44.1/88.2 - Final Assessment

[cmaffia]

I've been recording my projects exclusively at 88.2khz for a over year now thinking it was a big difference from initial projects at 44.1/48khz. This past weekend I loaded up some older 44.1khz projects for remastering and they sound as good, if not, better..........wtf? If that's the case I am going back to 44.1khz and enjoying the less demanding CPU and space constraints. Not that my system can't handle 88.2 or 96khz, but it is 1000% more efficient especially with the ASIO buffer and VST instruments.

 

[captdan]

One of the reasons I avoid the 44.1 vs: 96/88.1 discussion is because many folks have come to the same conclusion you have. That doesn't make anybody right or wrong, it's more about what works best in your studio and on your material.

I've listened to some of my very early DM mixes done @ 96 and 88.1, compared them to later 48kz mixes, and frankly, the latter DID sound better. But the reasons had nothing to do with the sample rate; it was more about the fact the mixes sucked. (Don't misunderstand! I'm not implying this is your scenario!).

But I returned to 96kz after a deeper comparison using different material. Where I definitely hear a difference is on tracks featuring a wide dynamic range with more 'spatial' elements. There's an undeniable 'depth' and more coherent stereo field perceivable in those examples - relative to 44./48. I hear this characteristic immediately when tracking a new analog source - acoustic gtrs, jazz cabinet, chime rack, bass, etc. And the "translatability" of my mixes is more consistent at that rate. What I hear on the ref monitors comes off with the same balance on my crappy desktop PC system.

Indeed there are downsides - higher buffer settings, (though less VST latency in Ptools), larger files, and longer mastering DSP processing times. But they no longer bother me.

Of course, it could all be my imagination. But like an effective placebo, it really doesn't matter if I think it's working.

CaptDan

YMMV.

 

[cmaffia]

I am still getting depth at 44.1khz with my reference track and I am wondering if has anything to do with monitoring and mastering through my DA-3000 rather than the DM converters.

 

[captdan]

Could be. In the same manner that I believe the DM's ADCs operate at their optimum spec at higher S/Rs, perhaps the DA-3000's performance adds clarity or detail where it might not otherwise be perceived in its absence.

Here's one thing I know for sure: the auditory cortex (brain/ears,nerves, etc) is
painfully unreliable. Too many opportunities for human failings like 'confirmation bias' - a malady pervasive in the commercial audio industry. If you pay - say $3000 for a converter, you're more likely to expect it to be a better performing unit than something 1/3 the cost. That's why double blind tests were developed to alleviate those expectations to reveal what - if any - differential exists. But true double-blind tests are VERY difficult to conduct - especially without an assistant and material designed to be rapidly switched to exclude gaps or spaces signalling the switch.

So, we just have to muddle through with our experience, bias, imperfections, assumptions and prejudices. In other words, blind faith.

CaptDan

 

[Arjan P]

I've switched to 96k about 6 months ago, and am not decided yet whether I really hear a positive difference. I'll be recording a klezmer band in May so I think I'll consult with the band to have an experiment with the same song recorded at 44k1 and 96k. See how that works out, and if not convincingly better, I'll go back to 44k1: less hassle with (digital) outboard and SRC from 96 in mastering..

 

[Juzz]

This is a real interesting topic. I discovered exactly the same thing a few years ago and have also gone back to 44100. Maybe were all just getting too old to hear those real high frequencies.

 

[Gravity Jim]

I still record at 24-bit/96khz, and being able to was my primary reason for retiring my 02R and searching for a replacement. I hear a greater clarity, less stereo "smear," and more air in a stereo mix. I also enjoy the ability to record tracks at lower levels without increasing noise. I can hear the difference, even now, and when I get tracks from elsewhere at 44.1k or 48k, I am dismayed at what I often perceive as a compressed and distorted sound.

That's my perception, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[cmaffia]

I said the same thing Jim said just a few months ago but then I went back to my older projects and started to think maybe it's a mirage. If in fact it was that much of a difference, it would jump out at you but this doesn't seem to be the case. Even if subtle, I'm starting to think maybe it's not worth the huge resource overhead required. Again, maybe the inclusion of the DA-3000 in my monitoring and mastering process makes up for the differential but I'm not sure about either (although it has better D/A conversion than the DM which is why I use it).

 

[Gravity Jim]

I've had the opposite experience: old tracks sound pretty bad to me by comparison, and when I get new tracks - even dead simple stuff like solo VO - from others in 16 but/48K, they sound "dull" on my rig... Lacking range, high end "sparkle," or clarity.

Whatever works, obviously. But I have way toouch hard drive space, so I see no reason to conserve. More bits, please!

 

[captdan]

At best, the perceivable difference between higher and lower sample rates is subtle and quite removed from the contrast between - say - two different microphones, preamps, gain settings, or even types of gtr strings. Things just don't 'jump out' at you. That's because sources sound like they sound; sample rates do nothing to change formanting, characteristics, or nature of audio. Anybody who says they do is either a piker or an audio retailer.

