So, 96 or 44? What REALLY is the best?

Tips & tricks, working results, technical support

Re: So, 96 or 44? What REALLY is the best?

Postby russianpolecat » Wed May 01, 2013 11:27 am

timp wrote:The Filters is one of the reasons why 44.1 does not sound quite right.

But going too high you can hear dynamics getting softened because of distortion.

A good way to tell is by doing direct a/b's,so source to speakers then source recorded then playback.

In general i tend to believe that 48khz and 88.2 are the best ,you want to stay clear of that filter but not go so high that you get distortions. 48 sounds better in dynamics and 88.2 slightly smoother. 192khz you think your hearing more analog but really it's more of the convertor going ahhhhh. It's basically sounding softer so you may think it's more analog.

I don't get the 44.1 and 96 debate completely , why make that jump and forget the other sample rates? I think 48 would be better as a standard and maybe 88.2

And yes conversion sounds bad if your doing it to multi stems. The more tracks you have the more you'll notice it. depending on conversion either, dynamics suffer or you getting ringing from steep filters neither sound good.
Hi Tim. Interesting post. You mentioned conversion between sample rates sounds bad/there are problems. I got your passive EQ the other day, and it's sampled at 88.2, so given that most of the libraries I purchased are at 96 (at the time I was under the impression that as a general rule, 96khz was better for Nebula) - how would you recommend that I use it? Or does the fact that it is only a touch off from 96khz make it a redundant question...

In other words, is there some internal 'conversion' going on - even if it is only a small amount?
User Level XI
User Level XI
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: So, 96 or 44? What REALLY is the best?

Postby Tim Petherick » Wed May 01, 2013 10:00 pm

When I sampled the library I felt that 88.2 was the best for the task.
Simply put my convertors sounded best at this rate for this job. I don't think it's allways the same for every dev because some variation is going to occur on different machines. On the TNT I used all sample rates, so you have the option of trying different sample rates and means you can try hearing the difference in conversion with nebula's internal sample rate convertor. Anyhow
The elc24 is intended for all sample rates. But is going to sound much better at 88.2 then should sound good 44.1 next.

I guess i was saying I'm surprised more library's were not made at the In between frequency's that are more common with nebula but I think it's more to do with rates we are used to.

Nothing is right or wrong. But I do think certain sample rates sound more accurate in general. But also some expensive convertors may sound be very good at 192 and also at other rates

Here is a good read
http://www.lavryengineering.com/pdfs/la ... _audio.pdf

it's not going to be the same for all convertors, so it's in general

I guess things could just sound better if they are not right , so that is another side of the coin. You can make things sound very nice and chilled out at higher sample rates . Or rocking at 44.1. At least on the convertors I've tried , subtle though.
User avatar
Tim Petherick
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:07 pm
Location: Bath , Uk


Return to Working with Nebula

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests