Just a comparison of two soundfiles.First plays the 48khz file, then the 96khz file. But since this is youtube, the difference cannot probably be heard.
I did that sound witht the software synth in Cubase. I have noticed that some plug-ins sound better in 96khz and some sound worse. To play it safe, i use 48khz in all my productions.
You can hear a lot coming out of 96 than 48/44/1. 96 is much more pronounced and much clarity without having to deal with mid or high eq. I'm gonna try recording at 96 for a full band and see the difference.
I'm really curious about the difference, can you help me by describing the difference in words? I've tried numerous of samples using my jays earphones btw
+morsymusic I noticed that some of my plug ins sound better in 96khz but some sound better in 48khz. don't know why,but currently i am using 48khz again...
+Larry Tate I run my DAW at 48k at the moment. For some reason some of the plug-ins i use sound better in 48k than in 96k. There is not much difference heard as youtube compressed the audio a bit. 48k is just fine :)
When I set my recorder at 96khz it does sound better than 48khz, it has more clarity on the top end and sounds smoother why is that? I don´t know, we are only capable to listen up to 20kz
hahah no, this is not frequency, this is sample rate. We can only hear down to 20Hz but this is 96kHz we're talking about, which isn't near 20Hz anyway (96,000 Hz)
Sample rate is not frequency of wave, it is frequency of how often sample of sound is picked when converted from analog, to digital. 48kHz means it's 48 000 times per second, 96kHz means 96 000 times per second. So if you have a really good AD/DA converters and great speakers, you will hear the difference. 96kHz will be more smooth and detailed sound.
Thanks for your comments, I was wondering that because the Nyquist theory says that the sample rate should be at least twice as the highest frequency we can perceive, so 41Khz or even 48 khz made sense to me. I like how it sounds at 96khz, but don´t get me wrong I always work at 48 Khz, 96 takes too much space and even if it sounds better to me it´s not worth it.
This goes up to *20kHz*! I have tried it using 16-bit 44kHz WAV and FLAC saved from 96kHz 24-bit source and it's always limited to 16kHz in UA-cam. What software you use and what file type your audio is *right before* uploading it to UA-cam? I used MS movie maker and it doesn't work no matter what I do. I'm really starting to question the size of my brain at this point. Excuse my english.
Well, i used 2 wav files , 48khz and 96khz, put them in to video software. The difference is very hard to hear, maybe even impossible. When i had the 2 separate WAV files on my computer, 96khz sounded better. For some reason.
"Well, i used 2 wav files , 48khz and 96khz, put them in to video software" Software is my point of interest. Human should not be able to differentiate 48kHz and 96kHz. 44kHz already goes abowe my ability, because I can only hear about 16kHz.
Well my guess why it sounds different is because of the software synth. OF course human cannot hear 96khz or even 48khz, but when software generates the sound, it has better "resolution" to generate that soundwave. The was a video somewhere which explained it better. But no, human cannot hear over 20khz. And the software i used is Cubase, video editor was windows movie maker. But as i explained earlier comments, you can barely hear difference in this video because of youtube compression. This video is not 96khz or even 48khz.
hey, this is sample rate not frequenzy response. 20khz is the maximum frequenzy our ears can reach, so when you sample an analog signal you need to, at least, double this number. That's why CD quality is 44,1kHz (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem)
And where the heck does it say that? On your upload screen? Not mine anyway, I'd appreciate a screencap if you've got one. If UA-cam has advice or a guideline on which to use, it could be so their algorithm knows what it's compressing _from._ , even though they still end up the same. As far as I know, you cannot even upload a 320kpbs file, UA-cam's limit is 128k.
even non- trained ears will hear it, if you are listening to an mp3 of a full band, if the original was 96khz.. When I listen to mp3's I hear some from a while back that sound good and some from today sound better. That is because most albums are recorded in 96hz today as you probably know. It opens it up. I dig it!
