Quantcast
192 khz vs 96 vs 48: I did the blindfold test. - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
192 khz vs 96 vs 48: I did the blindfold test.
Old 21st November 2017
  #1
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
192 khz vs 96 vs 48: I did the blindfold test.

EDIT: I made a mistake in my method of testing, I will try again first with the correct method and then report back.

Last edited by Lucifer; 22nd November 2017 at 10:55 AM..
Old 21st November 2017
  #2
Lives for gear
 
nukmusic's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yes, it does sound better no doubt. Different people will go back and forth about "how much better". What keeps me away right now is the required harddrive space. A decent size recording session at 192k uses a lot of space. (say a 3min tune with 50 tracks).

http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/...dio-recording/
Old 22nd November 2017
  #3
Deleted 09ad95d
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer ➡️
Is this the reason maybe (my 'low end' gear) why the difference is so huge for me, is it because I'm not using top of the line ad/da conversion and so forth ?
This is what I've heard/read... that the difference between high and low end gear disappears at higher sample rates. The premium for high end interfaces kicks in because they maintain quality at lower sample rates like 44.1 and 48. So the internet experts say.

I would quote things about decimation filters that I don't understand but that wouldn't clarify matters.

I'm trying to recall an old thread here where a Steinberg or a Behringer (or some other low end interface) went toe to toe with a high end interface and (subjectively) sounded as good or better. I don't recall the sample rate.
Old 22nd November 2017
  #4
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
I 100 percent agree. Night and day from 44.1 to 192. I would have to disagree that it matters more for lower end da ad converters. I have 2 mytek 8x192 and the difference between 44.1 and 192 was an eye opener for me. Everyone likes to talk science and math, But science can’t tell you what sounds better. Now I wonder if getting a converter that can go even higher would sound even better?!! Screw science! My ears will lead the way 384 k here we come!
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregkoNYC ➡️
I know that most people aren't a huge fan of vinyl these days, but in spite of clicks, pops, reduced dynamic range, it's a completely lossless format that remains 100% in the analog domain (assuming an analog only recording chain) and I love the sound.
Perhaps I should know better than to comment here...

But, how exactly is vinyl (or any analog recording medium) lossless in any meaningful way? There are losses incurred every time a record or tape is played, in that there is physical degradation of the playback medium due to wear; moreover, that degradation is cumulative. The difference with digital reproduction (better or worse sounding argument aside) is that the digital data can be perfectly copied and/or played an infinite number of times with absolutely no degradation, (i.e. losslessly).
Old 22nd November 2017
  #6
Gear Addict
 
I don't buy the "lossless" point about either analog or (especially) vinyl.

Just because you can perceive differences in material played at 48K vs 192K doesn't mean much. What sounds better to you might be reversed with someone else, and what you hear might be smoothing algorithm artifacts due to deficiencies related to the 48K rate with your device. A different (better) algorithm might yield no perceived difference between the two rates.
Old 22nd November 2017
  #7
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Maybe it's once again time for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
mamm7215's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12Bass ➡️
Maybe it's once again time for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
That video is awesome! Bookmarked.
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #9
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by swartzfeger ➡️
This is what I've heard/read... that the difference between high and low end gear disappears at higher sample rates. The premium for high end interfaces kicks in because they maintain quality at lower sample rates like 44.1 and 48. So the internet experts say.
Ah, I see. Could you give me some examples of DA converters which I could run at 44.1 or 48, and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference against my focusrite DA converter at 192 khz ?
Are there any mid priced ones ?
It would need to have adat in, or spdif in, and atleast two balanced line level outputs.

Next on the chopping block will be the focusrite AD converter.
I will record the same file once @ 48 khz and once on 192 khz, then I will play both back @ 192 khz and listen for the differences. Would this be a correct testing method ?
Hope the difference isn't so huge aswell..

David
Old 22nd November 2017
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Monkey Man's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Dang, these threads just confuse the Hell out of me.

