48khz or 96khz???

[glagola1]

I am recording my band at my house and I wanted to record with 96khz sample rate but it looks like my processor can't handle it so I'm having to use 48khz. My question is, is this a really bad thing? I'm going to have the recordings mastered and I was wanting to give them 24 bit/ 96khz files to work with but I guess I can't right now.

Could someone explain the benefits of recording with 96 over 44.1 or 48?

Thanks.

[fillmoresound]

are you still able to record at 24 bit? if so, THIS is what will make the difference.

going from 48K to 96K isn't going to make as big a difference as recording at 16 bit versus 24 bit. big difference in my book.

i recommend 24 bit 44.1 b/c the conversion to master the final product at 16 bit can sometimes give better results.

[glagola1]

Cool, well I've done almost six songs in 48khz so I hope there isn't any problem when it's converted to 44.1. Oh, and I'm am doing 24 bit.

[digdug]

I've heard (though I don't really understand the math) that a doubling of sampling frequency is on par with add one bit to the sample depth. Not sure about the validity of this, but if it IS true, it would further that previous point that being 24bit is of more relevence.

[wwsm]

IMO, 96k clearly beats 44.1k or 48k recordings, but it's still not as good as analog! A properly clocked 16-bit system can sound better than a poorly clocked and haphazardly truncated 24-bit system. However, I say choose your multitrack format based on what will allow you to create more effectively. Spending time waiting for your computer to restart from a crash every 15 minutes isn't going to help the creative process. When you mix-down, keep in mind that many mastering studios do a lot of their processing in the analog domain, so the sample rate of the final mixes doesn't have to match the final delivery format (usually 44.1) or some multiple of it (mastering studios also have higher quality sample rate converters than most recoding studios). So, before you mix, check with the mastering engineer your thinking of using and find out what format they would prefer. They'll probably appreciate our concerns and willingness to learn.

Alan Douches

[djgout]

is this for film? normally 48kHz and multiples are used for music for film, it's got something to do with the frame rate of the video itself. audio is normally done at 44.1 or multiples of that, it's better to not have to convert the sample rate of your audio to something that isn't easily divisable. going from 48kHz/24 bit to 44.1kHz/16bit requires more awkward math than going from 44.1KHz/24bit to 44.1kHz/16bit for the final release format.

[glagola1]

Interesting. Well, we have a good portion of our album recorded at 48k and 24 bit. It's sounds pretty decent so far. I'm a damn noob.

[spankenstein]

I've heard (though I don't really understand the math) that a doubling of sampling frequency is on par with add one bit to the sample depth. Not sure about the validity of this, but if it IS true, it would further that previous point that being 24bit is of more relevence.

The best way to look at it is that bits are dynamic range and rate is frequency response. If you're going to be digital the whole way through (mix in the box, master digitally, burn CD) then just stick with 44.1kHz. If it's going to be analog at some points go as high as possible.

That being said... if given the choice between 44.1 and 48 for a strictly audio project for CD.... stick with the 44.1 for the math reasons above.

[JamesHE]

your fine at 48K. don't worry about the "math" in conversions.

If your worried about "math" happening in your DAW don't even do as much as adjust a virtual fader, and for god's sake don't apply any compression, reverb or *gasp* an eq!

If you find that you have to do any of these things, however, for the best results record at the highest bit depth and sampling rate that you can manage.

[glagola1]

your fine at 48K. don't worry about the "math" in conversions.

If your worried about "math" happening in your DAW don't even do as much as adjust a virtual fader, and for god's sake don't apply any compression, reverb or *gasp* an eq!

If you find that you have to do any of these things, however, for the best results record at the highest bit depth and sampling rate that you can manage.

Now that makes some sense. I can only record about 2:30 of 96khz/ 24bit on 8 tracks simultaneously due to my computers power. After that, the recorded tracks contain all kinds of strange artifacts. The computer only has a pentium III processor and 256mb of ram. I'm going to get some more ram this evening so hopefully this will alieviate some of the problems I'm having with plugins using up my CPU.

[Rigsby]

I'd agree with the quality difference between 16 and 24 over worrying about 96 and 48 too. But essentially, just get the best sound in and you'll be er... 'golden'.

[digdug]

I'd agree with the quality difference between 16 and 24 over worrying about 96 and 48 too. But essentially, just get the best sound in and you'll be er... 'golden'.

Right. It's good to be concerned, but never let it stop you from working. Good Luck!

[rus]

96k=dvd audio
i claim to be able to hear the difference between cd and analog
but i'm curious to test this
i currently record at 96k 24bit and it sounds ok to me
but i'll have to try a blind test
make dvd and cd copies of the same mixes and bring them home, have my wife play them for me and see if i can tell (my stereo at home is my dvd player so...)