Are Higher Sample Rates REALLY Better??

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 18 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 34

  • @musar03580
    @musar03580 2 місяці тому +5

    I've committed to 48 kHz / 24 bit audio.

    • @puls3illegalmusic
      @puls3illegalmusic 2 місяці тому

      Same, majority of the audience (including audiophiles) aren’t going to notice after it’s been destroyed by streaming services or played back on phone speakers.

    • @SpiritualFrequencies-zg5kj
      @SpiritualFrequencies-zg5kj 2 місяці тому

      nah that not worth it ; ) same sound as 44Khz

    • @puls3illegalmusic
      @puls3illegalmusic 2 місяці тому +1

      @@SpiritualFrequencies-zg5kj unless you have to stretch audio for some reason, then it matters 🤷‍♀️

    • @musar03580
      @musar03580 2 місяці тому +1

      @@puls3illegalmusic Yes, higher sample rates are useful for signal processing in some sound design projects. My commitment to 48 / 24 is in reference to finished audio content and has partly to do with industry standards. Practically speaking, most people's ears are not capable to hearing frequencies above 15-18 kHz, so even 44.1 digital audio is overkill.

  • @huberttorzewski
    @huberttorzewski 2 місяці тому +2

    Unpopular opinion: record and mix at 44.1k or 48k to save disc space and CPU power while mixing because there's no real benefit to having higher sample rate nowadays. I checked a lot of projects I've mixed at 96k vs 44.1k and I barely could tell any difference when there wasn't a lot of saturation in the mix. When there was more saturation then 96k sounded a bit clearer in the low mids and more open in the highs (less muddy). But after adjusting both with eq I couldn't tell any difference. So even 0.1-0.25dB eq difference in a mix is more important than a sample rate

  • @puls3illegalmusic
    @puls3illegalmusic 2 місяці тому +1

    48khz/24bit gang

  • @Radical_Middle
    @Radical_Middle 2 місяці тому +1

    Nyquist theorem. 48khz gives you theoretically aliasing free frequencies up to 24kHz. but this goes further, some say that certain freq harmonics are still bouncing back of the upper barrier, and messing up parts of spectrum. if that is a fact, higher sampling rate is better as those harmonics dissolve before reaching back audible spectrum.

  • @blasegangbeats1865
    @blasegangbeats1865 2 місяці тому +2

    Mixing in 192k is insane

  • @DeanPuckering
    @DeanPuckering 2 місяці тому +1

    The song you’re humming is “Regulate” if I’m not mistaken…

  • @Pintosonic
    @Pintosonic 2 місяці тому

    I have several Motu networked AVB interfaces in my studio that can work up to 192kHz and even if technically, AVB and Thunderbolt have enough bandwidth for all my channels at that sample rate, it doesn’t take long for the computer to choke as soon as I start adding plugins. So for my typical projects, I just can’t be at 192kHz, I would have to constantly bounce tracks to manage the CPU usage and honestly I don’t hear any improvements at 192kHz. At 96kHz I hear a tiny improvement over 48kHz with plugins that create harmonic distortion like tape saturation but only with plugins that do not have internal over sampling. So most of the time, I use 96kHz because my computer can take it and I don’t have to bounce tracks to manage the CPU usage. But I also used 48kHz on some projects and honestly good luck hearing the difference with 96kHz. Personally I don’t know anyone mixing at 192kHz even when they have 192kHz capables audio interfaces.

  • @ronallen2458
    @ronallen2458 2 місяці тому

    Pre-watch comment: 48 is my go-to, but if files are provided in 44.1, i work there. I’m not a bat and I don’t do much manipulation apart from tuning in melodyne.

    • @ronallen2458
      @ronallen2458 2 місяці тому

      Post-watch: Did not know the tune you were humming. :( I’m working with an Antelope interface and an ADAT connected 8-mic pre. It is bulletproof at 48K using Antelope’s clocking, so no change in opinion here. Great video and series so far!

  • @pawel9450
    @pawel9450 2 місяці тому

    THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR VIDEOS 😎🤘
    pre watch: 48 kHz and 24bit . if I´m not gonna play around with streching

    • @pawel9450
      @pawel9450 2 місяці тому

      😂 and you strted with streching- example 😂

  • @DeanPuckering
    @DeanPuckering 2 місяці тому +1

    Sam I'm not sure if this is intentional but the video is unlisted. The higher sample rate slowed down definitely sounded better to me, it sounded like it had more air.

    • @_DrumsArt
      @_DrumsArt 2 місяці тому

      Crisper higher end in the cymbal for sure. Sounded more natural.

  • @bonzology322
    @bonzology322 2 місяці тому

    almost every plugin made is optimized at 96k when they are developed, you better look into that, it matters

    • @SamLoose
      @SamLoose  2 місяці тому +1

      I don’t think I said they weren’t? I said 192kHz may not be as stable.

