This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

96k for guitar and CPU clock vs wordclock. Tons of questions.

Discussion in 'Backline' started by Axonic Rot, Mar 11, 2015.

  1. Axonic Rot

    Axonic Rot Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I've read on here that it's fine to record at 44.1k because it's going to be rendered down to that anyway.

    With some A B testing I've found that 96khz absolutely sounds far better than 44.1k for guitars using my hardware. I recorded tests and exported out to 44.1 .wavs and listened back. There's an obvious difference in texture, the 96k track is much more together and smooth, everything seems to be more cohesive across the frequency spectrum. It's just more pleasant and realistic, more like my cab sounds in person. I'm going 100% 96k for now unless it causes problems somewhere.

    It could be that I'm using cheap hardware and it does a better job of converting at that sample rate or maybe there's less jitter. I'm using the Presonus audiobox 22vsl. The 22VSL uses the CPU clock.

    Is this typical? What can I expect when I upgrade to RME? The RME fireface UC has a clock I/O but I don't understand how it works. Is there a clock built in or does it just support an external clock? What advantages will there be for someone like me who uses only software monitoring at around 3ms latency?

    I'm trying to google all of this and learn but I'm finding interpreting what's in front me me difficult.
     
  2. Terminus

    Terminus Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,799
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I've had the same result in my own tests. As soon as I update my PC's mobo and cpu/ram I'm going full 96khz sample rate. Much better high end from what I can tell.
     
  3. nezvers

    nezvers Beast

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,399
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Latvia, Riga
    From my perspective - if you are not planning to release CD, but release digitally, than 96k could be no brainer for you.
    From what I've heard that some like record and mix in 96k and than render in 44,1k, because that helps to pocket mix better.
     
  4. Max Morton

    Max Morton Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    UA, Kyiv
    From my experience, working in 96k still becomes a real pain in the ass with large projects. Tracking many takes of drums, then comping and editing them. Using as much processing on each track as I like (saturation, eq, two-three instances of compression, then more eq and limiting) and finally using 44k sample libraries - either on drums or for keyboards.
    In addition to that, I still notice that most of that 96kHz fun disappears when the mix/master is rendered down to 44k. At least, when I'm mixing in 44k, I know what I'm hearing and how it will sound in the end. Otherwise, the joy of that splendid smooth top end and EQ behaviour may carry you away and leave you satisfied where you should still struggle a bit more to make it sound right. In 44k.
    I'd still love to work in 96k and then release it in 96k. Especially when resources will allow me to work on 80-120 track projects without freezing everything.
     
  5. Axonic Rot

    Axonic Rot Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I would never take on drums in 96k unless I had more of a budget. Like at least 16GB of RAM and an 8 core processor. And then it would still have to be a basic amount of channels.


    One of the first things I did was render out to 44.1 to see if the advantage of capturing at 96k was still there and it definitely was. That was the only comparison that I knew mattered. Pretty much all of the increase in quality was still there after 44.1 export.

    It surprises me, but at the same time it doesn't. Higher quality initial capture has been around since the analog tape to vinyl days.
     

Share This Page