OH YEAH...DAMN I CAN HEAR A WIDE DIFFERENCE. OMG NIGHT AND DAY. OK LET ME EXPLAIN, THE 1ST TIME IT SOUNDED JUST ONCE, THE 2ND TIME IT SOUNDED TWICE. PLAY IT AGAIN SO YOU CAN HEAR IT.
There is no 96khz on UA-cam. But who cares? You will never enjoy the music more just because you listen to it in flac 96khz or 192khz. Audiophiles are very bored people and they have nothing to do.
WOW! the 48 khz one sounded super rough and had all kinds of weird artifacts but the 96 khz sounded heavenly, really clean, and real - nearly perfect, omg i never knew!
@thatrandomhumanbeing Makes no difference what bitrate its played back at you moron, if he can hear differences he can hear it, you dont have his ears so stfu
I have Vertical Limit on SuperBit DVD with DTS 96hz audio, and I have Vertical Limit on Blu-ray with 48hz uncompressed DTS-MA. So, the question is "Does uncompressed 48hz sound better or does compressed 96hz sound better." The answer is that the SuperBit DVD with 96hz sounds quite a bit better. The explosions SHAKE the house much better with the 96hz technology. I wish all 4K Blu-ray movies had 96Hz technology.
There is so much processing difference between the two workflows though, you have no way of knowing if that's the processing or if it's the 96khz. They may have just prepped the 96khz DTS differently with the compression in mind, where the uncompressed was prepped differently.
You are correct, Micah. However, I have several other SuperBit DVD movies, as well. Each of them sound better with 96hz on DVD. ... In each scenario, it could be that it was just "prepped" better on the one disc, but after a while you start to see a pattern that constantly produces the same result of better sound.
Also, one thing that is very annoying about DTS-MA lossless technology compared to Dolby True HD lossless technology - both at 48hz - is that A/V Receivers can modify and improve the Dolby True HD lossless technology with different types of Equalizers and other technologies such as Dynamic Range and Night Modes. ... I actually prefer watching the "lossy" form of "compressed" DTS sound modes of blu-rays at 48hz rather than the "lossless" 48hz 24-bit mode, because the A/V Receiver allows the compressed sound to be improved and Equalized.
During the DVD generation, there was no doubt DTS offered superior sound to Dolby Digital. It was always DTS at 768kbs vs Dolby Digital at 448kbs. Both were "lossy" and "compressed," and both could be improved with Equalizer technology. ... But in the Blu-ray generation there is no doubt Dolby True HD is the superior technology. Both are 48hz and "lossless" at 24-bit. ... But the A/V Receivers allow Dolby True HD to be improved with an Equalizer. DTS Master HD does not.
If properly reconstructed, everything in the audible range should be actually identical either way (and numerous tests confirm that this is the case in the real world, not to mention that it's mathematically proven), but if you actually keep the inaudible parts above 20KHz, on many systems the 96KHz could actually sound worse, since it's putting a bunch of energy into ranges that the components and speakers etc. aren't likely to handle well without a lot of distortion, some of which can intermodulate and spill into the audible range. So you may not actually want 96KHz output anyway unless you have both inhumanly good ears and a ridiculously priced audiophile setup (say, $100,000 or more). Otherwise recording at more than 48KHz is a waste of space. For some processing and plugins, oversampling is needed for the processing to work correctly without artifacts, but it should be immediately downsampled and filtered once the processing is done. So for recording, use 44.1 or 48, and for playback use 44.1 or 48. (48 allows for a little more room to have a gentler low-pass filter, but of course it is not the CD standard.) But for processing, some plugins should be temporarily oversampled to 96 or 192KHz. Bit depth is similar. 16 bits is plenty for playback, but it's a good idea to record and do mixing/processing in 24 bits. That way any noise accumulation during production will be well below the noise threshold of a 16-bit signal once it's dithered back down. 96db is plenty of dynamic range, 144db is WAY overkill. If you had a stereo that could even reproduce it (good luck, no stereo or even PA or monitoring system possibly can), and a quiet enough room to have a super low noise background (again, good luck, nobody's living room is that quiet,), if you turned it up enough to detect the digital noise floor, then the loudest sounds would break all your windows and make you instantly and permanently deaf and probably knock you unconscious or worse. But even then you wouldn't hear the digital noise floor, since I guarantee you your sound system will inject far, far more analog noise into it than that, and the digital noise will remain undetectable. On the other hand, as a musician you can make some extra free cash by selling 24/96 HD downloads to gullible rich people, so there's that. Just don't tell them that in properly-controlled randomized double-blind A/B tests of various sources vs the same sources that have been passed through a 16/44.1 conversion, nobody can tell the difference.