I decided to switch to 48kHz after reading the most-recent, super-long thread here, and then Christoph Kemper and Hans-Jorg Scheffler talked me into remaining at 44. Those guys know their stuff when it comes to the ins and outs (unintended pun), filters, algorithms and so on involved in digital conversion.

I do subscribe to the idea that high-end convertors should lessen whatever gap there is between rates, but even they have their sweet spots, something many overlook when it comes to cheap gear.

I'd figured that for now at least, once I've eventually got my MOTU AVB interfaces (ultra-long saga, that one), running at 44.1 ought to sound pretty-damned-good, but then... up pops another (this) thread...
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #11
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
EDIT: I made a mistake in my method of testing, I will try again first with the correct method and then report back.

Last edited by Lucifer; 22nd November 2017 at 10:59 AM..
Old 22nd November 2017
  #12
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
are you listening to music recorded at 192khz? if not then how is there any difference? maybe there is some sort of distortion caused by the high sample rate setting that is adding high end that you like?
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
EDIT: I made a mistake in my method of testing, I will try again first with the correct method and then report back.

Last edited by Lucifer; 22nd November 2017 at 11:04 AM..
Old 22nd November 2017
  #14
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
That way, you've described, you primarily tested realtime resampling algorithm of your OS..
If the source is 44.1 lossy Vorbis stream playing from Spotify, guess what happens, when your interface has different working sample rate..
Well.. the audio layer at system resample everything.

Added "air" there is likely just aliasing from such real-time conversion.
If you're listening to Spotify, you should set your interface to 44.1 to match the source and avoid any unnecessary reconversions.
Switching to higher playback rates technically won't bring anything to the table in most cases, unless you would like to intentionally mangle with audio during playback.

Michal
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr ➡️
That way, you've described, you primarily tested realtime resampling algorithm of your OS..
If the source is 44.1 lossy Vorbis stream playing from Spotify, guess what happens, when your interface has different working sample rate..
Well.. the audio layer at system resample everything.

Added "air" there is likely just aliasing from such real-time conversion.
If you're listening to Spotify, you should set your interface to 44.1 to match the source and avoid any unnecessary reconversions.
Switching to higher playback rates technically won't bring anything to the table in most cases, unless you would like to intentionally mangle with audio during playback.

Michal
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
Would this be a correct test, record the exact same audio file in cubase in both sample rates and have a listen.
Or is there a place where I can download a true 48 khz file + the same audio file in 192 khz aswell ? I would play these back with my media player on my pc, and adjust my interface sample rate accordingly, right ?
I'm actually glad I made a mistake, I don't wanna record in 192 khz, way to big files/too much strain on the pc.
After a correct blindfold test, I hope the conclusion will be what everyone says, it's nothing more but a subtle difference, if even that.
But I can say without a doubt, spotify sounds better when upsampled to 192 khz instead of 48 khz

Sorry for the mistake. Let me know how I can test this correctly.

Thanks

Last edited by Lucifer; 22nd November 2017 at 11:39 AM..
Old 22nd November 2017
  #16
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
You can get music with higher sample rate from say HDTracks. You'll find commercial music released at different sample rates.
Possibly you can get some high sample rate file and downsample it using some high quality algorithm (iZotope, SoX..) to base rate and compare it. But it's double edged sword.. that way you have full control over downsampling process compared to some released music, but on the other hand, you'll add another variable there and if you don't fully understand resampler settings or say introduce some clipping, comparison could be flawed. And as differences could be rather subtle, it's can be hard to do judge such errors, when you don't have resolving monitoring system.

Also there's free sampler by 2L
2L High Resolution Music .:. free TEST BENCH

For the playback, you should get some audio player, which support ASIO, because this is most direct path to your Focusrite interface, so you can be sure there isn't any rate conversion at system level. Also it switches sample rates at hardware automatically according to current playing file.

