What sample rate are you using?

runrunrun · Post by **runrunrun** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:23 pm

Just wondering what sample rates everyone is using, not trying to start a fight...im curious if many folks are still working at 44.1 or 48k....

inflatable · Post by **inflatable** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:40 pm

I was expecting mostly 44.1 with a few 48's, a couple 88.2's and some 96's but when I voted it was split 50/50 between 44.1 and 88.2 with 4 votes.

Nice to know I'm not the only 88.2 freak out there. It's great for downsampling to 44.1 without SRC algorithms getting in the way.

Does it sound better?

When prcessing audio digitally at 88.2 and 44.1 the high end tends not to get crunchy as quickly with the higher rate.

thethingwiththestuff · Post by **thethingwiththestuff** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 6:48 pm

inflatable wrote:Nice to know I'm not the only 88.2 freak out there. It's great for downsampling to 44.1 without SRC algorithms getting in the way.

i am one of the 88.2 votes. but, everything i've read by designers suggests that that is not actually the case.

i definitely hear a difference in impact, and yeah, less of that "crunchiness" you mentioned.

Auslander · Post by **Auslander** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 8:13 pm

I much prefer 88.2 to 44.1 or 48k. To me there's no comparison in the high end.

Kilroy · Post by **Kilroy** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:11 am

id love to record in 88.2 but can only do 44.1 cause of hardware limitiations. I need a new interface...

Professor · Post by **Professor** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 2:20 am

I chose 88.2k but really I use different rates for different projects (which I hope is common).
When I first built the studio I ran everything at 24/88.2 because the consoles topped out at 96k and so I couldn't run 176.4k. No really, that was the rationale. I didn't concern myself too much with trying to do tests to determine the best sound or to see if I could 'really hear the difference'. I didn't need to worry about file sizes because I had plenty of drive space, and I figured that any sonic tests would likely be either neutral or would slightly favor the 88.2k, and after processing, and down converting, the higher rate would probably dither down and deliver true 16/44.1k.
I also dreaded the idea of reclocking the system all the time, because with digital consoles talking to the DAW and the digital effects processor and off to the master 2-track deck, it seemed like too many clocks to deal with. Then the first external session came along that started elsewhere and needed to return there, and I had to reclock and realized the setup I designed wasn't so bad after all.

So now I track "important" projects at higher rates and "non-critical" stuff at lower rates just so the little projects don't take so much time & space for backing up later.
Oh, and of course 48k gets selected when it's a video project.

-Jeremy

inverseroom · Post by **inverseroom** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 5:17 am

24/44.1 is nice and fast, and I simply cannot hear the difference between it and higher rates...not in a rock mix anyway.

RodC · Post by **RodC** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 6:09 am

inverseroom wrote:24/44.1 is nice and fast, and I simply cannot hear the difference between it and higher rates...not in a rock mix anyway.

+1 but I can hear a bit of a difference, which is quickly lost/mangled

when you convert it to mp3 or grind it through myspace

JASIII · Post by **JASIII** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:35 am

24/96k. I figure why not?

thethingwiththestuff · Post by **thethingwiththestuff** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 8:42 am

JASIII wrote:24/96k. I figure why not?

i have noticed further improvement in depth, three dimensionality, and high end smoothness going from 88.2 to 96k, but my files are big enough as they are at 88.2.

but so i can use tons of plugins i record at 8 bit.

ledogboy · Post by **ledogboy** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:39 pm

I'm pretty darn happy with the sound of PT at 24/88.2, though some projects still get recorded at 44.1. The only downside to 88.2 is that on really complex mixes, it will start taxing the HD3 system pretty hard. I find the difference between 44.1 to be an ease thing- it just seems easier to make the mixes sound good. Disk space is so cheap, that it hasn't been much of an issue.
Ryan

runrunrun · Post by **runrunrun** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:01 pm

thethingwiththestuff wrote:i am one of the 88.2 votes. but, everything i've read by designers suggests that that is not actually the case.

care to elaborate?

thethingwiththestuff · Post by **thethingwiththestuff** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:13 pm

yeah, sorry to throw that out there without much elaboration... unfortunately, i dont know enough about software and computer programming in general to go much further. i've read things to the effect that src from 88 to 44, though to us looks like just halving, is much more complex than it lets on and that its not really any simpler for the computer.

i probably got that mostly from dan lavry's forum at prosoundweb, and various gear designers and people i'll have to trust until i learn to build three thousand dollar converters myself.

runrunrun · Post by **runrunrun** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 3:55 pm

yeah things get pretty techy when you get into that stuff, i dont really understand it too well either....
im just trying to figure out if i should buy something like an apogee rosetta 48k or hold out for a while and get something 96k capable.....

Wilkesin · Post by **Wilkesin** » Sat Nov 04, 2006 9:29 pm

Ran across this link just awhile ago:
http://www.johnvestman.com/cd_mistakes.htm

That recommends 24 bit and anything above 44.1. Though i assume this mean if you are going to get your final product mastered (i.e. - why not record at what "some people" say will sound better and then let the mastering engineer do the conversion for you, I guess?).

That said, I wont be sending anything i record off to the mastering studio anytime soon, so I'll stick with the 24/44.1 and keep the conversions to a minimum.

Message Board

What sample rate are you using?

Sample Rate

What sample rate are you using?

Who is online