Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - Page 5 - 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 11th August 2009 | Show parent
  #121
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
It would obviously help if you indicated which side you think is right or wrong, else no one knows how to respond to you.
Old 11th August 2009 | Show parent
  #122
Gear Addict
 
Tha Govna's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Before my BLA Sig Mod on my Digi 002R I recorded at 96kHz, because after comparing each on the same source that sounded best. Post mod, 44.1kHz sounds just fine now (Better than all the files I created pre-mod). A similar discussion was brought up on the DUC and one poster made a lot or sense to me.

He said something to the affect of 44.1 on an Apogee is not the same as 44.1 on an Mbox. Different converters may sound best at different sample rates. On the really high end stuff, there probably isn't that much of a difference between 44.1kHz and 88.2kHz say on the same unit...

Then again... I've not read an AES journal on this.
Old 12th August 2009 | Show parent
  #123
Lives for gear
 
stardustmedia's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by listentommy ➑️
Okay after reading some of posts that have come previous to mine, I'm realizing why I haven't jumped in this whole forum community thing earlier. It's like the blind leading the blind. It's like a mass community of people leading others with ideas that are incorrect, while I think there are advantages to this type of education, I also have to consider how easy it is to get some real misinformation about audio, which has really hurt the professional audio community. I wonder sometimes if Bob was smart to create this forum or foolish for creating a giant website full of snake oil type advice rambling chains and misinformation.

You guys need to read an AES journal or a white paper before posting some of the non-sense I've heard.

No wonder the iPod is the main way people listen to music this day in age.

If I can see this and I'm only 23 than something is seriously wrong.

-Tommy C.


You might clear things up in detail, what you seem to know is misinformation. General accusations won't undermine your statement or your knowledge.

There are misinformation, everywhere and it will be. It's up to everyone himself how and when to handle the information he gets. The community can help to clear things up.

But in audio there are also a lot of issues, that are NOT scientifically proven. So it is often a mixture between experiences, taste and individual knowledge (and of course sometimes misinformation).
Old 12th August 2009 | Show parent
  #124
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
44.1 // 24bit and still no need for change that
Old 12th August 2009 | Show parent
  #125
Gear Head
 
Voodooskull34's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
A friend that is an acustic engineer told me that the only difference that sample rate does is more Darkness or brightness .
lower sample rates gives me darker sounds and viceversa.
The only thing that affects the resolution is the bit depth, infatc mor bits we use for a single misuration and more the curve wave will be realistic and so musical. it doesn't depend by the number of misurations.
O.K in a certain way it depends becouse under 40 Khz the sound start to become unrealistic too dark but if we stay on the 40000 96000 range we have minimal differencies, if not a slightly brighter sound at 96000. we have also to consider that our ear as a standard of 44100 so higher sample rates to certain ears can resoult a bit too bright but it is a matter of tastes
I personally record at 48000 and thats how i want to ear my guitar tone, if i rec at 96000 higher frequencies are boosted and that isn't properly what I want to hear.
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #126
Gear Maniac
 
kheftel's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
44.1/24 because recording thru ADAT in my Digi 002 gives me 8 analog inputs to use on anything else I want. I used to record at 96 and haven't missed it since I switched! I'll consider switching when one day I upgrade to HD...
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #127
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
44.1
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #128
Gear Maniac
 
personpitch's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie ➑️
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.
+1. That is what I am doing.

As for it being easy math as some are saying making it better, erm. I assume computers and algorithms are well up to speed at doing math efficiently in the year 2009 that it could figure out conversion from 96->44.

