Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - Page 3 - 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 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #61
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
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?
It's certainly the case for me. Try using BFD at 128 velocity layers and 2'ish millisecond latency (for tracking) at 96K with a couple convolution reverb busses. That'll eat even a quad core machine up pretty badly. So you end up having to mix down the drums and archive the BFD tracks. That means that, if it turns out you need to make a change, you have to unarchive it, make the change, and bounce it back down again.

That's a huge detriment to work flow, for me anyway. I'm doing my own stuff, and I generally don't know from dot where the song is going to go, so I want to make various changes along the way as I see how it's progressing.

And if you use any other synths along with something like BFD, it just gets worse. And convolution reverbs eat up CPU like crazy at high sample rates as well. So you can quickly find yourself maxing out CPUs even in a quad core system.

It's ok once the tracking is done and you can crank the latency up. But during tracking, you need that latency low, so each buffer is going to repreent a very short period of time at 96K, and therefore the machine is working very hard.

What I've done this time, and maybe I'll do in the future, is to work out the song at 44.1K or 48K, and get the drums and the song structure very well developed and all the processing on the drums worked out. Then delete all the scratch audio tracks, save the project as a template, then open it up again at 88.2K. Then I can bounced down the drums and not have to mess with them, since they are as they should be. From therefore it's just the usual audio tracks being tracked, so it's not much of an issue, though the convulution verbs on the busses are still there and eating up a fair amount of CPU.

I wish SONAR would implement some type of 'audio groups' sort of concept, where you can group tracks and busses together into a group. The busses in that group can only be targeted by the tracks in that group. Then, you can bounce down and archive away the whole set. Otherwise, for drums, yeh you archive away the tracks, but I might have 8 or more busses for the drums, and all of them might have some processing on them, and sometimes a convolution reverb, or something heavy like Izotope Trash or something. Even after the drums are bounced down, those busses are still sitting there and eating up CPU. SONAR has to keep them live because it doesn't know you aren't going to insert a send to them at any time during playback.

It would really be nice to be able to group together those busses with the tracks they are dedicated to, and archive the whole bunch away at once.
Old 31st January 2009 | Show parent
  #62
Lives for gear
 
ISedlacek's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bash ➑️
The poll would be more informative if you included bit depth, too.
96 kHz /16 bit heh
Old 1st February 2009 | Show parent
  #63
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
In response to my own comment abouve about SRC, and why it should be possible to do perfect SRC from any rate to any other by acting like an virtual D/A converter and then resampling that new wave form, it looks like Voxengo's R8Brain offers such a feature as one option.

Quote:
Like many existing SRC programs, r8brain PRO offers you a linear-phase conversion mode. But more importantly, you also have an option of using the minimum-phase conversion mode, which finally brings SRC with true analog qualities to affordable digital audio workstations: in this mode, r8brain PRO works like an ideal digital-to-analog converter followed by an analog-to-digital converter to resample the audio. This eliminates pre-ringing associated with linear-phase designs, while introducing only a minimal amount of phase coloration.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #64
Here for the gear
 
bionic's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by cavern ➑️
24/44.1

tried them all the way to 192.
+1 thumbsup
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #65
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Avery ➑️
What I don't understand is why people seem to think in 2009 that "it's all gonna end up as 44.1 on a CD anyway so might as well record at that sample rate!"

I mean, really, are you all actually still buying that many CDs in 2009?! Are our hands really being tied by this format? Or, like I think, are the shackles not being broken by the opportunities afforded to us by the internet?

Considering the fact that CDs will officially stop being manufactured in 2012 and the fact that its quite possible for acts these days to release albums as FLAC downloads from the internet (e.g. Nine Inch Nails) then why are people so ready to pander to a dying format?

The CD format, in my opinion, is the common denominator format. We are in the business of recording sounds that are faithful and flattering to their original source, i.e. sound engineering/recording is an artform and the artists that practice it should have it in their best interests to progress and develop that artform, not to be the slaves of the end consumer. (EDIT - on reading over this I realise sometimes being faithful to the original source is not a primary concern, as we can process and get creative with that original sound as we see fit, but it is still important to capture such creative decisions with faithful fidelity!)

