48 KHz at 32bit vs. 96 KHz at 32 bit audio capture ?
 

So, I have a Creative Soundblaster 5.1vx card, and it can clock up to 96k/32bit. However, the current ALSA drivers only support capture at 48 KHz. So, am I missing something? Am I not using my card to it's full potential?

Points to consider are:

1. The final mix would have to be "downsampled" to 48 KHz anyway since Ogg (or any other lossy format for that matter) doesn't support 96/32

2. I've googled a lot, and people generally agree that bits per sample is generally more important than the sample rate itself. So, few, if any, would be able to tell the difference between something recorded at 48/32 vs. 192/32 (so I've heard)

3. Since I would be recording from an $8 Microphone (which is still pretty good) and a $50 Guitar processor, does 48 vs. 96 really even matter? I mean, even if I went to a "professional" studio, my guitar would still sound the same, right?

4. It's more about the content than the quality, even though quality does matter a lot too. Surely even thousands of dollars worth of equipment can't make Justin Bieber sound good, or can it?

Any ideas, comments?

It can, that's why so much money is spend in mastering, studio, Justin Bieber crew, etc.

Generaly 96 khz is audiophile thing. Audiophiles would pay any money possible to get better sound (sometimes even if the sound remains practically the same.)

1- No, it wouldnt actually. Vorbis goes to 96kHz and beyond-

http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/Vorbi...l#x1-40001.1.1

Dont ask me how you get 96kHz or 192kHz vorbis files, I've never bothered checking how its done (no point having a lossy file with that high a samplerate IMO).

2- 'People'? Maybe some people do, and maybe in some situations its true, but not in others. DSD (Direct-Stream Digital) uses 1bit samples at a huge samplerate of 2.8224 MHz, and is being pushed insome quaters as better than even 192kHz/24bit PCM files.

3- Dont forget the creative card. They were never really made for high quality input. With a creative card, a $8 mic, and $50 pedal, no, its not worth worring about 48kHz/96kHz.

4- No. Justin Bieber is always going to sound awful. But then again, so does a lot of the popular music around now...vocoder and autotune users should be shot. :mad:

Apart from issues of taste, yeah a couple of grands worth of equipment (and an engineer/producer who knows how to use it) can make a big difference vs less than $100. ;) If it didnt, semi-pro and pro home music studios would be using cheap stuff.

BTW, there is a point of diminishing returns- a $250 'home studio' level sound card is going to sound a lot better than a $35 'desktop' sound card in recordings. Spending $500 would sound better again, but it would be a lot closer to the $250 sound card than the $250 sound card was to $35....

Could be used for archiving and distribution at the same time ...

:) Yeah, I figured :D But I'm looking for that "clean" sound that all professional recordings have. My recordings are generally dull towards the highs ...

Same feelings here.

But still, one can make do with what one got, right? I mean, with a little tinkering, perhaps I can get my 96 to sound a little better?


That's true. Plus, it would be better to upgrade all equipment bit-by-bit. An $8 mic would perhaps sound the same with a $35 card as with a $350 card.

I would guess more money is spent on his hair, clothes, dance training ...

Maybe, but who would want 96kHz vorbis files? Not me, I'd rather have 48/44.1kHz flac. The file size would work out about the same (depending on the quality setting) and at least the .flacs would be lossless.

The dullness could be from your mic, or it could be from the card. I'd guess both.

I'd doubt that it would sound the same with a better quality sound card. You would be hitting the limits of the abalities of the $8 mic in both cases, but it could well work out to have better high or low end, less distrortion from the sound card, etc. with a better quality card.