12-01-2016, 04:46 PM
Feel free to disagree with me... but scientifically speaking, sampling at 96 khz can't truly enhance the quality of the high end in a mix, regardless of the quality of the mp3 encoding. And regardless of the sample rate used during capture, even the best quality mp3 encoding will significantly alter the super highs, eventually truncating the frequency response somewhere between 16 kHz and 18 kHz, depending on the encoding method.
The sample rate at which you record can be simplified to represent twice the maximum possible recorded frequency before aliasing occurs. Everything beneath that maximum frequency, as stated in the Nyquist theorem, is captured 100% accurately. So when you record at a mundane 44.1 khz, that means the maximum frequency you can capture accurately is 22.05 khz... which is well beyond what even newborn babies are thought to be capable of hearing. As it happens, that's also well beyond the frequency response of most instruments, microphones, and analog gear (which includes the analog front end of digital setups). So in my opinion, if you're missing the highs, the mp3 encoding could be the reason for sure... but the sample rate doesn't enter into it at all.
I realize I'm running the risk of being crucified for saying so, but I have yet to encounter a single convincing argument for recording at such a high sample rate, especially if you're going to allow your piano recordings to square-wave. Supposedly, industry standard these days is to record at 192 kHz, which is nothing but snake oil.
The sample rate at which you record can be simplified to represent twice the maximum possible recorded frequency before aliasing occurs. Everything beneath that maximum frequency, as stated in the Nyquist theorem, is captured 100% accurately. So when you record at a mundane 44.1 khz, that means the maximum frequency you can capture accurately is 22.05 khz... which is well beyond what even newborn babies are thought to be capable of hearing. As it happens, that's also well beyond the frequency response of most instruments, microphones, and analog gear (which includes the analog front end of digital setups). So in my opinion, if you're missing the highs, the mp3 encoding could be the reason for sure... but the sample rate doesn't enter into it at all.
I realize I'm running the risk of being crucified for saying so, but I have yet to encounter a single convincing argument for recording at such a high sample rate, especially if you're going to allow your piano recordings to square-wave. Supposedly, industry standard these days is to record at 192 kHz, which is nothing but snake oil.
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!