1 Topic by neirbod (edited by neirbod 2011-07-21 21:20:46)

  • From: Washington DC, USA
  • Registered: 2007-08-06
  • Posts: 442

Topic: UFX - advantage to 96 khz?

I have a question for fellow UFX users.  On my FF800 I found that the converters seemed to work better and open up sonically at 96 khz compared to 44.1.  The mids seemed clearer at 96 without the smearing I sometimes heard at 44.1.  I know some others had similar experiences.  As a result I got in the habit of recording everything at 24/96. 

Now that I have the UFX, I am curious if anyone has compared the converters at 96 or 88.2 vs. 44.1.  I know, I need to use my own ears.  However, I found the difference in the FF800 was most apparent on classical recordings, and I don't have any such sessions planned for the next couple of months.

Any thoughts are welcomed.

Cheers,

David

  • Registered: 2011-05-04
  • Posts: 249

Re: UFX - advantage to 96 khz?

I'm not sure I can here the difference between 44/48 versus 88/96 sample rate in RAW wav files, but I was working on some convolution reverb (Altiverb) where impulse responses can be tweaked in a frequency dependent manner. I thought I heard the difference (more clarity) when I was tweaking impulse responses of 10-15kHz range, using 96kHz sampling. Since then, I'm also using 96kHz as default rate. My source was grand piano and violin. But, boy, single session become a few hundred MB easily. The recording session I did a month ago (3 hours of tracking) became easily 4GB of wav files. I have backup NAS of several terabytes, but I assume it's going to be filled very quickly.