I have to say I am surprised at the amount doing 44. Kudos to all
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #129
Gear Maniac
 
personpitch's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodooskull34 ➑️
I personally record at 48000 and thats how i want to ear my guitar tone, if i rec at 96000 higher frequencies are boosted and that isn't properly what I want to hear.
Or is this simply psychological and you have been conditioned to hearing your guitar at 48 and that's why you like it better, when infact the brighter 96 is how it actually is? Just playing devils advocate.
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #130
Gear Head
 
Voodooskull34's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by personpitch ➑️
Or is this simply psychological and you have been conditioned to hearing your guitar at 48 and that's why you like it better, when infact the brighter 96 is how it actually is? Just playing devils advocate.
No I think that's a sientific fact: try if you have a plug-in that change the bit depth and the sample rate in real time. You'll notice that if you change only the sample rate the sound will go from very dark and closed tone at lower sample rates (at very low rates it will be so dark and close that the music will become unrecognizable) to a brighter an more open tone at higher sample rates.
We have to realize that very high frequencies and all the sub harmonics generated by them are not necessary a pleasure for our ear.
Old 14th August 2009
  #131
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
RATE

I recently transferred some old 1/2" 8 track 15 ips into an MX-2424 set for 96/24 resolution. The results were pretty amazing and I don't know if I'll ever go back to 44.1...
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #132
Gear Head
 
Voodooskull34's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by personpitch ➑️
Or is this simply psychological and you have been conditioned to hearing your guitar at 48 and that's why you like it better, when infact the brighter 96 is how it actually is? Just playing devils advocate.
Scuse me I have misunderstood your post.

I think the tone I hear from my amp, being loud as hell, is very different from what I hear from the speakers of my studio. but as a reproduction I found a more musical reproduction the one recorded at 48 khz then the one at 96.
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #133
Deleted User
Guest
24/192 I would record at 64/768 if I could.

I remember how dfegad16/44.1 sounded and got as far away as I could as soon as i could ... why not?

My son (who really hears well) has choosen 24/192 in blindfold tests the three times we did them out of curiosity.....and Rupert likes 24/192 better.

it causes no storage, latency or processor issues for me.
should i record at 24/44.1 because i 'might not' get any benefit? nooooooh!tutt

less data does not make any sense at all, whether you think you can, or think you cannot hear a diff.

why would I even wonder, I can spend 10K on a GREAT computer, converters and program and run it at highest rez.... it used to cost 10 times that in 1980 dollars to have a 24 track 30ips machine. should I have used an 8 track on 1/4" tape instead?

on the other side if the spectrum the debate still rages about how much worse high rez digital is than tape!!!!

back in the tape days I would never have considered tracking at 15ips when 30 was available.. or using 1/4 track when 1/2 or full was available.

so do we need a new thread asking Cassette or 2" tape...no we don't.

what was the question again?
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #134
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voodooskull34 ➑️
Scuse me I have misunderstood your post.

I think the tone I hear from my amp, being loud as hell, is very different from what I hear from the speakers of my studio. but as a reproduction I found a more musical reproduction the one recorded at 48 khz then the one at 96.
I have the same experience when i record my amp using an RE20 and a 25 year old SM57 ... the cheaper mic always sounds more musical. the RE sounds more like my amp...
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #135
Lives for gear
 
fhames's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Ever since I got apogee converters, I'm a 24/48 kind of guy.


Bryant - Hames Music
Old 14th August 2009 | Show parent
  #136
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I voted and it allowed me to select multiple items, so I chose:

44.1 for music
48 for film / video
96 for music or video that is acoustic, using stereo techniques, and is of "archival" quality or importance
Old 3rd March 2010 | Show parent
  #137
Lives for gear
 
Gabriel Sousa's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Talking

i record at 48khz.

you think the plugins are smoother at higher rate ?
Old 3rd March 2010 | Show parent
  #138
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
For Rock .. Record at 24/41 and sometimes 48 ..
Other genres .. Record at 24/48 ..
I mix mainly OTB ..