One example of such player can be free Foobar2000
Download foobar2000
with installed ASIO plugin (it's separate download)
foobar2000: Components Repository - ASIO support

Additionally you can get ABX helper plugin there for comparisons
foobar2000: Components Repository - ABX Comparator
(Select two files in playlist, Right click - Utilities - ABX Two Tracks...)

Michal
Old 22nd November 2017
  #17
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
It would also be a good idea to make that the songs which are auditioned are mixed and mastered the same, such that sampling rate is the only variable under test.
Old 22nd November 2017
  #18
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
I would prefer not to overcomplicate things, to be honest I just wanna get a basic idea of the difference between these sample rates so I can move on and never have to question 48 khz again, hopefully So what do you guys think of this kind of test: hook up an external audio player (analog), cubase on 48 khz, record, have a listen. Then repeat the process with cubase on 192 khz. That should give me a pretty good feel of the difference, if any, right ?
Old 22nd November 2017
  #19
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Yes, that would test your converters operate at different rates.. It's maybe even better test in the context of music recording.

By external audio player, you mean basically digitzing of vinyl or so. In such case, just keep in mind, that proper setup of the turntable, no ground loops.. is absolutely paramount and typically affecting your outcome to much higher degree than selected sample rate. Similar thing applies also to some reel-to-reel analog recorders.
Another crucial thing for comparisons is as close level matching as possible among different tests.. even half of dB at overall level can be perceivable with good system.
Third and last comment there is about keeping some level headroom at converters during capture.. this applies especially for cheaper interfaces/AD converters where it's sound can deteriorate quite a bit, when levels approaching digital zero. So when setting levels, keep it peaking somewhere around -6, maybe with few short events around -3dBFS, but no more.

Michal
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #20
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmucr ➡️
Yes, that would test your converters operate at different rates.. It's maybe even better test in the context of music recording.

By external audio player, you mean basically digitzing of vinyl or so. In such case, just keep in mind, that proper setup of the turntable, no ground loops.. is absolutely paramount and typically affecting your outcome to much higher degree than selected sample rate. Similar thing applies also to some reel-to-reel analog recorders.
Another crucial thing for comparisons is as close level matching as possible among different tests.. even half of dB at overall level can be perceivable with good system.
Third and last comment there is about keeping some level headroom at converters during capture.. this applies especially for cheaper interfaces/AD converters where it's sound can deteriorate quite a bit, when levels approaching digital zero. So when setting levels, keep it peaking somewhere around -6, maybe with few short events around -3dBFS, but no more.

Michal
The best quality analog signal I can deliver into my focusrite, will actually be: my old laptop + old interface, playing back a high res song, going out analog balanced line level, coming in the focusrite also analog balanced line level.
Record that twice.
Will do this tonight.
Old 22nd November 2017
  #21
Lives for gear
 
BM Grabber's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
I know for certain that the two out of the last three records a band with over 100 million records sold where tracked and mixed in 24/44.1

They could probably buy whatever gear and computers they want by now, but in a real world scenario they decided to go for something easily mangeable (track count, processing, delivery spec and end format etc).

If they had felt that the end result were lacking anything in sound quality, they would have chosen otherwise.

So if it is "good enough" for the top players (from performers and engineers to producer and mixers and mastering guys) I guess they have done their research....

... and I guess it won't make or break a record for the average "Gearslutzers"

PS. CLA has never used anything other/higher than 16bit/48kHz. He records stems from PT to 48 tracks on his soon 30 year old digital tapemachine (a Sony 3348, which is a 48-track digital two-inch tape machine that was first introduced in 1989, and Lord-Alge has the original 16-bit/48kHz version)....
He still uses it to this day. And it has never stopped him from getting the job done
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #22
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM Grabber ➡️
I know for certain that the two out of the last three records a band with over 100 million records sold where tracked and mixed in 24/44.1

They could probably buy whatever gear and computers they want by now, but in a real world scenario they decided to go for something easily mangeable (track count, processing, delivery spec and end format etc).

If they had felt that the end result were lacking anything in sound quality, they would have chosen otherwise.