Music should be recorded at the highest quality, both for your own archival purposes, and more importantly, to give the end consumer the CHOICE to listen to a high quality FLAC file downloaded via a band's website or a downsampled CD or mp3.

Come 2012 the CD format will be obsolete, the major labels will be all but dead, and internet speeds will be so damn fast that a band will personally be able to distribute an album over the internet for whatever price they like, and at whatever quality they like. Any past releases recorded at higher sample rates could then be heard as they were originally meant to be intended.

Record your music at the highest quality possible. As a musician you owe it to your music to do this, as a sound engineer you owe it to the musician to faithfully do this. Release it for free, via the net. If you know anything about the industry you will know most bands make the vast majority of their bread and butter through touring. If your music is really any good and you release it for free it will spread via word of mouth, thus increasing your fanbase, and making it easier for you to fill venues.

In saying all that though, if your bread and butter concerns you all that much then you really shouldn't have considered becoming a professional musician or sound engineer, as the best ones are in this for different reasons!

Redefine what you mean by "making it" in your chosen career. If you can make a teacher's salary being a musician or a sound engineer then surely that is better than being a teacher. And you are doing what you love. That is what I call "making it".

Your primary concern should be to make art, not money.

EDIT - Or, more realistically, your primary concern should be to make alot of art, not alot of money!


Phew... I went off on a slight tangent there at the end, but it's all relevant in the great big grand scheme of things!
Very well said! I think of what will be the standard at the end of 2012 when CDs are no longer made. Will Windows Media Player play 24/96 recorded material today?
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #66
Gear Nut
 
The90049's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Does anyone understand the value of data bandwidth? with higher bit rates you have more data to mess with when mixing.

anyone?
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #67
Gear Maniac
 
nonamesleft's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
88/24 for me...i see no problem in this format, especially when bouncing it down to 44 is easy math compared to other rates...
do i notice a difference? slightly...oh well...haha
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #68
Gear Maniac
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I've read some papers on sampling lately which have led me to the point of view that from now on I'll be doing everything at 48khz/24-bit on A/D, and 32-bit ITB; the highest I will use from now on, if my ears demand it, is 88. The science of sampling isn't intuitive (the "snapshots per second" notion is quite misleading, as it turns out) and a lot of what I thought I knew was basically marketing gibberish.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #69
Lives for gear
 
GearGuy's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
With good AD and DA converters doing everything at 44.1k or 48k is not a problem for me... 95% of everything I do is at 44.1.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Robert Randolph's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World ➑️
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?
Yep.

I have fairly decent computers that I manage to max out relatively frequently these days. Bumping up to 96khz, which in terms of sonics for the end result is maybe a 5% improvement for 50% loss in processing headroom is just not a wise choice.

Law of diminishing returns kicks really strongly in at 48khz IMO, and I'm far more interested in completing my work on time as opposed to eliminating a minor filter ripple at 18khz.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #71
Gear Maniac
 
zoom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
default always: 24bit. sample rate depends on the target format. 44.1 (cd production) 48k dvd/film. sometimes there are exemptions (88.2, 96) but everything higher is waste of data and storage capacity!

stefan
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #72
Lives for gear
 
stafs's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
heh
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #73
Lives for gear
 
TanTan's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
i record @ 88.2Khz most of the time, it sounds much better than 44.1Khz to my ears and "translates" better back to 44.1 CD format then 96Khz.. never tried higher than 96Khz sample rates although i use a DCS 904 which is clocking a two Lynx Aurora 16's and 2 Lynx AES-16 cards.. gotta try one day !
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #74
Lives for gear
 
staudio's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I use all the sample rates depending on what the project is, but usually no higher than 24/96.
Old 4th February 2009 | Show parent
  #75
Gear Addict
 
The Studio RI's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
for me...