Classical, Chamber, Choral, Acoustic ..
Then I'll capture at higher sampling rates ..
Old 3rd March 2010 | Show parent
  #139
Gear Maniac
 
Elevteros's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
44.1 - 24 bit does the trick
Old 14th August 2010 | Show parent
  #140
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Hello

I've just found this thread and I looked at the poll, I noticed percentage isn't the only factor that should be noted in the poll

In fact I read the nick names and I found interesting "pros don't use 44.1"

Tony Sheppard - famous to mix a lot ITB use 48k

Kenny Gioia use 88.2

Bob Ohlsson and Fletcher use 96

So, I think this count something.

Surely, considering they are pros, they have the money to have enough CPU and good quality converter, to handle high sample rates.

Personally I think I'll continue using 48, because at 88.2 everything become more unstable, and because softsynth aliasing is lower at 48k, so the plug ins
Old 14th August 2010
  #141
Lives for gear
 
phas3d's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
What sample rate do you record at?

Remember that many plug-ins and software instruments are upsampled. Many times to 96KHz or even 192KHz. If your setup can handle it why not do so? And most of all you won't get degradation or at least lack of definition on the higher frequencies. It can start as low as 10KHz.
Bottom line. Do a project at 48 and another or even the same if you can at 96. And compare the sound for yourself.
Old 14th August 2010 | Show parent
  #142
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tha Govna ➑️
...Different converters may sound best at different sample rates...
This is true of software too.

I think it's colossally important to do your homework with the specific gear, software and work-flow you are actually using. Implementation generally trumps theory.

I also think that anything worth the trouble of recording can be expected to easily outlive the CD 44.1x16 format. For example I've heard MP3s made from 48x24 files sound better than MP3s made from 44.1x16 files. I don't know enough about player limitations to say this sample rate is a good idea but computers, streaming and file players really open up a whole new world of possibilities if they are not crippled by the CD format.
Old 14th August 2010 | Show parent
  #143
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by elan ➑️
In fact I read the nick names and I found interesting "pros don't use 44.1"
Yes they do - I was at Abbey Road a couple of years ago and the whols session was recorded at 44.1 onto Sequoia.
Old 14th August 2010 | Show parent
  #144
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
well, despite to my taste, the cd is dying pretty fast, I think in a couple of years will be introduced a new format

and honestly I don't like the idea, because I doubt it will be something that has something in common with a disc

I mean I love LP and the idea of something circular through which the music flows, something that turns fast giving you the idea it can fly.. ok I'm stopping.

But something like a USB key or a chip, I don't know but that is a very bad feeling.
Old 15th August 2010 | Show parent
  #145
Lives for gear
 
Helge's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
ok I searched for 2 days now....is there a comparison/blindtest/shootout thread for different samplingrates with clips ???
Old 15th August 2010 | Show parent
  #146
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Willett ➑️
Yes they do - I was at Abbey Road a couple of years ago and the whols session was recorded at 44.1 onto Sequoia.
yes I know, I was referring to the nicknames in the poll

BTW it's interesting to see that people who work mostly ITB in the poll didn't choose 44.1

I think in other big studios, like Abbey road, they use 44.1 because they have tons of outboard so they don't need to use many plug ins..
Old 15th August 2010 | Show parent
  #147
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I would frankly be very surprised if everything done at Abbey Road is being recorded at 44.1.
Old 15th August 2010 | Show parent
  #148
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➑️
I would frankly be very surprised if everything done at Abbey Road is being recorded at 44.1.
everything surely not, but I think it happens, maybe they don't have free the computer that can handle high sample rate easily and they prefer to be more stable at 44.1
Old 15th August 2010 | Show parent
  #149
Lives for gear
 
phas3d's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Sample rates higher than 48KHz translate in better high end definition. Of course that if you have crappy converters Like 002's you won't notice much difference (not bad mouthing Pro Tools, I'm talking about converters and not DAW's).
Old 15th August 2010 | Show parent
  #150
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
The biggest improvement for me has always been between 44.1 and 48. I actually prefer 96k and even 48k to 88.2 because most of the digital signal processing I have sounds cleaner provided the audio was recorded at those sample rates in the first place. My results from up-sampling have been pretty mixed.
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