So if it is "good enough" for the top players (from performers and engineers to producer and mixers and mastering guys) I guess they have done their research....

... and I guess it won't make or break a record for the average "Gearslutzers"

PS. CLA has never used anything other/higher than 16bit/48kHz. He records stems from PT to 48 tracks on his soon 30 year old digital tapemachine (a Sony 3348, which is a 48-track digital two-inch tape machine that was first introduced in 1989, and Lord-Alge has the original 16-bit/48kHz version)....
He still uses it to this day. And it has never stopped him from getting the job done
I agree with you.
All I want to do, just this one time, is hear for myself in a blind test.

I was blown away by yesterday's result, and I would have never used 48 khz again if you guys didn't point out to me I was doing it way wrong.

If this feeling doesn't happen again in tonight's test, which should be more accurate (alltough not 100% but I don't mind) I will stick by 48 khz forever as I would prefer.
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
charlieclouser's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12Bass ➡️
Maybe it's once again time for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
How have I never seen this video until now? It's fantastic, and absolutely confirms what I learned in school more than three decades ago - and, more importantly, it absolutely confirms what my own reasoning AND EARS have been telling me for that same three decades.

Out of pure paranoia and lingering doubt, over the years I've done so many shootouts between different dither algorithms, A>D + D>A converters, sample rates, and bit depths, hoping for some magic moment when it feels like someone lifted a blanket off of the speakers, the little 10-watt light bulb over my head turns on, and I would say, "So THAT'S the reason why I've been thinking about this all wrong / doing this all wrong for all these years!" - but that moment has never happened.

Why not?

Because what I was taught way back in the mid-1980s about the then fairly-new digital recording technology was, thankfully, completely accurate. Props to Al Grundy, who was my teacher at The Institute of Audio Research in 1983-84, for not only understanding these detailed concepts to an absolute degree, but for effectively communicating his knowledge to his students. It all made perfect sense, and still does, and it's great to see a video that demonstrates so much of what my intuition and ears have been telling me all these years.

Thanks for posting that!
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #24
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlieclouser ➡️
How have I never seen this video until now? It's fantastic, and absolutely confirms what I learned in school more than three decades ago - and, more importantly, it absolutely confirms what my own reasoning AND EARS have been telling me for that same three decades.

Out of pure paranoia and lingering doubt, over the years I've done so many shootouts between different dither algorithms, A>D + D>A converters, sample rates, and bit depths, hoping for some magic moment when it feels like someone lifted a blanket off of the speakers, the little 10-watt light bulb over my head turns on, and I would say, "So THAT'S the reason why I've been thinking about this all wrong / doing this all wrong for all these years!" - but that moment has never happened.

Why not?

Because what I was taught way back in the mid-1980s about the then fairly-new digital recording technology was, thankfully, completely accurate. Props to Al Grundy, who was my teacher at The Institute of Audio Research in 1983-84, for not only understanding these detailed concepts to an absolute degree, but for effectively communicating his knowledge to his students. It all made perfect sense, and still does, and it's great to see a video that demonstrates so much of what my intuition and ears have been telling me all these years.

