Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What sample rate do you record at?
View Poll Results: What sample rate do you record at?
Record at 44
542 Votes - 43.15%
Record at 48
344 Votes - 27.39%
Record at 88
141 Votes - 11.23%
Record at 96
191 Votes - 15.21%
Depending on the project, I would record at 44 or 96.
108 Votes - 8.60%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 1256. You may not vote on this poll

Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #31
Here for the gear
 
delon's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Recording rate

For non mic'd instruments I have no problem with 44.1 / 24 BUT when using high end mics, preamps and recording a strong voice - it just sounds fuller at 96 /24. When I was the EVP/CTO of mp3.com we did some experimentation on this and found that once you reach 44.1 / 24 the differences may be psycological for most people. Plus most playback equipment can't reproduce higher recording rates. That said psycology is a big part of recording so I continue on with my happy elixer
d
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #32
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Cool higher sample rates are better

When you A-B different sample rates you can really hear it, it's just nobody has in a meaningful way (or very few). I would record totally analog and mix to an Ampex atr 1/2 inch, Pro Tools at 192, then at 96, then at 48, then at 44.1 and be able to hear the atr, pro tools, dat or cd, plus original mix at the same time through my SSL G+, when i got first got my pro tools hd2 192 system. The depth of field, the delay of the reverbs, the width of the mix was obviously way better at 192 and very close to to the atr (minus the 100 bump) and the live automated mix. The dat and cd were crap in comparison, followed closely by pt at 44.1 and 48. The 96 was in between. I always record at 96k because of compromises (low track count, plug ins don't work etc.) so i must use 96k to mix unless i wanted to buy a second pro tools system. But it's still better than the lower sample rates.
I had a very good mastering engineer come to pick up a corrupted file and he played a song he had mastered from 96k version i gave him, it sounded way better than any cd i could have made but when i played the original mix 192 version i had at the same time, the difference was rediculous and he thought the 192 was his version. But I said the 192 mix is like shooting a cannon and 44.1 16bit is a pea shooter, but that's a great sounding pea shooter.
This type of sound comparison just haven't been the experience of most people I've met, and if it was, it would change a lot of opinions because it is so obvious.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesmanjl ➑️
When you A-B different sample rates you can really hear it, it's just nobody has in a meaningful way (or very few). I would record totally analog and mix to an Ampex atr 1/2 inch, Pro Tools at 192, then at 96, then at 48, then at 44.1 and be able to hear the atr, pro tools, dat or cd, plus original mix at the same time through my SSL G+, when i got first got my pro tools hd2 192 system. The depth of field, the delay of the reverbs, the width of the mix was obviously way better at 192 and very close to to the atr (minus the 100 bump) and the live automated mix. The dat and cd were crap in comparison, followed closely by pt at 44.1 and 48. The 96 was in between. I always record at 96k because of compromises (low track count, plug ins don't work etc.) so i must use 96k to mix unless i wanted to buy a second pro tools system. But it's still better than the lower sample rates.
I had a very good mastering engineer come to pick up a corrupted file and he played a song he had mastered from 96k version i gave him, it sounded way better than any cd i could have made but when i played the original mix 192 version i had at the same time, the difference was rediculous and he thought the 192 was his version. But I said the 192 mix is like shooting a cannon and 44.1 16bit is a pea shooter, but that's a great sounding pea shooter.
This type of sound comparison just haven't been the experience of most people I've met, and if it was, it would change a lot of opinions because it is so obvious.
Ok, but when you bring the 96 down to 44/16 bit is there enough of a difference between the recording done at 44/24?
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
KevWind's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World ➑️
Ok, but when you bring the 96 down to 44/16 bit is there enough of a difference between the recording done at 44/24?
This then it seems is the pertinent question if you are indeed intending going to go CD . I also had not heard that the CD format is going to be dropped in conjunction with the Mayan Calender change, but anything is possible I spose ???
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #35
Lives for gear
 
Beastie's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Smile

44.1/24bit
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #36
Here for the gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
anyone for 88.2?

I do 88.2 on the theory that the SRC to 44.1 for the rough mixes is simpler mathematically. I don't really get why 96 is the 2x rate that people use. 88.2 is an obvious improvement over 44.1/48 to these ears on live band tracks (multitracked drums in particular). It also seems a big improvement on the occasions when I must mix ITB. I always bring 88.2 mixes to master as well. Half inch is way higher resolution than any of the release formats - that's the point. Make your source as hi res as possible - for posterity as well as for the current formats.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Chris's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I record at 44.1 and the only reason is because I already don't have enough instances of my UAD-1 plugs.
Old 29th January 2009 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Head
 
adkelly's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Last few days I recorded an album at 96k/24 and today am mixing some tv spots at 48. The difference I've found with the music stuff is big enough to justify the effort in my opinion even when downconverting to 44. The better the source, the better the outcome in my opinion, but as always YMMV.

dk
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #39
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
sample rates