![If you can't hear this then you're not an audiophile [See description for link to followup video]](/img/n.gif)
The first sample at 48 kHz sounded subtly harsh and grainy and the latter at 96 kHz sounded smoother and had more air. This is good to know.
I did that sound witht the software synth in Cubase. I have noticed that some plug-ins sound better in 96khz and some sound worse. To play it safe, i use 48khz in all my productions.
You can hear a lot coming out of 96 than 48/44/1. 96 is much more pronounced and much clarity without having to deal with mid or high eq. I'm gonna try recording at 96 for a full band and see the difference.
UA-cam still compresses it idk what y’all are hearing
I notice difference. Lot easier on the ear the last and far less "doublesound" fragmented or how to put it in words not easy.
in theory what is better?
I'm really curious about the difference, can you help me by describing the difference in words? I've tried numerous of samples using my jays earphones btw
Theres more detail
UA-cam compressed audio to around 128 kbps. You won't be able to HEAR a difference on this video. The Spec scans will provide the most evidence
the power of sonic suggestion jeje
press 5 and 0
Thanks. I tried listening 8-12 times. I can't tell the difference.
+nuraman00
Well, youtube compresses the video. It really cannot be heard. But you can see the spectrogram is different.
Who the fuck cares, if I want 96454654564654564KHZ sounds I go outside and get a life.
48khz works just fine.
@@purpleice2343 whoa how agressive
try pressing 1 and then 6 to hear the difference
wtf i thought i wouldn't hear difference but i do...
96khz sounds a bit more cleaner, but not super noticeable to the avg ear. Might as well get the highest quality possible though :)
+morsymusic I noticed that some of my plug ins sound better in 96khz but some sound better in 48khz. don't know why,but currently i am using 48khz again...
www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
*confirmation BiAs*
Sounded more open at 96k
Most people won't even notice. They don't really care. The ones who do care are the musicians and sound techs making the music.
48k was first right? I heard no difference. So I guess it's better to run my daw at 48 right, cause 96 uses my storage on my computer?
+Larry Tate I run my DAW at 48k at the moment. For some reason some of the plug-ins i use sound better in 48k than in 96k. There is not much difference heard as youtube compressed the audio a bit. 48k is just fine :)
@@luther3155 I'm Cubase it's in project settings. I do not know how to change it in FL Studio, sorry. Nowadays I am working with 44.1Khz again.
When I set my recorder at 96khz it does sound better than 48khz, it has more clarity on the top end and sounds smoother why is that? I don´t know, we are only capable to listen up to 20kz
hahah no, this is not frequency, this is sample rate. We can only hear down to 20Hz but this is 96kHz we're talking about, which isn't near 20Hz anyway (96,000 Hz)
Sample rate is not frequency of wave, it is frequency of how often sample of sound is picked when converted from analog, to digital. 48kHz means it's 48 000 times per second, 96kHz means 96 000 times per second. So if you have a really good AD/DA converters and great speakers, you will hear the difference. 96kHz will be more smooth and detailed sound.
What a utterly nonsense, go here: www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/lavry-white-paper-the_optimal_sample_rate_for_quality_audio.pdf
alf3k1 calling it nonsense and posting someone else's opinion lol
Thanks for your comments, I was wondering that because the Nyquist theory says that the sample rate should be at least twice as the highest frequency we can perceive, so 41Khz or even 48 khz made sense to me. I like how it sounds at 96khz, but don´t get me wrong I always work at 48 Khz, 96 takes too much space and even if it sounds better to me it´s not worth it.
