Why there is so much difference when playing Abyssal Zone preset on padsop at 96khz vs 44.1, playing the same C3 sound completly different.
And home cd’s are 44.1khz
I don’t get it.
Thanks
Maybe you should clarify…?
Yes, 96k sounds better. You didn’t think CD was the best replication of sound, did you?
+1
Or even post example WAV-files on how Padshop sounds different on different sample rates.
96k does not sound “better”, if your software and equipment are designed properly. But sometimes they are not and that’s why it may be safer to use 96k.
96k is more information than 44k1. On CDs it’s enough to hear music, but if you create music and work with audio, 96k can be useful. If you have only instruments that generate frequencies below 22khz, everything is ok, but if they generate higher frequencies and are not properly downsampled, you will hear artifacts - so in this case, 96khz is better, if you play it directly or do the downsampling right… And everybody knows that 24bit is far better than 16 bit when you work with your recordings - this is the same thing, just with frequencys…
But to Padshop: I tried it and did an export of the same notes played two times. First the project-settings where 96khz, then 44,1khz, exporting was always at 96khz. Then this was reimported and played back at 96khz. When i switched between both exports, there was a clear difference. An you can measure it: the spectral analysis of both audiofiles was quite interesting: A big drop in the low frequencies for the 96khz version. (Remember that this could also be the result of some “random-generator” inside Padshop)
Sounds a bit like Voodoo or faulty system to me.
IMHO You don’t need to work at anything above 48, unless you’re a dog or a bat.
Or if you’re trying to pitch-shift ultrasound stuff to make it audible. I fail to see any other use for >44800.
BINGO! Keyword: properly. There is nothing you gain from using 96k, if all software and hardware works properly, but unfortunately that’s not always the case and that’s why it’s sometimes wise to use 96k.
Everybody? No! There are whole lot of people who don’t think so. For example mr Ethan Winer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYTlN6wjcvQ (go to 45:05)
Now, I’m not saying you shouldn’t record at 96k/24. But what I’m saying it’s not “better”. It just gives you more headroom on both frequency and dynamic range, which helps to mask out inperfections on your equipment/software and your working methods.
I call utter BS that there’s no need to produce music at a sample rate higher than 48k.
…and, let’s see who I have on my side. Yeah…that would be every non electronica record made in the last decade, and every major engineer I’ve ever talked to or read comments on the subject…and (almost) every company who makes digital models of analog gear (who all internally double the sample rate so the model works correctly)…and you have $1k/channel converters? If not, I PROMISE 88.2 sounds better. The same people who talk about “properly designed” gear and algorithms mean theory works. Not that some RME or MOTU or Apogee converter and any plug in that’s actually AVAILABLE meet theory.
So, if the OP would like to know why. It’s that historically, the public has NEVER heard the resolution being recorded in a studio. No one had 1/4" stereo decks at home. No one had 48k DAT. And for the last decade, few have bought the 88./96 that most everything in HD TDM was tracked at. It’s the way of the world. You don’t make a recording for an end user medium.
Which is why an SACD of an Elton John record from the 70s sounds better than the vinyl…because the original tapes had more resolution than the public heard…and when the delivery mechanism was improved, they would get closer.
It’s like saying you don’t see a reason to mix down above 256mp3, because that’s what everyone is buying. This is just a misunderstanding of the “new market for audio products”. You produce with the highest fidelity, best sounding gear you can…to make the best sounding recording you can. Whether of not the end user can hear that on today’s hip playback device is not really relevant.
With sounds made within the DAW like the Vsti’s, it should theoretically sound better in 96K.
Actually, that would only be true if the VSTi you are talking about is a MODEL of an analog piece…or a wholly digital synth with filters that take that into account. It’s actually the opposite. 98% of VIs that use samples are sampled at 44.1 with another 1% at 48k. The only advantage you would get from THAT scenario is that the models of analog gear and EQ will sound better, which ALONE…is not good enough reason to use the higher sample rate.
Which is why much dancey pop stuff is the exception to the “everything in the last decade” comment.
Not to mention, converter latency…halved at 96k. Losing a millisecond is NOT trivial.
I also feel the need to apologize for such broad statements. I tend to forget who might be reading this. If you’re a guy having fun, making music on the weekends using Cubase…the sample rate won’t matter much.
I do demos all the time at 48k…actually, I don’t bother turning on my nice mic preamps either…or booting the computer. I’ve been doing song demos in the Kronos for a while now.
I just get a bit irate at the attitude that there’s no difference, which I assure you exists only in Internet forums. There’s a difference. Does it matter in a given music making situation? Completely debatable and subjective. But, in an age when anything you walk out of the Apple store with is fully capable of glitch free 88.2 tracking, as is every $200 interface (which is actually where it also makes the greatest difference)…I think that anyone tracking actual audio and not virtual instruments owes it to themselves to do a taste test. It’s the only fidelity Moore’s Law brings you really. Preamp circuits…microphones…monitors…these are things that have relatively fixed “cost to performance” ratios based in build and component quality differences. But, having 88.2 lower your monitoring latency, move the LPF far outside human hearing, and increasing the accuracy of analog modelled plug ins…is fidelity worth exploring.
if you can’t hear a difference…and it’s your own music…you go on…use whatever makes you happy. Sorry if I came off as a grumpy old man. I’m…ok, well, I probabaly AM…but, I did want to clarify my position.