Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - Page 7 - 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 20th September 2010 | Show parent
  #181
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Something else to consider is that if the only formats one expects one's recordings to ever be released in are 44.1x16 bits and MP3, what does that say about something really being worth the investment of an immense amount of time and money in the first place?

Are we trying to make something of enduring value or is it all just a hustle?
Old 21st September 2010
  #182
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Lightbulb 44/24 and 88/24

48/24 and 96/24 are format to work with video right??? ... format for just audio should be 44 or 88 or 172....
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #183
Gear Maniac
 
Gav G's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Just to add my ten penneth....

I recently did my first project tracking to 96 after years of swearing by 44.1 and I gotta say, Placebo or no, not only did I think it sounded pretty f*cking sweet, but I had EVERY member of the band coming up and saying how amazed they were at how "analogue" it sounded.

Now I know that is a very lame sounding cliche but I only say it because it is WHAT HAPPENED!! Btw, they did not know about what sample rate was being used.

Sure it could have just been a particularly good session, but the top end did sound sweeter than I remember digital ever sounding.

The file handling side of the project has becaome a bit of a pain in the butt with massive and ever increasing file sizes and also the Mac getting quite grumpy with having to continually play back so much damn audio at such a high rate. But it does sound better to me. For Sure.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #184
Lives for gear
 
DarkSky Media's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by CARLOSNAHY ➑️
48/24 and 96/24 are format to work with video right??? ... format for just audio should be 44 or 88 or 172....
That's where the formats originate, but with modern SRC, there is little or no need to stay in a format that is a multiple of the delivery sample rate, so it makes perfect sense to record in whatever sounds best (or will capture the most information etc) and then decimate to whatever delivery format(s) is/are required at the end.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #185
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gav G ➑️
Placebo or no, not only did I think it sounded pretty f*cking sweet, but I had EVERY member of the band coming up and saying how amazed they were at how "analogue" it sounded.

Now I know that is a very lame sounding cliche but I only say it because it is WHAT HAPPENED!!
Well, this is why I'm interested in this oft-discussed topic. It's not my place to discount anyone else's experiences, or my own based on only listening or only theorising. It could be that the design of your convertors sounds inherently better at 96 than at 44.1, I don't know. Did you have *any* digital processing going on (monitor path?) right before the analogue comments? If so, then that's a potential cause of the difference. Was it a band that you had recorded before in the same studio with the same gear? If not, that's another potential cause for their perception; if none of you had anything to compare to, you can't make judgements on how analogue it sounded compared to the exact same session done at 44.1, and it would be impossible for you to be unbiased in that situation.

We know that we don't need to sample at more than twice the highest frequency we want to capture. Most people can't "hear" above 20kHz, but research (Oohashi) suggests that many may be able to "perceive" ultrasonic frequencies, with significant results only if audible frequencies are present also - That suggests that it's not the actual ultrasonic material that is perceived, but rather the interaction between the ultrasonic and audible material (these interactions are taken advantage of by the Audio Spotlight project)

So, how much "ultrasonic" material we need in our recordings is debatable, as is the apparently subjective difference in audio quality between normal and high sampling rates. And then there's the debate about which convertors are more accurate and sound better for a variety of reasons..........

What is the bandwidth of every piece of gear in a given signal path, from microphone to speakers? How much ultrasonic material actually passes through a typical "high end" analogue recording path? This would vary quite a lot. Even if ultrasonic material isn't recorded directly, it could be produced by passing through an analogue processor (compressors definitely). But then, if an accurate digital model was made, reproducing that circuit, and run at a high sample rate, would that not also produce the same ultrasonic material, up until the Nyquist rate is reached? So then, how high do we need to go?

Also, *if* it is the interaction between the ultrasonic and audible sound that we actually perceive, and not the ultrasonic frequencies directly, do we need to record any higher than 44.1? Because if we're "hearing" the interactions that fall into the audible range, then that's all we need during the recording stage. But then we still have to determine the extent of the benefits of allowing ultrasonic material to exist after processing those recordings.

Do the potential benefits of recording ultrasonic material outweigh the potential disadvantages of running convertors at very high rates (in reference to the Lavry white paper).

Lots of ifs that I haven't found answers for yet.

What about digital noise shaping? If we can perceive >20kHz sound either directly or indirectly, then if we dither with noise shaping, we end up with loads of ultrasonic garbage that interacts with our music and causes all kinds of subtle perception-shifts............or would it? How many people have listening systems that would reproduce any of that anyway? If they did, what about the acoustic issues? Extremely directional frequencies beaming around, modulating with everything else etc etc......you would have to listen in just the right place, or you might lose the potential benefits.