Thanks for posting that!
Hi, can I ask you to enlighten me please ? By this I mean, I would love to know what settings you use ? 24 bit ? What sample rate ?
Old 22nd November 2017
  #25
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
This video is great in showing the basics of why ad da converters work so well. And how a sine wave can be reproduced effectively, but an experiment that shows 1 outcome in 1 circumstance does not show the result of all music being reproduced in the digital realm. And unfortunately the only way to do that is to use your ears. I know people like to say that you can’t hear above 22k so it doesn’t matter, but I’m not talking about hearing bat calls. It changes the audible range somehow, and even if you can tell the difference slightly , then that experiment is not the be all end all in music reproduction. If you can’t hear the difference between 44.1 and 96 or 192 when tracking and mixing then 44.1 is good for you and I understand that. But for me, the grainyness in the silibance and the grittiness in those higher freqs is too much. I think it also depends on the type of music your making. Maybe that grittiness sounds good to you with more aggressive types of music. I’m doing a lot of folk, pop, r and b stuff and 192 just has that nice polished sound that I enjoy.
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
charlieclouser's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucifer ➡️
Hi, can I ask you to enlighten me please ? What settings do you use ? 24 bit ? What sample rate ?
For records, back in the 1990's (NIN, Rob Zombie, etc.) all we had was 44/48 kHz and 16/24 bit. We'd use 44 kHz exclusively, and in the early years of digital we'd use 16 bit because that's all there was - but we did use fancy-shmancy A>D interfaces like the early Apogee stuff like the AD-500 and DA-1000 standalone stereo AD/DA interfaces for our Panasonic DAT machines, and their AD-8000 for early ProTools systems. The SoftLimit™ and high-end analog side of the Apogee interfaces did provide a noticeable improvement over the stock converters in the Panasonic DAT machines and early ProTools interfaces, but that's because of superior analog-side electronics, not anything really related to the digital domain.

When 24-bit became available with ProTools/24, we did switch to 24-bit depth for recording instrument tracks, but our mixes were still printed to 16-bit as this was all that DAT machines could deal with at the time, and was the eventual destination format for CD releases anyway. The first four NIN records (through The Fragile) were all recorded in this manner. I think The Downward Spiral was still done completely at 16 bit end-to-end, but while making The Fragile we got ProTools/24 with the 888/24 interfaces, which allowed us to track individual instruments at 24 bits, and soon after the Apogee AD-8000 came on the scene which gave us the enhanced analog-side electronics and SoftLimit™, which helped improve things even more.

When I recorded the Helmet album Size Matters in 2003, ProTools HD and Digidesign's 192 interfaces had just became available, so that's what we used. We recorded basic tracks to analog tape at East-West studios (then called Cello Recorders), and dumped them into ProTools at 96 kHz / 24 bit. Audio remained in this format through overdubbing and mixing, which was done through analog consoles at NRG Studios by Jay Baumgartner, who captured the final mix on both DAT and analog 2-track. At the time we did some pretty extensive shootouts to determine whether it was worth the extra hassle (and load on the system) that using 96 kHz would require, and our opinions were mixed. In most cases, there was little or no audible difference between the original 96 kHz files and the same files destructively down-converted to 48 or 44 kHz - but our opinions were not unanimous and our results were not conclusive.

For things like super-soft snare "ghost notes", whispered vocals, lip smacking sounds while testing mic setups, etc - there "was" "some" difference - but a Helmet album has almost none of these sounds on it anyway! We all thought that the differences we were hearing (or imagining) were possibly due to the analog side of the Digidesign 192 interfaces that we were using for all A>D and D>A conversion at the time, perhaps because the anti-aliasing filters were operating at limits closer to the audible frequency range at 44 kHz, and well beyond the audible range at 96 kHz, but, as I said above, it was by no means a unanimous opinion or a conclusive result.

Still, we all decided "better safe than sorry" and stayed at 96 kHz throughout the project.

I might have a different opinion on higher sample rates if I were dealing with more delicate sound sources, like doing a quiet jazz quartet live from the floor, or tracking a Norah Jones record or something, but that's not the kind of music I deal with generally - and a Helmet record is definitely on the other end of that spectrum!

After that album was completed and I returned to scoring for television and film, I switched to 24 bit / 48 kHz exclusively. The high track counts required in this line of work negated using higher sample rates due to the weak computers of the early 2000's, and I chose 48 kHz as opposed to 44 kHz not for sonic reasons, but because the digital signal flow and destination format of nearly all film and tv projects is 48 kHz, with 44 kHz only being used for subsequent destinations like CD and streaming. There has never been a film or tv score that I've worked on that has been at anything other than 48 kHz on the dub stage, so that's what I work at and that's what I deliver to them for final mixing.

