Is anyone still working at the 44.1khz sample rate?

[orthodox]

Am I right that YouTube wants 44.1 kHz?

Never heard of that. Youtube wants 48 or 96: https://support.google.com/youtube/answ ... dec-aac-lc

[EdwardKiy]

fk youtube, fk sundcloud, fk ...whatever the streaming service name was, to me it's just a dog buying bone (sound and/or song). So far it's being fed complete garbage. But the receiver of this dog's poop is a person, not a program (dog). Just give it LIFE.


What's killing me is the subservient attitude. The goal is to get the best day of out of every day in OUR KINGDOM. Get in charge. CHARGE. Like, wtf are they going to say when they hear the best music ever written in 128kbps - that it's not good enough resolution? Haha. They will grovel, squirm and bow.

[bxbrkrz]

Produce your music on vinyl. Copy on cassette. Upload the cassette @24/48

[Loque]

Produce your music on vinyl. Copy on cassette. Upload the cassette @24/48

Just use the vinyl and casette or tape fx through 12bit DAAD fx and add some transformer humm, all in 96khz in 24bit for the full high quality analog flavor.

[Goriila Texas]

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?

The difference is more info is being captured when using higher sample rates which is shown. Sample rate from my understanding is like taking pictures of audio. As the graph shows you less pictures (audio info) are being taking at low sample rate on the left. Higher sample rate equals more pictures and the more accurate capturing the audio (sine wave). If you stay in the box you only need 44.1 and 48 for video, but out the box it would be beneficial to record at higher rates.

[bxbrkrz]

Produce your music on vinyl. Copy on cassette. Upload the cassette @24/48

Just use the vinyl and casette or tape fx through 12bit DAAD fx and add some transformer humm, all in 96khz in 24bit for the full high quality analog flavor.

Good idea. First, I would record the sound of that vinyl from a Gramophone's horn, with a Milab VIP50.

[chaosroyale]

That graph Billy shared, showing the "difference" between lower and higher sample rates, clearly demonstrates* that the lower sample rate will perfectly reproduce the sine wave as shown. And obviously, you cannot get better than perfect.

If you're not sure why, then you need an introduction to the fundamentals of sampling. I think everyone in digital audio should try to understand how sampling actually works. It's not hard, and the best introduction to the subject is Monty's excellent video, already linked by Buddard, but here it is again. You won't regret watching it, and it may save you from some expensive mistakes.

(*the graph is drawn incorrectly, it should really be a "lollipop" graph, but that's not so important to the point in question)

The difference is more info is being captured when using higher sample rates which is shown.

[Aosta]

Just use the vinyl and casette or tape fx through 12bit DAAD fx and add some transformer humm, all in 96khz in 24bit for the full high quality analog flavor.

Good idea. First, I would record the sound of that vinyl from a Gramophone's horn, with a Milab VIP50.

I always feed my final audio through an old shoe too

[visheshl]

ok so i rendered my new track in both 24 bit 44.1khz and 24 bit 48khz,
can you listen to both and tell me if you can really make out the difference between both versions ?
which one is which sample rate ?
Be honest.

Maybe young people will be able to catch higher frequencies probably...not sure.

York1



York2

[TritoneAddiction]

ok so i rendered my new track in both 24 bit 44.1khz and 24 bit 48khz,
can you listen to both and tell me if you can really make out the difference between both versions ?
which one is which sample rate ?
Be honest.

Maybe young people will be able to catch higher frequencies probably...not sure.

York1



York2

I'll give it a shot. Why not. Might as well make an ass out of myself.
The first one "York1" sounds sligthly smoother and better to me. So I'm gonna guess that's the 48 khz version.

Even if I got them wrong I still think they sound (slightly) different to one another.

[visheshl]

Lets get five votes in, then I'll divulge which is which. I'll personally start using 48khz if three or more get it right,else if three or more get it wrong I'll stick to 44.1.

[visheshl]

ok so i rendered my new track in both 24 bit 44.1khz and 24 bit 48khz,
can you listen to both and tell me if you can really make out the difference between both versions ?
which one is which sample rate ?
Be honest.

Maybe young people will be able to catch higher frequencies probably...not sure.

York1



York2

I'll give it a shot. Why not. Might as well make an ass out of myself.
The first one "York1" sounds sligthly smoother and better to me. So I'm gonna guess that's the 48 khz version.

Even if I got them wrong I still think they sound (slightly) different to one another.

Well it's not really making an ass out of oneself...but since this debate is on why not just test it out for ourselves if we can really differentiate, between 44.1k and 48k...let's find out...

[Loque]

...

#1 sounds a bit brighter
#2 sounds a bit more dull

I can hear lofi artefacts (from an fx?) in both versions. In #1 the artefacts are more audible due to the brighter sound. I guess #1 is the higher quality.

Would be interesting to have an idea about the processing in SoundCloud. Depending on their algorithms any content in the higher frequency range can introduce more artefacts and how they deal with Dithering...?

[jam-s]

For a fair comparison one would need to listen to the raw wav and not some compressed soundcloud stream. But even then the difference would be negligible (unless some buggy/bad synth/FX introduces audible aliasing).

[visheshl]

For a fair comparison one would need to listen to the raw wav and not some compressed soundcloud stream. But even then the difference would be negligible (unless some buggy/bad synth/FX introduces audible aliasing).