44.1 for most music projects.
48 if the music is intended for film use
88.2 if the music project needs a higher fidelity for some reason
96 again, for film, but only if the higher quality is justified for the project.
Old 4th February 2009
  #76
Lives for gear
 
dangoudie's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I record and mix at 48/24 because that is the highest my system allows, I can hear a difference and it seems a good trade off between fidelity and disk space. It's not like 'oh the high end is better' or anything specific it is more a feeling. I just find the music feels better. I think it may have a lot to do with the plug-ins working harder.

It is a really interesting concept about the death of the CD and therefore potentially the death of - or should I say the liberation from - 44.1/16. The possibility is definitely there and the accessibility will only improve with time.

However, the length of a song was imposed by how wide the record was and it has stuck with us long after the progression, in terms of fidelity/functionality, from vinyl. Secondly, presumably there would be some marginal extra cost involved in supplying higher quality audio so a business without a vested interest would probably stay low in the name of profits.

I think the first step should be to get 44.1/16 WAVs back as the prominent format and ditch the soon-to-be-unnecessary MP3.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #77
Gear Maniac
 
zoom's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
in principle this is an old discussion: if someone argues that 88.2 sounds better than 44.1 to his ears - whose ears are able to hear frequencies up to 40kHz? heh

but the extended bandwidth for everything above 20kHz is not an advantage for high sampling rates, it has to be avoided for good sound. either your mics record nothing above 20kHz or they record unwanted ultrasonic things, like e.g. bats, dog whistles or remote controls of garage doors. so there is no reason to use high bandwidth microphones together with high sampling rate gear. frequencies higher than 20k have to be filtered out anyway because there may be high levels in that area which can irritate your signalprocessing in the post.

so my arguments would be that higher sampling rates can give some advantages in postprocessing or allow the A/D to perform with a higher linearity which may be audible (if they are poorly designed for 44.1/48 heh). this is the only reason to go higher than 44.1/48. and always keep the target-format in mind, to avoid errors in calculation for downsampling.

but in most of all cases i stay with my 44.1/48 because i didn't hear any advantage to go higher. sometimes only a customer want it.

are my ears so bad? ....or my converters so good?

cheers
stefan
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoom ➑️
in principle this is an old discussion: if someone argues that 88.2 sounds better than 44.1 to his ears - whose ears are able to hear frequencies up to 40kHz? heh

but the extended bandwidth for everything above 20kHz is not an advantage for high sampling rates, it has to be avoided for good sound. either your mics record nothing above 20kHz or they record unwanted ultrasonic things, like e.g. bats, dog whistles or remote controls of garage doors. so there is no reason to use high bandwidth microphones together with high sampling rate gear. frequencies higher than 20k have to be filtered out anyway because there may be high levels in that area which can irritate your signalprocessing in the post.

so my arguments would be that higher sampling rates can give some advantages in postprocessing or allow the A/D to perform with a higher linearity which may be audible (if they are poorly designed for 44.1/48 heh). this is the only reason to go higher than 44.1/48. and always keep the target-format in mind, to avoid errors in calculation for downsampling.

but in most of all cases i stay with my 44.1/48 because i didn't hear any advantage to go higher. sometimes only a customer want it.

are my ears so bad? ....or my converters so good?

cheers
stefan
Bob Katz and Dan Lavery have already gone through that it's not the freq's above our hearing that makes a difference. It's what the higher sample rate does for the freq's in our hearing range with the filtering.
Old 5th February 2009 | Show parent
  #79
Here for the gear
 
BoogieMonster's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
44.1kHz/24 bit for me too...

but

if most of the people had $1000+ speakers and a high class amplifier to match set correctly in a treated room in their homes, then I'd consider 88.2kHz.
Old 7th February 2009 | Show parent
  #80
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Avery ➑️
Lately I've been backing up songs with large track counts and high sample rates on external hard drives...
You can spend just 500 dollars per album on external hard drives, giving you 7 or 8 hard drives, ... It gives you and the musicians peace of mind ...
Unfortunately hard disks fail after a few years of use or non-use. Apparently if you don't spin them regularly the lubricants coagulate. If your backups are something that will be used in the next 6 months you are probably fine but if you archive a few hundred drives and then test them after 5 years you'll likely find a fairly high failure rate.

