Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kHz?

For general questions or discussion of Auria.

Moderators: Corey W, Rim

Post Reply
BGR
Expert
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:14 am

Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kHz?

Post by BGR » Mon Mar 03, 2014 6:18 pm

If it can be done, what happens inside the resulting file.
Are there duplicate samples? Are there skipped samples? Does it sound strange?

User avatar
Tarekith
Expert
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: Luxembourg
Contact:

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by Tarekith » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:23 pm

I'm guessing it can't be done, and more importantly, why would you even want to?

Spud
Expert
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:33 pm

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by Spud » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:25 pm

Trying to record a 44.1k stream at 48k results in a crash, at least on a duocapture.

User avatar
Anthony Alves
Expert
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by Anthony Alves » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:45 pm

Matching sampling frequency and bit rate is vital to preserving your original audio. Digital Artifacts and sample drop outs will result as well as an unstable clock. These sampling frequencies are what clock your devices. Many top manufactures like in my SSL XLogic allow for clock locking so that the two units can stay in sync. That is how important these numbers are and how one should try to match these at all times. If you require recording at 96 kHz than there are very affordable boxes that handle this sampling frequency. However there have been many discussions here and on other forums as to the advantages and disadvantages of 96 KHZ recording vs 44.1 Cheers and hope that helped.

starfugger
Expert
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:15 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by starfugger » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:47 pm

No.

Your interface is your analog to digital converter. It converts your real world sounds into a digital recording, and it converts it to a sound file at a certain bit rate and sample rate. The higher the bit rate and sample rate, the more accurate the conversion. Each A/D converter's maximum sample rate is hardware dependent, so a 48khz coverter does not have the proper parts to convert at a higher sample rate.

You can convert a 48khz recording, however, to a higher sample rate, but it does not make your recording sound better or have finer dynamics. Your file size will simply increase, without the desired effect of actually recording at said higher sample/bit rate. Conversion is usually done to match other tracks that are currently being recorded at a higher bit/sample rate eg. you have drums you recorded at 16/44.1, but wish to record all the rest of the tracks at 24/96.

User avatar
Tarekith
Expert
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: Luxembourg
Contact:

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by Tarekith » Mon Mar 03, 2014 10:53 pm

starfugger wrote:The higher the bit rate and sample rate, the more accurate the conversion.
That's only true to a point, and that specific point depends on the hardware FWIW. I tell most people the safest and best sounding option if you're not sure is to always work at your target sample rate, in this case 44.1kHz. For 99% of musicians out there 24bit and 44.1kHz. No real benefit to working at 48kHz and then downsampling, nor working at higher sample rates unless you have quality hardware to make it worth the effort.

Just my $.02 :)

starfugger
Expert
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:15 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by starfugger » Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:50 am

Tarekith wrote:
starfugger wrote:The higher the bit rate and sample rate, the more accurate the conversion.
That's only true to a point, and that specific point depends on the hardware FWIW. I tell most people the safest and best sounding option if you're not sure is to always work at your target sample rate, in this case 44.1kHz. For 99% of musicians out there 24bit and 44.1kHz. No real benefit to working at 48kHz and then downsampling, nor working at higher sample rates unless you have quality hardware to make it worth the effort.

Just my $.02 :)
True. All other aspects being equal, a 44.1 16 bit recording from an interface with high end converters will definitely beat a 96k recording from a cheap interface with run of the mill converters. Quality converters are what you really want here, and the sample rate is not too crucial when you're recording music with just a fair amount of dynamics (eg, rock vs classical). You must match your sample rate with your system, as higher sample rates take up more resources. Personally, if i'm using a mobile setup, i keep my samplerate at 44.1khz, unless i'm doing music that resembles a film score.

BGR
Expert
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by BGR » Tue Mar 04, 2014 8:29 am

Ok.

So, lets suppose that the whole production process would be made by Auria. With a nice, but not so expensive audio interface. Recording, Editing, Mixing, Mastering and maybe Postproduction.

And that your main goal is Download at 320kbps MP3 -Mixdown by Auria-.

Would recording at 24bit, 96kHz offer any type of advantage over 24bit, 44.1kHz?

User avatar
Tarekith
Expert
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:29 pm
Location: Luxembourg
Contact:

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by Tarekith » Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:24 am

In that case, I would say definitely not, stick with 44.1.

Unless you have quality converters to record with, and a top notch sample rate converter to down sample later, often times any possible tiny benefit of recording at 96 is lost when you down sample to 44.1. It's possible to make things sound worse than just recording at 44.1 in the first place actually, sample rate conversion can have a big impact on sound.

You really do need super high end professional gear to make 96k even feasible, and even then there's still a lot of debate if it's really worth it.

Personally, I have the top end gear, the knowledge, and the computer power to use 96k to all it's advantages, Even then, I still prefer to work at 44.1 for all my own songs.

BGR
Expert
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by BGR » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:50 am

There is a very interesting read about the Nyquist Theorem in this next link:

http://home.fuse.net/injanius/

BGR
Expert
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:14 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by BGR » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:09 pm

Tarekith wrote:In that case, I would say definitely not, stick with 44.1.
...
Personally, I have the top end gear, the knowledge, and the computer power to use 96k to all it's advantages, Even then, I still prefer to work at 44.1 for all my own songs.
How about from 24bit to 16bit?

I mean, you can keep the 44.1k or 48k for MP3. But, MP3 are 16bit.
How much audio information is lost when converting from 24bit to 16bit?
Wouldn't it be better to start recording and keep 16bit all the way through the process?

OldSynthGuy
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:12 am

Re: Can you record at 96kHz if the interface maximum is 48kH

Post by OldSynthGuy » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:44 pm

The answer is no to the OP's original question, but considering the reality of the listening environment and delivery mechanisms for music these days we should all be mastering on cheap white earbuds and referencing tunes on mid-range car systems anyway. Sure would be cheaper!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 147 guests