Sample rate: 44.1 KHz or higher?

[ytse_jam]

I wonder what you think about this (taken from www.tweakheadz.com):

Lets talk about sample rate and the Nyquist Theory. This theory is that the actual upper threshold of a piece of digital audio will top out at half the sample rate. So if you are recording at 44.1, the highest frequencies generated will be around 22kHz. That is 2khz higher than the typical human with excellent hearing can hear. Now we get into the real voodoo. Audiophiles have claimed since the beginning of digital audio that vinyl records on an analog system sound better than digital audio. Indeed, you can find evidence that analog recording and playback equipment can be measured up to 50khz, over twice our threshold of hearing. Here's the great mystery. The theory is that audio energy, even though we don't hear it, exists as has an effect on the lower frequencies we do hear. Back to the Nyquist theory, a 96khz sample rate will translate into potential audio output at 48khz, not too far from the finest analog sound reproduction. This leads one to surmise that the same principle is at work. The audio is improved in a threshold we cannot perceive and it makes what we can hear "better". Like I said, it's voodoo.

 

[DeFrag]

Check out the 1-bit High Definition recorder from Korg:
http://www.korg.com/gear/info.asp?a_prod_no=MR1000&category_id=3

SACD is relevant as well.

 

[MetallyGuitarded]

I asked about this topic on the Andy Sneap forums as well. Many of the guys on there are actual studio owners/engineers and most of them record at 44.1 citing the Nyquist article and also the fact that everything they do winds up on CD and CD is 44.1 so they see no need to go any higher. Seems pretty logical to me. 44.1 it is for me.

 

[The Magic Hoof]

I'm thinking that I hear a bit of difference when recording at 96khz instead of 44 (not because I have godly hearing). Yes, it's mixed down to 44khz, but for some reason I'm thinking that you might as well record at the highest that's available just in case.

This can probably be disputed to no end, but common sense tells me to just use the highest setting available. It's nice to have something a bit better in quality, even if it's always going to end up at 44khz on CD, just in case...

 

[Anonymous]

the last time i checked analogue tape still had the highest sampling rate

also for me there is a difference to hear mp3, cd, vinyl

funny thing how the mp3 works: http://www.mp3-converter.com/mp3codec/waveforms.htm

stay tuned!

 

[dmt]

You may as well use **** mics too and while you're at it replace your drumer with a drum machine, and ditch the bass too.... and use lots of pitch correction on the vocals...that helps. And don't bother properly mic'ing or anything, you can fix everything in the mix later... thats what its for right? Then compress the **** out of it whne you downsample and make it really fucking loud. That'll show em. Make it go to eleven. Thats what all the big producers do....
/sarcasm

Start with the highest quality signal you can get. If you have to downsample later then do it. But don't throw away all that information away, its unrecoverable....


[mutters something about stupid audiophiles and digs through some vinyl....]

 

[Dead Moon Rising]

why record at 96k if you're going to strip it down to something less? you spend a lot of time (and HD space) recording, mixing, and mastering in a higher bitrate to only resample and dither it at the end? that's alot of data thrown away. and if you fine tuned your mix and the resampling changes the sound enough to make you unhappy what was the point? you might as well just work in the final format of the media you're going to be using.

an interesting read:
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/

and to add insult to injury most bands will just turn you're hardwork into mp3's and upload them to myspace anyway.