This goes up to *20kHz*!
I have tried it using 16-bit 44kHz WAV and FLAC saved from 96kHz 24-bit source and it's always limited to 16kHz in UA-cam. What software you use and what file type your audio is *right before* uploading it to UA-cam? I used MS movie maker and it doesn't work no matter what I do. I'm really starting to question the size of my brain at this point. Excuse my english.
Well, i used 2 wav files , 48khz and 96khz, put them in to video software. The difference is very hard to hear, maybe even impossible. When i had the 2 separate WAV files on my computer, 96khz sounded better. For some reason.
"Well, i used 2 wav files , 48khz and 96khz, put them in to video software"
Software is my point of interest.
Human should not be able to differentiate 48kHz and 96kHz. 44kHz already goes abowe my ability, because I can only hear about 16kHz.
Well my guess why it sounds different is because of the software synth. OF course human cannot hear 96khz or even 48khz, but when software generates the sound, it has better "resolution" to generate that soundwave. The was a video somewhere which explained it better. But no, human cannot hear over 20khz.
And the software i used is Cubase, video editor was windows movie maker. But as i explained earlier comments, you can barely hear difference in this video because of youtube compression. This video is not 96khz or even 48khz.
UA-cam sound quality is similar to 44kHz /128 - 192kbps MP3, so indeed it's impossible to hear the difference.
hey, this is sample rate not frequenzy response. 20khz is the maximum frequenzy our ears can reach, so when you sample an analog signal you need to, at least, double this number. That's why CD quality is 44,1kHz (Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem)
I still wonder why this is my most watched video :D Check out my music as well :)
definitely big difference to trained ears, they may be bad but I still got it :)
You sure about that?
Well, UA-cam does say use 48 or 96. Why would it say to use 96 if it's compressed?
And where the heck does it say that? On your upload screen? Not mine anyway, I'd appreciate a screencap if you've got one. If UA-cam has advice or a guideline on which to use, it could be so their algorithm knows what it's compressing _from._ , even though they still end up the same. As far as I know, you cannot even upload a 320kpbs file, UA-cam's limit is 128k.
even non- trained ears will hear it, if you are listening to an mp3 of a full band, if the original was 96khz.. When I listen to mp3's I hear some from a while back that sound good and some from today sound better. That is because most albums are recorded in 96hz today as you probably know. It opens it up. I dig it!
Doesn't really elaborate on the comment's subject, but yeah.
OH YEAH...DAMN I CAN HEAR A WIDE DIFFERENCE. OMG NIGHT AND DAY. OK LET ME EXPLAIN, THE 1ST TIME IT SOUNDED JUST ONCE, THE 2ND TIME IT SOUNDED TWICE. PLAY IT AGAIN SO YOU CAN HEAR IT.
There is no 96khz on UA-cam. But who cares? You will never enjoy the music more just because you listen to it in flac 96khz or 192khz.
Audiophiles are very bored people and they have nothing to do.
haahhaah
MOHAMMED ALTHAHABE I know I am
Not true and nobody cares if you have poor taste. You don't need to make a big deal about it.
After shown a visual presentation, retarded people will remain retarded.
WOW! the 48 khz one sounded super rough and had all kinds of weird artifacts but the 96 khz sounded heavenly, really clean, and real - nearly perfect, omg i never knew!
Yea, for sure, you do realize that this video has a sample rate of 48 kHz throughout because that´s the UA-cam audio-resolution? Idiot.
I LOL'd so hard.