Bit depth is another matter; there are very real benefits and perceivable advantages to 24 bit. And 32bit - if available - is even better when signal processing is involved; the more zeros available, the more 'slots' to park data. There's more dynamic range available, allowing lower peak levels and better S/N ratio.

Higher sample rates - whether you hear the improvement or not - offer some advantages in signal processing. By moving the potential truncation/distortion artifacts from the audible range (10-18kzh) into the inaudible frequencies (30-40kzh), 88.1 and higher S/Rs may offer cleaner masters and could alleviate audible distortion.

And then there's the program material itself - how it behaves in the mix bus, reacts to EQ, limiting, compression - and even fader levels. Since no two musical projects are identical - quantifying these aspects is quite difficult.

Go with what you like. Listeners only react to the finished product. But they didn't spend several hundred hours making it either.

CaptDan

 

[cmaffia]

I've had the opposite experience: old tracks sound pretty bad to me by comparison, and when I get new tracks - even dead simple stuff like solo VO - from others in 16 but/48K, they sound "dull" on my rig... Lacking range, high end "sparkle," or clarity.

Whatever works, obviously. But I have way toouch hard drive space, so I see no reason to conserve. More bits, please!

It's not just space.. I have oodles of that. I am talking about ASIO usage and the ability to use more or less VST's and plugins. 96Khz eats up the ASIO buffer big time when compared to 44.1.

 

[captdan]

That's why a Corvette is faster than a Prius. Sure, you'll save gas with the latter, but the former is just more dang fun to drive.

(You'll forgive the obtuse, questionable metaphor. ).

CaptDan

 

[cmaffia]

Well you need to define what "fun" is first . Fun could also be making some really fine recordings at 44.1khz and not having to stop the creative process because you have to make decisions related to resource constraints. I'm going to have to do my next project at 44.1 and see if I am missing anything by downgrading. To be continued!

 

[captdan]

ASIO usage and the ability to use more or less VST's and plugins. 96Khz eats up the ASIO buffer big time when compared to 44.1.

No doubt. I run into bandwidth issues sometimes when a lot (relative term) of VSTs or plugs are being used in a 96khz project. When that happens, I disable some plugins, increase buffer, or re-load some elements to kick the memory functions into submission. I'd rather make a sacrifice in those ways than use 44.1 as a sample rate. In fact, I haven't used 44.1 in over a decade; 48 was my weapon of choice 'till I had another option.

To each.

Her/his own.

CaptDan

 

[Gravity Jim]

I can see how the difference in computer resources can make a difference. I haven't had to make a creative decision based on that, so the issue didn't occur to me. (The studio Mac is a beast.)

 

[captdan]

(The studio Mac is a beast.)

Con Fewshis say: "He who operates wimpy PC lose 'big time' in music."

CaptDan

 

[Gravity Jim]

I just recently finished a major update to my 2010 5,1 8-core Mac Pro: CPUs, memory and storage. It is now a 12-core @ 3.33ghz, with 32gb of RAM and almost 3Tb of storage across 4 SSDs. Breathes fire. I have to get up and feed it in the middle if the night.

 

[captdan]

Hey - when the machine isn't being used in the studio, you might consider entering it in a race at Sears Point.

(As I sit here green with envy at such raw data power. ).

CaptDan

 

[Gravity Jim]

Because of some very careful shopping, it's been a nine month project... Sold my 8-core 3,1 to buy a 5,1 for the same money... added a couple more SSDs (my sample drive was maxed), added RAM twice, swapped out the CPUs myself (it's a cinch, BTW). I guess I've got about $1,200 in the upgrade, but the horsepower per dollar is very high. Best money I ever spent.

And I know you can get great results at lower rates... Roger Nichols recorded "The Nightfly" purely digitally in 16-bit/44.1K, but The Immortal had forgotten more about digital signals than I will ever know. So, yeah, I know it's not the shoes.

 

[captdan]

$1.2K really isn't that huge considering what you could spend on a new machine which - quite likely - wouldn't provide that much total horsepower for that cost. I'm mulling over a PC makeover myself; it's not mandatory at this point, but it would certainly provide extra beef for those projects prone to audio 'elephantiasis.'

Re: 'Nightfly" - I've referenced that excellent recording many times in similar context. The balancing factors (obviously) were the room, mics, front end, (wasn't it done on an early Studer digital-tape deck?) - and of course Mr Nichols - AND his shoes. Then again, if 24bit had been available then, I suspect it would've been employed.

Al Schmitt opined (circa 2006) that he didn't find much if any difference between 44.1 and 96kz. However, he was convinced that 192kz was a big step up and he was looking forward to making that his go-to S/R when he eventually abandoned tracking to tape. But D. Weiss (of converter fame) disagreed; he said anything above 88.2kz was not only a waste of bandwidth, but likely a detriment to the sonics. He elaborated in one of his research 'papers,' which lead to industry wide controversy, urban legend, and inevitable forum troll-dom too.

So, where does that leave us? Right back where we started. (heh. ).

CaptDan