Is It Worth Increasing Audio Settings Beyond 48 kHz/16-bit for Live Shows?

tchem

I will use the iPad 9 connected to the Steinberg UR12 audio interface for live shows, and for now, I'm running at 48 kHz and 16-bit. Do you think it's worth increasing this and finding out the maximum the processor can handle without issues to improve audio quality, or would the difference be insignificant?

bluegroove

The difference would indeed be insignificant and isn't worth any extra headaches, imho.

wim

There's no way you would notice the difference by the time the PA gets done with the sound.

It's possible to achieve lower latency with higher sample rate. For instance, the latency at 96kHz is 1/2 that of 48kHz with the same buffer size (at the cost of higher CPU overhead). But that would be the only potential upside IMO.

tchem

Ok, thank you guys.

Tarekith

I don’t even run 48k for my shows, it’s all still 16/44.

PapaBPoppin

@wim said:
There's no way you would notice the difference by the time the PA gets done with the sound.

It's possible to achieve lower latency with higher sample rate. For instance, the latency at 96kHz is 1/2 that of 48kHz with the same buffer size (at the cost of higher CPU overhead). But that would be the only potential upside IMO.

Due to my ignorance on this level of How Basic Things Work - would there be benefits (noticable benefits/worth doing) to running at higher kHz for personal play, hobbiest recording, maybe potential of streaming (with zero foreseeable venue play)?

And I suppose I should ask about what negative effects I should watch out for?

The most I've done is Matching Sample Rate, but no experimentation outside of that

wim

@PapaBPoppin said:

@wim said:
There's no way you would notice the difference by the time the PA gets done with the sound.

It's possible to achieve lower latency with higher sample rate. For instance, the latency at 96kHz is 1/2 that of 48kHz with the same buffer size (at the cost of higher CPU overhead). But that would be the only potential upside IMO.

Due to my ignorance on this level of How Basic Things Work - would there be benefits (noticable benefits/worth doing) to running at higher kHz for personal play, hobbiest recording, maybe potential of streaming (with zero foreseeable venue play)?

And I suppose I should ask about what negative effects I should watch out for?

The most I've done is Matching Sample Rate, but no experimentation outside of that

I can’t think on any advantages at all. There’s no way you or anyone else will ever be able tell the difference.

You might consider saving exported files at 24bit or 32bit resolution as insurance against clipping if your output levels are too high, but that’s a separate concept than sample rate.

PapaBPoppin

@wim said:

@PapaBPoppin said:

@wim said:
There's no way you would notice the difference by the time the PA gets done with the sound.

It's possible to achieve lower latency with higher sample rate. For instance, the latency at 96kHz is 1/2 that of 48kHz with the same buffer size (at the cost of higher CPU overhead). But that would be the only potential upside IMO.

Due to my ignorance on this level of How Basic Things Work - would there be benefits (noticable benefits/worth doing) to running at higher kHz for personal play, hobbiest recording, maybe potential of streaming (with zero foreseeable venue play)?

And I suppose I should ask about what negative effects I should watch out for?

The most I've done is Matching Sample Rate, but no experimentation outside of that

I can’t think on any advantages at all. There’s no way you or anyone else will ever be able tell the difference.

You might consider save in exported files at 24bit or 32bit resolution as insurance against clipping if your output levels are too high, but that’s a separate concept than sample rate.

Ok fantastic thanks! Just wanted to make sure I wasn't flat missing a piece of knowledge (or some major misunderstanding or something). Thanks for the knowledge!