So now I stay at 48 kHz and 24 bits at all times.

...Until it's time to prepare stereo masters for CD / streaming release, at which time I duplicate my final 48 kHz files and destructively convert them to 44 kHz using software tools like the iZotope resampling algorithm in Sample Manager, or just using the sample rate conversion in the file export options inside Logic.

No problems or issues of any kind at any point.

For CD and vinyl releases, I always send out my stereo mixes for mastering by a trusted mastering engineer, after preparing my own "home mastered" versions using iZotope Ozone and other plug-in mastering tools, and also provide the original "dry" files to the mastering engineer in case he thinks I've stepped on the files too hard. At no point have these dry files been needed or used - the ME's always tell me that whatever the hell I'm doing in my "home mastered" versions sounds great and needs minimal tweaking to be ready for duplication. By minimal tweaking, I'm talking about things like a high-shelf eq boost of 2db at 8 kHz, or a presence boost of 1.5 db at 2 kHz... things like that, plus some level adjustments between tracks of less than 3db just to even out the listening experience so that quiet cues don't sound strangely loud compared to adjacent cues like stomping heavy industrial mayhem cues.

TL;DR = 24 bit, 48 kHz.
Old 22nd November 2017
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Jay Asher's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Yep, Charlie, if I was recording Sarah McLaughlin through a pristine vocal chain I would go 96 but for me it is 48 24 bit as well.
Old 22nd November 2017 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
Monkey Man's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kretzmonster ➡️
If you can’t hear the difference between 44.1 and 96 or 192 when tracking and mixing then 44.1 is good for you and I understand that. But for me, the grainyness in the silibance and the grittiness in those higher freqs is too much. I think it also depends on the type of music your making. Maybe that grittiness sounds good to you with more aggressive types of music. I’m doing a lot of folk, pop, r and b stuff and 192 just has that nice polished sound that I enjoy.
Honestly mate, the high frequencies at 44k through a good interface shouldn't sound harsh or grainy at all.

When I say "good", I'm talking MOTU AVB standard, which is reasonably-priced and hardly-esoteric. I know of nobody who's claimed to have heard any harshness or graininess out of those things. Same goes for many other "mid-priced" interfaces as well, I assume.

I'm guessing that had Charlie not had to deliver at 48k for film and TV work all these years, he'd have been using 44.1kHz as well.
Old 23rd November 2017 | Show parent
  #29
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkey Man ➡️
Honestly mate, the high frequencies at 44k through a good interface shouldn't sound harsh or grainy at all.

When I say "good", I'm talking MOTU AVB standard, which is reasonably-priced and hardly-esoteric. I know of nobody who's claimed to have heard any harshness or graininess out of those things. Same goes for many other "mid-priced" interfaces as well, I assume.

I'm guessing that had Charlie not had to deliver at 48k for film and TV work all these years, he'd have been using 44.1kHz as well.
I have 2 mytek 8x192’s basically is still their flagship converter. Maybe my ears are just extra sensitive to it. All I know is that when I switched that sample rate, it made me say ahhh that’s what modern records sound like!
Old 23rd November 2017 | Show parent
  #30
Deleted 09ad95d
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlieclouser ➡️
For records, back in the 1990's (NIN, Rob Zombie, etc.) all we had was 44/48 kHz and 16/24 bit.

TL;DR = 24 bit, 48 kHz.
I'm constantly amazed how GREAT some of the early digital albums sound. Some of my faves, like Peter Gabriel and Sting.

Just listened to Psalm 69 (1992) by Ministry for the first time in years on the car ride home today... blown away by how great it sounds. And probably converted by gear that's technically 'inferior' compared to today's entry level interfaces.

One thing not mentioned yet re: high sample rates -- time/sample stretching.

For now, I'm sticking with 44.1 but would give 96k a serious go if I had the storage.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 295 views: 77165
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 15929 views: 1541781
Avatar for Ragan
Ragan 11th January 2019
replies: 1296 views: 188702
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump