the amount of people in this thread who say they use 16 bit depth when working on audio boggles the mind. use 24 while working for the extra headroom, export it to 16 bit at the end, be kind to yourself.

I didn't want to be just about me, me, me anymore. I decided to be kind to my lovely SSD instead, and switched to 16/44.1

[selig]

More is better
Fact

Yea, but once you can reproduce a sine wave at around up to 20 kHz, there is no advantage to going further (and plenty of disadvantages).

Here's the thing I never considered for many years - the highest frequencies are all sine waves. For example, the highest frequencies on a 1 kHz square wave, the ones in the top octave between 10 kHz and 20 kHz, are all sine waves. Imagine we move the frequency up to 12 kHz and consider the harmonics that make a square wave a square. The first harmonic is 1.5x higher, or 36 kHz in this case - far above what anyone claims to be able to hear. So a 12 kHz square wave is going to sound (all other things being equal) the same as a 12 kHz sine wave, or saw, or triangle, etc...

To the question - recently switched all interfaces to 48 kHz for video compatibility only. Have noticed no differences pro or con, only that I don't have to upsample to 48 KHz for video work (or remember to switch the sample rate, probably the more likely to occur…).

[Zac]

Am I right that YouTube wants 44.1 kHz?