@thatrandomhumanbeing Makes no difference what bitrate its played back at you moron, if he can hear differences he can hear it, you dont have his ears so stfu
lmaooooooo
I have Vertical Limit on SuperBit DVD with DTS 96hz audio, and I have Vertical Limit on Blu-ray with 48hz uncompressed DTS-MA. So, the question is "Does uncompressed 48hz sound better or does compressed 96hz sound better." The answer is that the SuperBit DVD with 96hz sounds quite a bit better. The explosions SHAKE the house much better with the 96hz technology. I wish all 4K Blu-ray movies had 96Hz technology.
There is so much processing difference between the two workflows though, you have no way of knowing if that's the processing or if it's the 96khz. They may have just prepped the 96khz DTS differently with the compression in mind, where the uncompressed was prepped differently.
You are correct, Micah. However, I have several other SuperBit DVD movies, as well. Each of them sound better with 96hz on DVD. ... In each scenario, it could be that it was just "prepped" better on the one disc, but after a while you start to see a pattern that constantly produces the same result of better sound.
Also, one thing that is very annoying about DTS-MA lossless technology compared to Dolby True HD lossless technology - both at 48hz - is that A/V Receivers can modify and improve the Dolby True HD lossless technology with different types of Equalizers and other technologies such as Dynamic Range and Night Modes. ... I actually prefer watching the "lossy" form of "compressed" DTS sound modes of blu-rays at 48hz rather than the "lossless" 48hz 24-bit mode, because the A/V Receiver allows the compressed sound to be improved and Equalized.
During the DVD generation, there was no doubt DTS offered superior sound to Dolby Digital. It was always DTS at 768kbs vs Dolby Digital at 448kbs. Both were "lossy" and "compressed," and both could be improved with Equalizer technology. ... But in the Blu-ray generation there is no doubt Dolby True HD is the superior technology. Both are 48hz and "lossless" at 24-bit. ... But the A/V Receivers allow Dolby True HD to be improved with an Equalizer. DTS Master HD does not.
Uau quanta diferença
If properly reconstructed, everything in the audible range should be actually identical either way (and numerous tests confirm that this is the case in the real world, not to mention that it's mathematically proven), but if you actually keep the inaudible parts above 20KHz, on many systems the 96KHz could actually sound worse, since it's putting a bunch of energy into ranges that the components and speakers etc. aren't likely to handle well without a lot of distortion, some of which can intermodulate and spill into the audible range. So you may not actually want 96KHz output anyway unless you have both inhumanly good ears and a ridiculously priced audiophile setup (say, $100,000 or more). Otherwise recording at more than 48KHz is a waste of space.
For some processing and plugins, oversampling is needed for the processing to work correctly without artifacts, but it should be immediately downsampled and filtered once the processing is done. So for recording, use 44.1 or 48, and for playback use 44.1 or 48. (48 allows for a little more room to have a gentler low-pass filter, but of course it is not the CD standard.) But for processing, some plugins should be temporarily oversampled to 96 or 192KHz.
Bit depth is similar. 16 bits is plenty for playback, but it's a good idea to record and do mixing/processing in 24 bits. That way any noise accumulation during production will be well below the noise threshold of a 16-bit signal once it's dithered back down. 96db is plenty of dynamic range, 144db is WAY overkill. If you had a stereo that could even reproduce it (good luck, no stereo or even PA or monitoring system possibly can), and a quiet enough room to have a super low noise background (again, good luck, nobody's living room is that quiet,), if you turned it up enough to detect the digital noise floor, then the loudest sounds would break all your windows and make you instantly and permanently deaf and probably knock you unconscious or worse. But even then you wouldn't hear the digital noise floor, since I guarantee you your sound system will inject far, far more analog noise into it than that, and the digital noise will remain undetectable.
On the other hand, as a musician you can make some extra free cash by selling 24/96 HD downloads to gullible rich people, so there's that. Just don't tell them that in properly-controlled randomized double-blind A/B tests of various sources vs the same sources that have been passed through a 16/44.1 conversion, nobody can tell the difference.
People convince themselves daily that convenience is more important than quality.
Kkkk
High frequencies are clearer, you can hear it... 96Khz is better for A to D as well....
32bit / 36khz sounds best to me