  • @waynebo248
    @waynebo248 2 місяці тому +2

    Even if your computer can handle it, the real issue is this: if 1000 people listen to your track mixed at 192k or 96k, maybe 15 audiophiles would have speakers that could capture the difference. 2 or 3 of them MIGHT hear a slight difference. And the truth is NOBODY would really care. NOBODY would say their enjoyment of the music was impacted at all. So why would I spend money on something that really has no benefits? 24-bit/44.1k is enough for me.
    And let's remember, 90% of people will be listening in their car or on earbuds - less than pristine listening environments... 🤷🏾‍♂️

  • @SpiritualFrequencies-zg5kj
    @SpiritualFrequencies-zg5kj 2 місяці тому

    YES high sample rates above 48Khz they are much better ...everyone just is pissed that the Ultra M4's not here yet ; ) .And exactly here ,you thank God for the APOGEE Symphony Products : ) . Because THEY actually make You feel the difference . Symphony has a very dimensional Low end reproduction ; Unreal almost . The secret is ; people tend to focus on high frequencies ; and totally mask the feel of the low end while claiming ; their 10 000 $(!!!!) converters are the best : ). APOGEE Symphony smokes them all for breakfast indeed as they say

  • @runningwolf877
    @runningwolf877 2 місяці тому +1

    48kHz for audio over video otherwise 44kHz. 32 bit float for recovery of audio purposes otherwise 24bit.

  • @MEMFISAKA
    @MEMFISAKA 2 місяці тому +3

    Audio is NOT (HELL NO!) a Video! Framerate is not sample rate. Sound waves (all we hear is combinations of different tones of SINE waves) is not str8 point to point line - it's a sphere! Sound waves spread as a sphere. The lower the frequency - the wider the sphere! 44.1 is enough to record, way enough. If you dosen't shit in the mix with all those BS saturators that doesen't sound like real one anyway, if you dosen't use extremely unnatural time effects such as supa fast attack
    elease compression - you are fine with 44/24 records. I told all this as a man you works with sound around 20 years, make blind tests and work a long period with 192K and evne 384K. Hight sample rates - it's a waste of time, CPU, electricity (yes!) and drive space. Spit in the face to anybody who advice you to work in high sample rates. They are good ONLY for time stretching. And never will sound "more analog".

    • @nullnullschnaider8072
      @nullnullschnaider8072 2 місяці тому +2

      And nobody has the a/b comparison of the finished mix. So nobody will hear a difference and say: oh, this was only recorded at 44.1 kHz, what a terrible song.

  • @DerekPower
    @DerekPower 2 місяці тому

    Before: in most situations, tracking and mixing at 44.1/48kHz is fine. 88.2/96 can work if you know it’s going to go into HD audio territory (though Atmos mixes require the audio to be at 48kHz). The reason why you would want to go higher in that stage is if you are doing sound design and you know there will be further processing down the road. But otherwise, it could potentially be very taxing on your system.
    As far as oversampling or not when it comes to processing/mixing … it only really becomes an issue when you are dealing with non-linearities and you want to avoid audible aliasing artefacts (there’s an alliteration 😉). But either a plugin will have that feature built-in or use something like Metaplugin to add it … or it may not matter because it might not be audible. (Or just use something else).
    After: either ones were serviceable (88.2 was a bit smoother) … liked the additional details brought up.
    Your humming is pretty good too 😂

  • @therearenoruleshere
    @therearenoruleshere 2 місяці тому +1

    One thing that’s not a myth is that listeners don’t give a damn. When I understood this, I stopped caring about all the trivial stuff engineers bicker about.

  • @bobbyboyderecords
    @bobbyboyderecords Місяць тому +1

    192k 32bit float here. It's not for girls, this is big boy stuff.

  • @3eyei-hattrick
    @3eyei-hattrick 2 місяці тому

    I think we can call it case closed this is one busted myth, sample rate does matter but only sometimes.
    I use 44.1kHz 24bit by default through asio4all v2, above 48kHz gives cpu warning, complex bits and pieces sound better reproduced using 96kHz,
    88.2 forget and 192 maybe someday for some reason.
    So yes I did notice a difference and also think I justified buying myself some new gear😍🤩
    Thanks and Cheers!

  • @stupidusername38
    @stupidusername38 2 місяці тому

    Not all oversampling simply extends the plugin sample rate, some manufacturers simply employ a filter at the Nyquist rate to roll off those frequencies so that they can't fold back into the audible frequency range

  • @Rhuggins
    @Rhuggins 2 місяці тому

    Sample rates can be absolutely detrimental to a recording. They can make an otherwise great song very amateur sounding.
    Said no one ever