just wondering if i should start setting my default recording scenario in Ableton at 96kHz
Depends on whether you’re pitching stuff down a lot. If so then the extra resolution of 96kHz will sound better. If not then it’s just a waste of space and processing power.
24 bit yes, the lower noise floor is useful because it let’s you get away with sub optimal recording levels.
6 Likes
i’m re-pitching bassdrum samples down occasionally on the Machinedrum, sometimes the equivalent of say five semitones, like a one-shot bassdrum sample from a breakbeat sample pack or something similar.
does 96kHz standard afford a lower hz frequency recording/representation?
24bit is also useful because it takes the excess strain from the AD converters, as the AD never needs to deal with capturing signals close to its clipping point in order to get usable SNR. This IME is the biggest advantage of 24bit. Low quality analog electronics have problems dealing with very fast transients (high V/microsecond value signals) close to their clipping point (because ICs, cheap opamps and cutting costs)
As for 96k, I have mixed feelings about it myself. For all ITB DSP related calculations, of course higher samplingrates are desirable. But when doing A/D conversion, not exactly sure how things go (will a subpar digital clock on an AD converter function worse @96k that @48k? etc). If you intend to pitch the converted audio down considerably, 96k will probably be a good idea though.
3 Likes
Some plugins recommend that you run them at 96k. The reason for this is that it’s easier to get modelling stuff sound good at a higher processing rate without having to do a lot of oversampling and anti-aliasing stuff.
This is probably also why recent hardware synths tends to tun at 96k internally (Roland Aira, latest boutiques, but also most osc models on the Mutable Instruments Braids).
If you set your project to 96k for that reason, it makes sense to record at it as well.
2 Likes
cool … ableton records at the rate set for the project … so, i will go for 96kHz.
although, i now have returned to the Machinedrum for drum sequencing duties.
is a 96kHz recording going to capture more detail of very low resonant bassdrums from the audio inputs of a 96kHz soundcard?
cool tips re/ 24bit… i use that resolution and notice the difference as a slightly richer texture and detail, compared to 16 bits.
If you are dealing with machine drum sample, im not sure that going for 96 kHz will make it sounds better, since the machine drum sampling rate is much lower anyway (I guess close to 44.1 khz).
Switching to 96 Khz, is especially useful for high pitched sounds : in this case there will be less or no aliasing, and it will sound “clearer”. But for mid/bass low frequency stuff, there is not much difference.
2 Likes
Yeah, but even in those cases, it might be more economical if only the plugins oversample, rather than running everything @96k
Many contemporary plugins already oversample, so with those there is not much to be gained. YMMV as always
AFAIR some cats have suggested to AES that optimal sampling rate would be something close to 60kHz, which makes sense to me. Most high frequencies above 20kHz (half of 40kHz sampling rate) are pretty much inaudible for many people, and I am sure a “safety margin” of 10kHz should be enough for even the most discerning audiophiles out there.
1 Like
96kHz has its Nyquist Frequency at 48kHz a bit above human hearing
cool, yes i’ve switched to 96k woohoo, cheers for the nice advice everyone 
Also latency is lower on thunderbolt interfaces at 96k. So you can use mAschine or VST instruments with less latency
If I import my 44.1 recordings in a 96k ableton session will it pitch it up automatically?
I stayed at 41 for a long time and then one day decided to try 96 because I play live instruments and the latency gets much lower with higher sampling rates. I did some tests using a little phatty doing filter sweeps with high resonance and was surprised that I could very well tell that it sounded better. The theory is that if you sample at twice the rate of the information, you can completely capture it, it is believe humans can hear up to about 20khz, so that’s where 44.1 came from, just over double the sampling to capture perfectly what a human can hear. But not all humans are the same and have a wide range of hearing. Some of my friends can’t tell if a recording is an MP3 but I can blind a/b a 44.1 vs 96 filter sweep. The downside is the files are huge and cpu overhead is increased. Since I moved to hardware I set up my computer just for recording and minimal plugins, so works well… I’m using an apogee ensemble thunderbolt which is very high quality so I’m not sure if results would be the same on lesser quality gear. I suggest trying it with your equipment and make a few recordings of different sample rates, if you can’t tell the difference no need to eat resources(unless going for low latency) and if you can the go for it. About the low frequencies, those should be relatively the same, its the high frequencies that are captured clearer having to do with the theory I mentioned… Most people who can perceive the difference notice it in very high frequency clarity, a feeling of 3d space, cleaner reverbs/fx tails…
With certain gear there is definitely a difference but not every human can perceive it, so if someone says it’s no different they either don’t have the right gear or there hearing isn’t up to that level of discernment…
By the way I think I’m sensitive to treble and maybe that’s why I can tell, when I adjust eqs I always put the treble down more than any of my friends, so theres that…
Bonus: lower overbridge latency😉
In logic you have an option to either convert sample rate to project rate when importing, or not which would change pitch. I would imagine abletons got similar options…
About those oversampling plugins, there’s usually an oversampling or high quality button, look for that. It usually doubles or 4x the internal sample rate used to process the sound then plays out at the interfaces sample rate but still yields greater detail because of the processing(math) being done at higher resolution.
Thanks. Today is the day I start 96K projects and recordings and commit to it.
Once I started I can’t turn back, it sounds really good! It’s kind of fun knowing that when in your lab the sound your hearing is above cd and dvd quality, like you can only hear it this good here… And by the way if anyone’s wondering I did a/b 48 vs 96 with filter sweeps and full tracks and could also tell the difference.
3 Likes
i also performed a (simple, non-encompassing) a/b test and could hear the difference.
more detail. seemed richer. harmonics play a large part in timbre i believe.
2 Likes
I am pretty sure that Herp Alberts Rise album from 1979 was the first ever digitally recorded album.
That was recorded in 96khz, so technically 96khz will always be the original standard 
3 Likes