The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 04-06-2011, 02:15 AM
MattChen MattChen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 236
Default 192kHs

I just bought a babyface RME audio converter.... and apparently it's capable of 192kHs. I used to save my files at 96,000 kHs so I was excited to see what potential I was missing.

I will say the file size is about 3 times larger and the sound difference... well if I can hear a difference it might very well be a placebo effect... so in other words it's not obvious.

But I'd hate to leave unused potential on the table. What's the general consensus on this?

Is it beneficial to save files at 192kHs... makes a difference?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-06-2011, 04:23 AM
ronmac ronmac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NS Canada
Posts: 1,322
Default

Congratulations on acquiring the new RME BabyFace. I have one on the way to me, as well. I am a fan of RME, having owned a FF800 for several years.

I think if you did a poll on the RME user Forum you will find that the majority of users do their day to day work in either 44.1 or 48. A few will work regularly at 96, with very few using 192 on a day to day basis.

If you can't hear the difference (I'm not surprised), why waste the increased file space. On the other hand, if you think there may be a good reason to use the higher sample rate, file space is relatively cheap these days.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-06-2011, 07:53 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattChen View Post
But I'd hate to leave unused potential on the table. What's the general consensus on this?

Is it beneficial to save files at 192kHs... makes a difference?
There's enough imperial data info out there to sink a battleship There was a massive push in 2000 and 2001 here in Los Angeles to record at 192. Just about the time 192 became available. I no of absolutely NO high-end facility here that now uses 192.

Check out Nika Aldrich's book on digital myths to dispel and align all sorts of forum wives tales.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-06-2011, 08:59 AM
rick-slo's Avatar
rick-slo rick-slo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 13,128
Default

Recording at 44.1 is a fast enough sampling rate to cover the upper frequency range of human hearing. So unless you are recording for bats...
I also suggest you might want to read Aldrich's book http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Audio-.../dp/141960001X
__________________
Derek Coombs
Website -> Music -> Tabs -> CDs and Youtube
Guitars by Mark Blanchard, Albert&Mueller, Paul Woolson, Collings, Composite Acoustics, and Derek Coombs
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-06-2011, 12:54 PM
MattChen MattChen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 236
Default

so at the stay end I will stay at 96
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-06-2011, 04:09 PM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattChen View Post
so at the stay end I will stay at 96

yea of course...if 96 works for you then all is good!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-06-2011, 11:42 PM
MattChen MattChen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 236
Default

haha, what did I just type... I must have been high I can't even tell what kind of sentence I was attempting to structure.

Yea, and I realized it's not just the sample rate you export as, but also the sample rate you set the settings in logic.. right?

I had been exporting in 96 but recording in 44.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-07-2011, 07:11 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattChen View Post
I had been exporting in 96 but recording in 44.
Well then the question here of course is why do you do this?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-07-2011, 12:37 PM
MattChen MattChen is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 236
Default

because I didn't know..
I thought it always recorded at full potential and then you export at the quality you desire - like photoshop.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-08-2011, 05:54 AM
joehempel joehempel is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 427
Default

It's kind of like converting an MP3 to a WAV file, it's not going to get better, at least I don't think.

I record at 96k/24bit and then when burning to a CD, I convert it down to 44k/16bit WAV
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:45 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,588
Default

I can't for the life of me hear a difference between 44.1 and 96. I can hear a difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. I do notice however the space the sessions take is substantially larger. Logic sessions (because of freeze tracks) can get big in a hurry. Most of the sessions I do rise to the 2 gig level in a blink of the eye. I can't imagine trying to manage those sessions at 96K.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-27-2011, 04:27 AM
Pokiehat Pokiehat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 181
Default

I record at 24/48 and the biggest difference I notice at 96khz is:

1) my computer getting *murdered* by having to handle double the burden on memory. cpu and disk space. Hard hitting generators and processors like OP-X and SIR can quickly tank my projects with the cpu hit.

2) half the recording latency which is nice but not worth the crippling cpu hit.

Sound difference is small to non existent and can be confused with placebo, like the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattChen
because I didn't know..
I thought it always recorded at full potential and then you export at the quality you desire - like photoshop.
If you create and mix sound recordings at 48khz and then render it to 96khz then the only difference is that every other sample is zero'd and the file size is twice as big. Thats it. You are just stuffing your storage disk with alot of useless junk data.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-27-2011, 07:29 AM
bbrown bbrown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Forest, VA
Posts: 1,737
Default

Joe, Pokiehat,

Are you recording in WAV or MP3? I use MP3 because YouTube will not accept WAV (or maybe it's just my Flip Camcorder program that I use to make videos that will not accept WAV - have to check on which is the limiting factor).

Does it really make any difference - WAV vs. MP3 in sound for YouTube or CD?
WAV takes up a lot more space!
__________________
Collings D2HG - German Spruce/rosewood
Voyage Air VA-OM6

YouTube: http://www.YouTube.com/wfbrown1234
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-27-2011, 07:58 AM
Joseph Hanna Joseph Hanna is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Topanga Canyon, CA
Posts: 2,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbrown View Post
Does it really make any difference - WAV vs. MP3 in sound for YouTube or CD?
WAV takes up a lot more space!
Well there's a world of topics in that sentence There is an obvious and noticeable difference between the sonic signature's of wave and aiff vs any mp3 file.The biggest difference, or at least the difference I notice first is imagining. Depending on what size of mp3 (compression ratio) an MP3 sounds anywhere from passable to NOT passable.

Personally I would find the tedious task of mixing (which is often a case of listening for weeks) arduous with less than the best sound I had at my disposal even IF it was ultimately rendered to the MP3 format. 24 bit/44.1 recording especially considering the size of drives these days is not that consumptive.

If of course the project is going to be distributed via a CD then it makes no SONIC sense to record to mp3. You can always knock thing down quality wise from wave to mp3...can't go the other direction though.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-27-2011, 08:13 AM
bbrown bbrown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Forest, VA
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna View Post
Well there's a world of topics in that sentence There is an obvious and noticeable difference between the sonic signature's of wave and aiff vs any mp3 file.The biggest difference, or at least the difference I notice first is imagining. Depending on what size of mp3 (compression ratio) an MP3 sounds anywhere from passable to NOT passable.

Personally I would find the tedious task of mixing (which is often a case of listening for weeks) arduous with less than the best sound I had at my disposal even IF it was ultimately rendered to the MP3 format. 24 bit/44.1 recording especially considering the size of drives these days is not that consumptive.

If of course the project is going to be distributed via a CD then it makes no SONIC sense to record to mp3. You can always knock thing down quality wise from wave to mp3...can't go the other direction though.
Thanks Joseph,

I suppose there is no good reason then, not to record in WAV, even if it's just for YouTube? Am I correct that YouTube does not accept WAV?
__________________
Collings D2HG - German Spruce/rosewood
Voyage Air VA-OM6

YouTube: http://www.YouTube.com/wfbrown1234
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > General Acoustic Guitar and Amplification Discussion > RECORD

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=