The better it sounds going to mastering, the better it sounds in the end. Ask any great mastering engineer and if they disagree with that, they are not a great mastering engineer period. Every little bit of improvement possible is a big deal to these guys. If they find out there is a first generation digital copy and the original copy might be available they'll be calling and demanding that copy, that's why they're so good , they care. You'll never hear that difference. it's that slight, nowhere near 192 24 vs 44.1 16 Stay in the best sounding format including 2 inch, 1 inch or 1/2 inch analog 2 track and high sample rate digital, until the final millisecond.
If your going to master it yourself for cheap, go any format you like, because you don't really care, to much. If you really cared you would go to the best mastering engineer you can afford.
But, If you really don't have any money and want great results, A-B your mastering with their mastering with as many speaker systems as possible( at least 5) and get real lucky. Remember there is going to be some room your job won't sound so great in no matter how talented you are. So keep checking over a long period of time. There are a lot of people who have computers and think they are mastering engineers but it's hard to keep up with the real guys especially without years of experience. Have respect for the original audio. Don't overdue it. If you keep tweeking your 3rd rate job it might become a 2nd rate job. Next month you'll get better and next year might invest in some better equipment and so on. Get an intern job with a real mastering situation and keep growing.
But what if your and engineer, songwriter and you don't want to be a mastering engineer? Save your dough and hire a great engineer. They usually have some type of demo off time deal if your patient and not too big off pain in the ......
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The way I look at it...

Which is going to make a bigger difference, the minute change in sound from 44.1/48 to 88/96...

Or the ability to stick a really nice comp on my 2-bus without having to print tracks and stems constantly?

I choose the latter.
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #41
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
the really nice compressor + the high sample rate , what does stems have to do with that choice?
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #42
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I assume he was referring to the need to reduce overhead by pre-mixing down sets of tracks and then archiving them off?
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #43
Gear Maniac
 
Proggm's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
48kHz/24bits
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #44
Lives for gear
 
ProducerBoy's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
44.1 habitually, but planning on experimenting with 44.1 verses 88.1 & 96 when I fire up my new 2192.
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Addict
 
casey_outlaw's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
24/48 to PT. Mix out at 24/48 or 96 on the masterlink.
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #46
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
44.1. Never had a need for anything else
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➑️
I assume he was referring to the need to reduce overhead by pre-mixing down sets of tracks and then archiving them off?
Yep.
Old 30th January 2009 | Show parent
  #48
Lives for gear
 
ScumBum's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
24bit/48K
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #49
Gear Maniac
 
Rob C's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
24/48 for pop/rock/hip hop/loud

24/88.2 for minimal/acoustic type stuff
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #50
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
24/48 here. never even considered a higher rate.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #51
Gear Addict
 
floydisbest's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuddfar ➑️
44.1 or 384(analog)
nice
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #52
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
well if you need more power in your computer to go to higher sample rate and have to print stems to make it work, i would go to lower sample rates too. i'm really talking about high end situations, at least pro tools hd with 192 converters.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #53
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesmanjl ➑️
well if you need more power in your computer to go to higher sample rate and have to print stems to make it work, i would go to lower sample rates too. i'm really talking about high end situations, at least pro tools hd with 192 converters.
Even PT HD has a DSP limit for plugins that diminish as you increase the sample rate, and it can be reached surprisingly quick when working with 96/192khz for a modern pop/rock production.

My point is simply that the workflow changes for increased sample rates, and at least for the work I do, the tradeoff is not worth it.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #54
Gear Nut
 
The90049's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
88.2/24 for the most part.

Has anyone mentioned that you have tons more headroom for plugins using the higher sample rates? Isn't it true that at lower rates you don't have the full range to EQ, comp, reverb, etc?

However, I assume if you have near perfect tracking skills, and you just need to adjust volumes, 44 and 48 are just fine. Anyone agree?
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
i don't work in the box (yet) so the power problem is not the same. i use 100% outboard eqs and mostly outboard compressors, that's another advantage of using an SSLG+ and high sample rates with lots of console inputs and pt outputs. except for the cost of the studio and instant recall, it is vastly superior way to work for me.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #56
Lives for gear
 
dannycurtean@yah's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bash ➑️
The poll would be more informative if you included bit depth, too.

44.1/24 bit.
How would that be relevant?

Nobody is recording at 32 bit, nor 16 so I doubt any more than 1% are doing that.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Randolph ➑️
Even PT HD has a DSP limit for plugins that diminish as you increase the sample rate, and it can be reached surprisingly quick when working with 96/192khz for a modern pop/rock production.

My point is simply that the workflow changes for increased sample rates, and at least for the work I do, the tradeoff is not worth it.
So are you and many saying that one of the main reasons why you don't record at the higher sample rate is due to the strain on your computer?
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #58
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
48k/24 bit for most projects if they are going to be professionally mastered (not SRC). If a client will not be getting it properly mastered and/or doesn't care I will record at 44.1/24 just so that I know SRC is not an issue (I realize there is some debate as to whether the audio takes a hit when SRC from 48 to 44.1 or 96 to 44.1)

For me, the difference is quite substantial between 48 and 44.1 - maybe even a bigger difference than 88.2 vs. 48.

Even though I think 88.2 and 96 sounds better, 48k is a nice compromise for hard drive space and CPU issues
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
88.2k

I ended up doing 88.2k. When doing tape transfers, I experimented and found for me that 88.2 is the lowest resolution where I found that elements sounded similar to what was coming off tape.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #60
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
48khz/24 at input for instrument DI, 48khz/32bit itb. There's nothing going on in the frequencies potentially affected by these low sample rates. But for tracking vocals, very expressive live instruments, etc., 96khz. There things get trickier.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 615184
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 55 views: 32247
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 98 views: 39103
Avatar for dfghdhr
dfghdhr 5th June 2021
replies: 1296 views: 181657
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump