0% Interest for 48 Months! Learn more »
(800) 222-4700
  • Español: (800) 222-4701
Cart
Live Sound Month!

Sweetwater Forums [Archived]

After 15 years of great discussions, the Sweetwater Forums are now closed and preserved as a "read-only" resource. For discussions about current gear, check us out on Facebook, YouTube, inSync, and our Knowledge Base.

Can you or can you not hear the difference between 48k and 96k? (06-08-01)

SweetwaterSound

Can you or can you not hear the difference between 48k and 96k?
July 6, 2001 @02:46pm
Unregistered

Yes, for sure. There is a definite tightness when recording anything at 96k. The more complex the music, for example during mix down, the more you can hear. When tracking vocal for example, you can also hear the tightness of the sound too. Of course, I assume that one uses good equipment.
July 6, 2001 @06:26pm
Unregistered

This is an interesting first Forum topic as I'm planning to purchase my very first audio interface soon (I hear they have some of those at Sweetwater Sound...) and I need to learn whether or not the difference from 48k to 96k is more than just double the audio file size! Forgive my lack of exposure to these formats, but two similar situations come to mind. When I gaming on a Playstation 2, it sounds to me so much more smooth and detailed than 44.1k game consoles, but I suspect that most of the perceived improvement could just as well come from new software being produced with more detail and care to the audio tracks regardless. Could it be that the same tracks, if resampled to 44.1k or 48k, would sound the same to you and me? The second scenario in my limited experience is this: when I listen to Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" on vinyl and on CD (sorry, I know these are from neither of the two specified sample rates), there is more detail on the analog recording (infinite kHz?). It also seems that the warm, fat synth parts aren't as warm and fat on the CD. Are my perceptions here accurate? Are factors other than sample rates at work in this case (or the freedom from being sampled at all in the case of my prized album)...?
July 6, 2001 @06:26pm
Unregistered

There is, of course, so many variables to creating the desired sound! If you do not have the ear training, and or the equipment (speakers, amplifiers, converters, etc.) you generally cannot hear the difference between 48, and 96K. But even then, when the recordings are done correctly, and have been recorded at the highest sampling rate, you might not be able to audibly tell the difference, but as music is based so very much on emotion and feelings, the added Htz in bringing forth the harmonics of the instuments played, call forth the feeling of a rounder, more complete sound. So in other words! YES, you can hear and tell that something is better between the two sampling rates.
July 6, 2001 @06:26pm
Unregistered

Here's an interesting article written by Lynn Fuston relating to this topic:
http://www.3daudioinc.com/3daudio_hi-res.html
July 6, 2001 @06:26pm
Unregistered

If you believe you can, than you will! Some times I think I can, then other times I don't hear a difference at all!!! Or, maybe it is all in what you are listening to!!!
I still have people telling me they like the warm sound of analog over digital!!!They are mad!!!
July 6, 2001 @06:27pm
Unregistered

maybe when I was five, but not after years of gigging and clubbing....no way, I wish I could say I could....for straight recording 48k is fine, but for sampling, 96 is better, although I still use my 12 bit emax for dirty sounds, aliases and clock noise.
July 6, 2001 @06:34pm
Unregistered

Well.. I did as exhaustive listening tests, recording a variety of instruments, vox and kitchen items as myself and my HiFi buff friend could think of. He failed all of the blind tests. I couldn't hear any difference. Going 16 bit to 20 bit is a huge difference and 20 to 24 add bass and "air".
There are an awful lot of twits in the "pro" music recording scene in this country at least; now I tend to just make up my own mind and listen for myself
Mark
July 6, 2001 @06:34pm
Unregistered

There may be a diferece for shure, because there is a big one between 44.1k and 48k, but 96k? I have to hear it first. What would be driving me crazy is just another variable at the moment of buying (eather a 96k DVD or DVD Player 96K compatible) in the future. Can anybody quit playing games with the costumers?
July 6, 2001 @06:34pm
Unregistered

I cannot hear much above 17k. So trying to discriminate the octave difference between two frequencies out of my range would be impossible, using non-electronic means.
Sorry. I await the results from people much more sensitive to sound than I. (BTW, normal for most humans is 22.5k, so I suppose we're dealing with superhumans anyway here!) :>)
DLKerr
July 6, 2001 @06:34pm
Unregistered

No....i,m sorry but my answer is that I can,t hear the difference...is that I am using a Creative Soundblaster Live card?.....should I look out for a more Pro-soundcard?..how do you think about the Tascam US 248 for example? waiting hopefully for your answer many thanks Peter Disco.
July 6, 2001 @06:34pm
Unregistered

I honestly haven't heard much difference between the two... but, I guess it depends on your setup, and what you're trying to accomplish.
- Soho
July 6, 2001 @06:35pm
Unregistered

Yes I can. I hear a great difference. But only with acoustic instruments and a signal chain that supports freq responses beyond 18 to 20 kHz. What I hear is more space or transparency probably due to ears sensing the early reflections of the instrumentation. I would also suggest that the acoustic space would greatly influence what I would hear in the 48 kHz as opposed to the 95 kHz
July 6, 2001 @06:42pm
Unregistered

Absolutely. But not everything made to handle 96k is equal, so I'll qualify my statement by saying it's more obvious with high quality components, versus some of the cheaper 96k stuff floating around now. I would also say that the difference between 16 bits and 24 is a much greater audible difference, than comparing a recording at 48k to one at 96k. And of course, it's of no benefit if the signal path has already compromised the source before it reaches your 96k device; so the signal path to the recorder must be of equal fidelity.
July 6, 2001 @06:42pm
Unregistered

I wish I could ...but no I can't. My dog probably can. Hmmm maybe I can train him to...nahhhhh
July 6, 2001 @06:42pm