Audio Myth-Busting series EP.1 "Are high sample rates mean better audio quality?" (Q&A Clarify Version)
*Beware wall of text*
Q: Are high sample rates mean better audio quality?
A: Not always true. unless you have 3,500$+ HDX Converter
Q: How is that possible?
A: In the nutshell, many “affordable” soundcards have a non-linear response to high frequency content. Meaning that even though they are technically capable of recording at 96 kHz and above, the small benefits of the higher sample rate are completely outweighed by unwanted “inter-modulation distortion” in the analogue stages.
Q: What’s the point of high sample rates anyway ?
A: The sample rate determines how many samples per second a digital audio system uses to record the audio signal. The higher the sample rate, the higher frequencies a system can record. CDs, most mp3s and the AAC files sold by the iTunes store all use a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, which means they can reproduce frequencies up to roughly 20 kHz.
A: Testing shows that most adults can’t hear much above 16 kHz, so on the face of it, this seems sensible enough. Some can, but not the majority. And examples of people who can hear above 20 kHz are few and far between. And to accurately reproduce everything below 20 kHz, a digital audio system removes everything above 20 kHz – this is the job of the anti-aliasing filter.
A: But a fair few musical instruments produce sound well above these frequencies – muted trumpet and percussion instruments like cymbals or chime bars are clear examples. This leads to two potential objections to a 44.1 kHz sample rate – first, that in order to reproduce a sound accurately we should capture as much of it as possible, including frequencies we probably can’t hear. There are various suggestions that we may be able to somehow perceive these sounds, even if we can’t actually hear them. And secondly that depending on the design, the anti-aliasing filter may have an effect at frequencies well below the 20 kHz cut-off point.
Q: So why NOT use higher sample rates, then ? Back when CD was released, recording at 96 kHz or above simply wasn’t viable at a reasonable price, especially not in consumer audio. Times have moved on though, and these days almost any off-the-peg digital audio chip is capable of at least 96 kHz processing, if not higher.
Q: Now these files take up much more space than simple 44.1 kHz audio, but hard drive space is cheap, and getting cheaper all the time – why not record at 96 kHz or higher, just in case either of those hotly debated arguments really does carry some weight ?
A: The answer lies in the analogue circuitry of the equipment we use. Just because the digital hardware in an interface is capable of 96 kHz or higher audio processing, doesn’t mean the analogue stages will record or play the signal cleanly. It’s quite common for ultrasonic content to cause inter-modulation distortion right down into the audible range. Or in simple English, the inaudible high-frequency content actually makes the audio you can hear sound worse.
Q&A controversial question
Finally, the fact that ultrasonic content can potentially cause inter-modulation distortion and make things sound different even when they shouldn’t raises a tough question. Are all the people who claim to be hearing improved quality at 96 kHz and above really hearing what they think they are ? Or are they just hearing inter-modulation distortion ?
Summary
Maybe 48 kHz sample rate is actually good enough ?
"maybe yes & maybe not" everything it's come down to....
What's your project you're working with?
Sound design, organic orchestra, audiophile jazz, classical, world music and send it to the studios or you having HD system?
Then, Yes 96kHz is better, Because Film and TV Broadcasting often require that recordings be at a much higher sample rate (even higher than 96kHz sometime)
Nah I just do collab, create music and fun stuff.
Working at high sample rate, is quite a lot of hassle, Exporting x4 time more data, CPU need to work x10 time harder.
If you gain very little to nothing from it. Why create the hassle in the first place?
*Beware wall of text*
Q: Are high sample rates mean better audio quality?
A: Not always true. unless you have 3,500$+ HDX Converter
Q: How is that possible?
A: In the nutshell, many “affordable” soundcards have a non-linear response to high frequency content. Meaning that even though they are technically capable of recording at 96 kHz and above, the small benefits of the higher sample rate are completely outweighed by unwanted “inter-modulation distortion” in the analogue stages.
Q: What’s the point of high sample rates anyway ?
A: The sample rate determines how many samples per second a digital audio system uses to record the audio signal. The higher the sample rate, the higher frequencies a system can record. CDs, most mp3s and the AAC files sold by the iTunes store all use a sample rate of 44.1 kHz, which means they can reproduce frequencies up to roughly 20 kHz.
A: Testing shows that most adults can’t hear much above 16 kHz, so on the face of it, this seems sensible enough. Some can, but not the majority. And examples of people who can hear above 20 kHz are few and far between. And to accurately reproduce everything below 20 kHz, a digital audio system removes everything above 20 kHz – this is the job of the anti-aliasing filter.
A: But a fair few musical instruments produce sound well above these frequencies – muted trumpet and percussion instruments like cymbals or chime bars are clear examples. This leads to two potential objections to a 44.1 kHz sample rate – first, that in order to reproduce a sound accurately we should capture as much of it as possible, including frequencies we probably can’t hear. There are various suggestions that we may be able to somehow perceive these sounds, even if we can’t actually hear them. And secondly that depending on the design, the anti-aliasing filter may have an effect at frequencies well below the 20 kHz cut-off point.
Q: So why NOT use higher sample rates, then ? Back when CD was released, recording at 96 kHz or above simply wasn’t viable at a reasonable price, especially not in consumer audio. Times have moved on though, and these days almost any off-the-peg digital audio chip is capable of at least 96 kHz processing, if not higher.
Q: Now these files take up much more space than simple 44.1 kHz audio, but hard drive space is cheap, and getting cheaper all the time – why not record at 96 kHz or higher, just in case either of those hotly debated arguments really does carry some weight ?
A: The answer lies in the analogue circuitry of the equipment we use. Just because the digital hardware in an interface is capable of 96 kHz or higher audio processing, doesn’t mean the analogue stages will record or play the signal cleanly. It’s quite common for ultrasonic content to cause inter-modulation distortion right down into the audible range. Or in simple English, the inaudible high-frequency content actually makes the audio you can hear sound worse.
Q&A controversial question
Finally, the fact that ultrasonic content can potentially cause inter-modulation distortion and make things sound different even when they shouldn’t raises a tough question. Are all the people who claim to be hearing improved quality at 96 kHz and above really hearing what they think they are ? Or are they just hearing inter-modulation distortion ?
Summary
Maybe 48 kHz sample rate is actually good enough ?
"maybe yes & maybe not" everything it's come down to....
What's your project you're working with?
Sound design, organic orchestra, audiophile jazz, classical, world music and send it to the studios or you having HD system?
Then, Yes 96kHz is better, Because Film and TV Broadcasting often require that recordings be at a much higher sample rate (even higher than 96kHz sometime)
Nah I just do collab, create music and fun stuff.
Working at high sample rate, is quite a lot of hassle, Exporting x4 time more data, CPU need to work x10 time harder.
If you gain very little to nothing from it. Why create the hassle in the first place?