Much like the old practice of retensioning tape periodically, your backup drives need to be used, not sitting on a shelf. I don't think anyone bakes harddrives (like we do old tapes) but it's an interesting thought...

I suspect analog (or digital) tape has a longer life span than harddisk.

FWIW, we have several petabytes of storage where I work (about half the size of a gymnasium with racks of disks). We discard the drives on a 3 year cycle (1/3 per year) and copy the data to new drives.
Old 8th February 2009 | Show parent
  #81
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmcfarlane ➑️
Unfortunately hard disks fail after a few years of use or non-use. Apparently if you don't spin them regularly the lubricants coagulate. If your backups are something that will be used in the next 6 months you are probably fine but if you archive a few hundred drives and then test them after 5 years you'll likely find a fairly high failure rate...
I tried to find some published data to backup my statements on harddisk as a poor archival medium.

For disks that are constantly used there is a lot of data. A common observation (generalization) is high failure rates in the first year of use, then fairly reliable until year 5 when the failure rate climbs again. Most of us are familiar with this 'infant death syndrome' with electronics. If gear lasts through the first year of normal use it will likely last a long time. There are details galore in this Usenix paper by Google.

I'm having a harder time finding published reports on the life expectancy for harddisks with data on them after they sit on a shelf unused. The lubricant problem I described was passed on to me by someone else, so I'll keep searching for some published studies.
Old 17th June 2009 | Show parent
  #82
Gear Maniac
 
kheftel's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I record at 44.1/24bit until I can get a more powerful system and move back up to 96k. Since I use a 002R with external pres connected thru lightpipe I can only fit 8 channels thru the pipe if I'm in 44.1.
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #83
Gear Addict
 
alexamk's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
What is this guy talking about CD's not being manufactured after 2012? Maybe your smoking a little to much of the potz!
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Keith Moore's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I always work in 88.2k/24bit because I feel the math is more even bringing it down to 44.1k. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #85
Gear Maniac
 
kheftel's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I am also interested in hearing about whether CDs will continue to be manufactured after 2012.
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #86
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by bash ➑️
The poll would be more informative if you included bit depth, too.

44.1/24 bit.
why. does anybody record at 16 bit still by choice? and since there's no reason to record at anything higher than 24 bit, does anybody track at anything other than 24 bit?
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #87
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Moore ➑️
I always work in 88.2k/24bit because I feel the math is more even bringing it down to 44.1k. Am I wrong in thinking this?
you're correct, I've worked at 88.2 before based on that theory too. the issue is that many converters don't run as well at 88.2 as they do at any of the other rates... so you have to use your ears also.

certainly dithering is the biggest annoyance working at 96 or 48, so like you I don't use those rates unless I must.
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #88
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith Moore ➑️
I always work in 88.2k/24bit because I feel the math is more even bringing it down to 44.1k. Am I wrong in thinking this?
I also used to think this was the case but with upsampling it supposedly doesn't make a difference. Every rate is upsampled to a ridiculous rate and then brought down to whatever rate you're converting to.
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #89
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkelley ➑️
you're correct, I've worked at 88.2 before based on that theory too. the issue is that many converters don't run as well at 88.2 as they do at any of the other rates... so you have to use your ears also.

certainly dithering is the biggest annoyance working at 96 or 48, so like you I don't use those rates unless I must.
I haven't heard this. What's so special about 88.2 that makes is worse than 96?
Old 3rd July 2009 | Show parent
  #90
Lives for gear
 
doug hazelrigg's Avatar
 
9 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
With respect, I find recording at higher sampling rates to be a ridiculous waste of resources (my computer is a Q9550, BTW). Frankly, I don't believe these testimonials that "you can hear the difference" once it's been truncated down to 16.44.1kHz or mp3. So it's 24/44.1kHz for me. Some of you should read Lavry on the subject
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 615186
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 55 views: 32250
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 98 views: 39104
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