Sample rates query

[nobody, really]

what sample rates do folks use and why? i'm fairly new to digital recording and reading about people using 88.2 or 48 or whatnot. so i'm wondering, if your AD box can do 96 or 192 why go with a lower number? there's gotta be reasons, yah?

[evan]

I was just reading about this: http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=59414

[kslight]

I'd say record at the highest sample rate that is practical to your setup...if you are using low end gear and/or the scope of your project is at best a limited release it probably won't matter.. I was a 24/44.1 guy for awhile and lately I've been doing 24/96 only (in the last 6 months). I don't know if the difference I hear is sample rate related or due to different processes altogether down the line but I feel that my mixes lately are coming out better...and I'm mixing ITB...often tracking to tape, dumping to HD24XR for overdubs, editing, and mixing. I haven't bothered to do any experiments because the guy I'm working with insists on 24/96 so whether or not there is a difference it doesn't matter (and the guy is pro so I'm inclined to listen rather than lose the work).

For some reason I want to say that plugins generally sound better at h higher sample rates, fact check though?

[ott0bot]

When I'm recording I try to keep in mind what the end medium is going to be. It is just a digital file, is it going onto a cd, is it being transferred to vinyl, or maybe it's audio for a film that will be released on a DVD, or even bluray! I'll use the sample rate that the project demands.

For me, I'm using Pro Tools LE with a 003r, and a Lynx Aurora 8 on the ADAT. In pt LE the ADAT is limited to 24 bit 48k, so that's what I use so I can use the Aurora's converters. And since most of my stuff is just music that'll be in digital or cd format that works just fine. It'll work fine for DVD audio too, when I've done some sound for films.

Also...i don't really hear a huge difference with audio recorded at super high sample rates unless i'm listening on my studio monitors or someone's super high quality digital home theatre. Keep in mind most end users are listing on car stereo's, mp3 players, and computer speakers....so it kinda depends on what audience you are appealing to.

Higher sample rates take up more hard drive space, as well. So, if you are just recording a demo practice session you probably don't need HD quality audio, so record lower and save space.

[chris harris]

Cue "Easier Math Myth"...

[@?,*???&?]

From the Musician/Engineer Survey 2009:

http://www.myspace.com/musicianengineer ... 0&i=381391

http://www.myspace.com/musicianengineer ... 0&i=381387

This survey had around 580 respondents working in the industry at large across the country along with some European respondents.

[farview]

With all of my own listening tests, I came to the conclusion that the sample rate itself doesn't make much difference, but different converters/interfaces do sound better at some rates than others. There were more than a few that sounded better at 44.1k than at 96k. The point is that it seemed dependant on the unit, not the sample rate.

I didn't bother with anything over 96k because anything beyond that is completely pointless and serves no purpose other than to fulfill some sort of marketing goal.

[chris harris]

I'm perfectly happy with the recordings I'm getting using just 44.1k. If it's something for video, then I'll use 48k. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. If the difference was huge and obvious, then discussions like these wouldn't come up so frequently. You hardly ever see discussions about whether it's "worth it to record at 24 bit".

[mrc]

mighty fine, and AMEN, brother

[nobody, really]

I just read the 10 page "sound of air" thread. Good Lord. Honestly had no idea.... I feel much more educated/confused now. Seems like 88.2 is a good number and there's some "math" thing about it. I'm still confused by the 88.2/96 and 44.1/48 thing. They're so close in number, but there's math involved. Aren't computers supposed to be, like, really really good at math? And then there's this Nyquist fellow some people get to meet. Will he have a booth at AES?
Okaybyenow.

[The Scum]

Will he have a booth at AES?

No, but Bob Pease was wandering the floor last time it was in SF.

[Nick Sevilla]

I mostly have done 24bit / 48khz for the last few years.

Also I have done a couple of albums on 24bit / 96khz.

The only limitations I see with higher sample rates, are the following:

1.- less horsepower for processing.

2.- making SURE your entire recording chain can pass through from 5Hz to well over 20KHz to the converters, and that the converters ALSO can convert these frequencies. (Pro sumer converters does NOT perform as advertised, they only pass 20Hz-20KHz through to the converter chips, negating any benefit).

3.- making SURE your monitoring path can reproduce frequencies above 20 kHz and below 20Hz accurately. Your KRK "Rockit" speakers? Probably cannot reproduce anything resembling 20Hz to 20KHz, despite the mfr claims. So playing back frequencies ABOVE and BELOW 20-20 will be impossible.

4.- Your hearing ability. How low and high can you hear? Really? TEST YOUR HEARING with a DOCTOR.

My hearing system has been proven to be able to hear up to 26,300 Hz, as long as those frequencies are loud enough. I do have a dip on the left ear at 8013Hz, and a dip at 8016Hz in the right ear, of about 6.4 dB and 6.8 dB respectively. This means I have to be extra careful when mixing in and around that frequency range.

Cheers

[@?,*???&?]

I do have a dip on the left ear at 8013Hz, and a dip at 8016Hz in the right ear, of about 6.4 dB and 6.8 dB respectively. This means I have to be extra careful when mixing in and around that frequency range.

Cheers

Uh, that's called 'Presbycusis' and everyone gets it. Don't worry.

[kinger]

I've been reading about this quite a bit lately and one interesting thing that's come up is that a lot of plugins tend to alias (generate distortion not harmonically related to the source signal) less at higher sample rates. I've done some testing with plugs I own and found this to be true. I don't want to open a can of worms about aliasing but lately I've been mixing ITB only with plugins that don't show aliasing and my mixes sound a lot more natural and less brittle. It seems to suggest that your mixes can benefit from upsampling while mixing even if your tracks were recorded at a lower sample rate.

[ott0bot]

I've been reading about this quite a bit lately and one interesting thing that's come up is that a lot of plugins tend to alias (generate distortion not harmonically related to the source signal) less at higher sample rates. I've done some testing with plugs I own and found this to be true. I don't want to open a can of worms about aliasing but lately I've been mixing ITB only with plugins that don't show aliasing and my mixes sound a lot more natural and less brittle. It seems to suggest that your mixes can benefit from upsampling while mixing even if your tracks were recorded at a lower sample rate.

Just a question....but when/if you bounce your mixes down to 44.1k, do you notice the improvements in the sound of your plug-ins are retained?