Dubstepforum.com

Hey guys,

im planning on changing my samplerate from 44.100 hz to 96.000 hz.
what do you guys use and what are the disadvantages? Like won't all samples
i will load into the project that are 44.100 give problems with playback?

Thanx!

nah, if your making your whole project 96k your daw will convert anything that isnt the right sample rate.

but if all your samples are 44.1 or something you might as well just stay in 44.1. unless your recording stuff, but 96 is a bit overkilll init?

does your interface even support that sample rate, thats another flag.

Why would you work at 96k?
Can you hear the difference? Are you releasing DVD-A? Are there any synths / fx that sound drastically different at 96k?

Yes i have noticed at some other producers studio's it sound way more defined. The plugins run smoother and the quality is definitly better.
I spoke to one of the best engineers in my city and he told me to work in a higher samplerate then 44.1. I noticed this indeed improves quality.
See it like this:

Humans hear till 20.000 / 22.000 hz. But that doesnt mean he frequencies above that can't be "felt" your subconsious notices this.
I can't really explain well like the guy teached me. But i like to try anyway.

96 is a bit overkill indeed so i decided to work on 48.

Now i only have to find the damn option in logic 9!! hahaha

For the person asking if my soundcard will be able to hadle it. Yes it goes up to 192

only seems odd to me that plugs would run smoother when you tax ur CPU further... higher samplerates would demand more CPU, no?

Mini-rant:

I wish 99% of the people who send me 96kHz mixdowns spent MUCH more time working on their mixing, rather than worrying about what sample rate they are at. I wince every time I see a 96kHz file arrive, as almost invariably they are among the worst mixes I hear. If these people can hear the difference in a reasonably controlled test between the two, how come they can't hear that their mix is pants? 'Safety in numbers'... meh.

That's not to say there aren't advantages to working at higher sample rates, just saying that there are more important things to be concerned about for a lot of people... you know, like being able to make a good mix. Little things like that.


Uncharacteristic mini-rant over

Heh that's ironic.
I've always just been afraid to fuck with settings on my interface. So i keep it at the back of my mind, maybe i'll switch to 96k when i get good enough for it to make a difference.

ive done phaze inversion tests with high sample rates versus standard sample rates that come up flat lined...if there was i noticable difference they should come up with at least a tiny artifact....right?
maybe the plug-ins that i used are just converted up and not truly high resolution

*some* plugins may sound better at 96kHz, but arguably, any plugin worth its salt should oversample internally if necessary (eg distortions, filters with high cutoff) and the difference should then be negligible. plugins certainly won't run more "smoothly" at 96k; they'll just eat double the CPU (which IMHO is a far bigger concern).

"you can feel sounds above 22kHz" is a load of bollocks.

basically, stick with 44kHz unless you're recording acoustic instruments in a million-dollar studio.