It's a funny old world, innit?
So, I've spent quite a few days looking for a new low-mid level Audio Interface with masses of I/O possibilities and versatility - and I'm excited to see some new products that fit the bill nicely. {More to come on this shortly............!}
As I was looking at specifications, watching videos, reading forums etc. I came across this question posted by a user.................
Q. Can someone please explain to me the differences between 24bit/96 kHz and 24bit/192 kHz recording? [sample rate]
{ ..and the WINNING ANSWER is......... }
A. I doubt that you will be able to tell any differences between 96 kHz and 192 kHz ..unless you record bats or dolphins!
[WOW - what a superb answer !!!!]
Let's examine this a bit further.
We know that the sample rate refers to how many 24--bit samples are recorded every second.
96 kHz recording have 96,000 24-bit samples recorded each second.
192 kHz has 192,000 24-bit samples recorded each second.
Also remember that the human ear cannot process anything over 20 kHz anyway... the general range of hearing for young people is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. As you start to "mature" - your hearing range will likely deteriorate anyway.
SOURCE : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearing_range
Considering most commercial CD's have a resolution of 16 bit / 44.1 kHz........... then 96 kHz should be MORE than sufficient............. right?
Experienced Audio engineers will go on to explain that a higher bit rate like 24 / 192 kHz resolution will give you more "head-room" and dynamic range. Particularly important when recording LIVE or dynamic performances, but for most controlled environments like a home studio - 24/192 is likely overkill with no real noticeable audible difference.
Remember that 24/192 sampling will EAT DISK SPACE as well!!!! You need to find a happy medium - so for most 24/96 kHz is more than plenty.
The problem with some of the manufacturers who claim a 192 kHz sample rate (for the low-mid range products) is not really a true statement........
Using software manipulation - manufacturers of these devices can use programming to tell a 96 kHz chip to emulate a 192 kHz recording. The END RESULT is *likley* a poor quality recording which actually sounds a lot worse than if it was recorded at 96 kHz.
A true 192Khz sample rate interface can be expensive................ for example the RME Fireface UFX;
In the £500-£1500 range - we are starting to see 24/192 interfaces but it still begs the question - is it worth the pay-off on CPU / RAM / DISK SPACE overhead of working with 24/192 kHz ?
Surely we should consider the end-game; what will the final AUDIO be used for? ..and let that be your deciding factor.
Comments ?
No comments:
Post a Comment