True but aren't most people listening to compressed mp3s now, that too delivered thru the internet? So wouldn't it probably be better if we tested the format which is being consumed by people on a daily basis rather than uncompressed wav files saved locally, which only a few people are listening to ?

[visheshl]

Anycase let's not drag this further, the thing is two people tested this out and both got it right. The first one is 48k and the second one is 44.1. Although I really cannot tell the difference, but I guess it's better to use 48k, since two people heard the tracks and both could notice that the first one is brighter.
This was to get a general idea and not a scientific study anyway...now that you know which is which...if more people could reply if they can actually differentiate between the two or not, it would be nice

[EdGrip]

If anyone really wants to get into it (and how, in the digital domain, frequencies above our hearing can have effects on those we can hear), this video by Dan Worrall is the best I've found:

Selig has posted some good explanations on this forum too.

[EdGrip]

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.

Most, if not all, DAWs process internally with 32 or 64 bit floating point maths - so for all intents and purposes, infinite bit depth. Only on the way through your interface is the audio converted to 16 or 24 bit, and this is generally the only place you can clip.

[Loque]

Anycase let's not drag this further, the thing is two people tested this out and both got it right. The first one is 48k and the second one is 44.1. Although I really cannot tell the difference, but I guess it's better to use 48k, since two people heard the tracks and both could notice that the first one is brighter.
This was to get a general idea and not a scientific study anyway...now that you know which is which...if more people could reply if they can actually differentiate between the two or not, it would be nice

Ah, ok. But brighter is not always better. That's why we have so many fx, which makes sounds sound worse. My personal feeling is, that listening to too bright music hurts my ears and i get headache.

[visheshl]

If anyone really wants to get into it (and how, in the digital domain, frequencies above our hearing can have effects on those we can hear), this video by Dan Worrall is the best I've found:

Selig has posted some good explanations on this forum too.

Highly informative video, the conclusion is also right.
What I got from all this is that a jump from 44.1k to 48k is ok, it doesn't cause a major cpu load. Also sometimes oversampling individual plugins is good in case aliasing is noticable.

Which brings me to a question, is there an option for oversampling in reason rack plugin ?

Because I use live as a daw and RRP, for all the sounds...maybe it would be beneficial to oversample RRP in some cases.

[visheshl]

Ah, ok. But brighter is not always better. That's why we have so many fx, which makes sounds sound worse.

That's also true

[TritoneAddiction]

I'm gonna share this last comment here in this thread, then I'm out of the discussion, because honestly I hate this topic. Feel free to comment or disagree with me, but I won't reply. My mind is already made up about this.

I couldn't care less about the science, logic or explanations behind all this sample rate crap. Most people say sample rates doesn't make an audible difference. For me it does. Maybe it's the way the plugins process shit, or the way Reason handle things, or maybe my sound card does something weird. I don't know and I don't care. All I know is when I bounce or play my music in Reason at different sample rates, there can SOMETIMES be audible differences.

Here's a snippet of a track I'm working on.
For me the 96000 Hz version has a fuller guitar sound, like it's got more body compared to the 44100 version. (The "guitar" is a processed synth btw, so it's not a recorded sound).
I mean listen to the difference in the guitar tone at 0:22 between the 44100 and 96000 version. To me it sounds like it's mixed differently. And it's not that particularly subtle either. The 96000 guitar tone sounds more powerful imo.
The 44100 version has a brighter sound on hihats and cymbals. To me that's pretty clear. It's a got some sort of sizzle sound on the hihats that I don't like, like it's not processed in a natural way.
The 88200 doesn't have that annoying sizzle that 44100 has. 88200 Hihats and cymbals are just a tiny bit brighter compared to 96000 version. It almost feels like the 96000 has the hihats turned down slightly in the mix compared to the other two.

So anyway I know people will claim that it doesn't matter. I typically go for 96000 Hz myself, beacuse I usually find it less harsh sounding. But for this track I might actually prefer the 88200 version.

[sdst]

not worth it

all that cpu for that

[Billy+]

From what I've read Soundcloud isn't the best place to make those tests.
https://help.soundcloud.com/hc/en-us/ar ... -streaming

What is the quality of SoundCloud HQ streaming?

Our Hiqh Quality streaming format is encoded in 256kbps AAC. (equivalent to an mp3 encoded in 320kbps).


Which content will be available to stream in High Quality?

Tracks uploaded at lossless or a high bitrate will be available for streaming in high quality. We will continue to ensure that as much content as possible is available to our Go+ subscribers in high quality 256kbps AAC.


https://help.soundcloud.com/hc/en-us/ar ... quirements
What type of file can I upload?

We recommend you to upload in a lossless format like WAV, FLAC, AIFF, or ALAC. We also support a large variety of lossy formats, including OGG, MP2, MP3, AAC, AMR, and WMA.

The maximum file size is 4GB. If your file exceeds these criteria, please split it into separate uploads.

For a full list of support codecs and containers, check our supported file formats.

We transcode all tracks to various codecs which are optimized for streaming playback. We want to preserve your work, that’s why we recommend you upload uncompressed or lossless audio files to ensure that the transcoding process results in the best possible quality. When you make your track downloadable, however, this allows your listeners to download your track in the same format you uploaded it in, without any additional transcoding.

[Loque]

...

I dont hear many differences in your example. But to my ears the transients in the 44khz version are sharper/tighter.