96k hype? -ACID Product Family - MAGIX Community Forums Archive

Subject:96k hype? Posted by: oddboy Date:10/19/2002 2:54:51 PM My friend says the 96k thing is all hype with no real world use...what do you think
Subject:RE: 96k hype? Reply by: DjXSoundz Date:10/19/2002 3:01:28 PM i've tried it, it really only made a small diference in my music and only on my mic (because all my digital keyborads and grooveoboxes have 44k samling rate) it is a little better, yet since cds are 44k it takes some time consuming ditherring to make any difference at all dj xsoundz
Subject:RE: 96k hype? Reply by: drbam Date:10/19/2002 11:48:55 PM With cheaper soundcards and other gear, yeah its mostly hype. But if you have a really good mic, mic pre, and sound card, 24/96 will probably blow your mind if you do an A/B comparison with it and 44.1 or 48, especially when recording acoustic instruments and vocals. You also need a fast system and a ton of hard drive storage. Whether its worth it obviously depends on what kind of music you're producing. Just because everything ends up on a 16 bit CD doesn't mean that you lose all that's gained with tracks recorded at higher bit depth and sampling rates. Experiment and see for yourself. drbam
Subject:RE: 96k hype? Reply by: Iacobus Date:10/20/2002 3:37:41 PM iZotope made really good (and free) guides that talk issues such as this one. Pick them up here. Personally, if there's anything that can make the sound quality better, if only minute, I'll do it. That's all I need to know. Iacobus
Subject:RE: 96k hype? Reply by: glyptic Date:10/20/2002 6:42:46 PM Electronic Musician has an article in the November 2002 issue regarding 24/96 recording. It explains it very well. When I record for people I normaly use 24/44.1 recording. Going 24 bit makes a much bigger difference than 96khz. Listen for yourself and decide what's best for your music.

Subject:96k hype?

Posted by: oddboy

Date:10/19/2002 2:54:51 PM

My friend says the 96k thing is all hype with no real world use...what do you think

Subject:RE: 96k hype?

Reply by: DjXSoundz

Date:10/19/2002 3:01:28 PM

i've tried it, it really only made a small diference in my music and only on my mic (because all my digital keyborads and grooveoboxes have 44k samling rate) it is a little better, yet since cds are 44k it takes some time consuming ditherring to make any difference at all

dj xsoundz

Subject:RE: 96k hype?

Reply by: drbam

Date:10/19/2002 11:48:55 PM

With cheaper soundcards and other gear, yeah its mostly hype. But if you have a *really* good mic, mic pre, and sound card, 24/96 will probably blow your mind if you do an A/B comparison with it and 44.1 or 48, especially when recording acoustic instruments and vocals. You also need a fast system and a ton of hard drive storage. Whether its worth it obviously depends on what kind of music you're producing. Just because everything ends up on a 16 bit CD doesn't mean that you lose all that's gained with tracks recorded at higher bit depth and sampling rates. Experiment and see for yourself.

drbam

Subject:RE: 96k hype?

Reply by: Iacobus

Date:10/20/2002 3:37:41 PM

iZotope made really good (and free) guides that talk issues such as this one. Pick them up here.

Personally, if there's anything that can make the sound quality better, if only minute, I'll do it. That's all I need to know.

Iacobus

Subject:RE: 96k hype?

Reply by: glyptic

Date:10/20/2002 6:42:46 PM

Electronic Musician has an article in the November 2002 issue regarding 24/96 recording. It explains it very well. When I record for people I normaly use 24/44.1 recording. Going 24 bit makes a much bigger difference than 96khz. Listen for yourself and decide what's best for your music.