And then, how many of the revered, stellar-sounding recordings of yore actually contain a meaningful amount of ultrasonic frequencies, such as to make that a significant reason for the reverence? They would have to be restored from the original tape, and then compared to the different release formats to be able to know.

But then just because it's arguably not important to music at the moment, doesn't necessarily mean it won't be important in the future, so the questions need to be asked.

Lots of questions, which is why it's interesting.

I apologise for that long, badly written, drizzly post. I'm not arguing for the sake of it, it's genuinely interesting to try and find out the extent that we need ultrasonic in our music.

Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #186
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd ➑️
.it's genuinely interesting to try and find out the extent that we need ultrasonic in our music.
I hate to say this but people have been trolling audio discussions for a decade with this kind of nonsense argument about bandwidth.

Science tells us that for simple recording and playback we probably need a sample rate of around 60kHz. in order to be transparent and free of anti-aliasing and reconstruction filter artifacts below 20kHz. in real world designs. It also tells us that non-linear digital signal processing requires a bit more, bandwidth, perhaps a 96kHz. sample rate in order once again to avoid potentially audible artifacts below 20kHz.

It's hard to make a legitimate argument for more than 96k. but theoretically there are very real theoretical, measurable advantages to recording and signal processing done at a sample rate of 96k.

Practice depends on the specific implementation of specific devices and Algorithms. My experience has been that this factor vastly overshadows theory.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #187
urumita
 
7rojo7's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
For years i recorded to 2" 15 ips Dolby SR and transfered for editing and mixed on real desks to DAT (limitations). When I could record through Prism converters at 96 and mix in PTHD with Sonnox and McDSP plugs and send the the submaster out to STT-1s and back in (hot) through Prism converters and uce TC plugs, I stopped doing this
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #188
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Am I trolling? What did I say that was nonsense? I was simply writing questions, I wasn't being rhetorical. I think I'm being misunderstood.

Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #189
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd ➑️
Am I trolling? What did I say that was nonsense? I was simply writing questions, I wasn't being rhetorical. I think I'm being misunderstood.

I think the objection is to this:


Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd ➑️

We know that we don't need to sample at more than twice the highest frequency we want to capture.

because we DON'T "know" that... we're just told that SHOULD be the case.

I KNOW 96k sounds a **** of a lot better than 48 to me.
that's what I "know"


do you "know" differently? or just think it should be so?
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #190
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
24/96 exclusively theses days. But last week I opened a new project in SONAR and for some reason set the sampling rate at 24/44. Sounded ok for the session. But when I exported the rough mix to wave I sent it 16/44. When I opened the mix in WMP I thought it sounded a little weak. When I saw the size of the file I knew it had gone out at 16/44. It had that typical crappy CD nonquality sound. 24/96 almost sounds great but instead I think it can sound very very good.

But there's this stuff called magnetic tape that I hear is coming on strong these days that makes things like sampling rate obsolete.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #191
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
24/96

Ok... I don't know if I'm believing a none-truism.. but my understand was you really can't hear much of a difference between 44.1 and 96... however with 96 you have more audio information for processors to process...

Though this threat is making me question myself.. I do hear a significant difference between work I do at 96 versus 44.1.. I mean its just like night and day..

I do, however, often still work at 24/44.1 because.. its a lot easier on my processors.. I have endless power at 44.1.. or nearly endless.. where as at 96.. resources are pretty finite.. I'm wishing there were good workflows to solve this.

For the fun of it.. I did mess around with recording 192 a few times.. and processing it.. I found one guitar going through guitar rig.. a lot of the patches wanted more power then I had to give it.. and mind you I have 8 cores
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #192
Lives for gear
 
DarkSky Media's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Lawson ➑️
...But there's this stuff called magnetic tape that I hear is coming on strong these days that makes things like sampling rate obsolete.
...and replacing it with tape speed, I guess. Big differences to be had between recordings at 7.5 ips, 15 ips and 30 ips. Bigger than the differences between 48 kHz, 96 kHz and 192 kHz perhaps.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #193
Lives for gear
 
rocksure's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Funny my brother rang me from 450km away today to ask me "if I thought it was worth it for him to record at 96 k or stick to 44.1 and what do I record at?"
My reply was I don't think it's gonna give him any real measureable advantage at 96k. I have done a bit of recording at 96k, but generally don't see the point, so I have settled at 44.1 for music and 48k for anything likely to be used in film/video. It makes life alot easier.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #194
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwittman ➑️
I KNOW 96k sounds a **** of a lot better than 48 to me.
that's what I "know"


do you "know" differently? or just think it should be so?
I both agree and disagree with what you know. What I hear depends on the convertors, and what I think is influenced both by what I hear, and also by a little knowledge of the maths that is inherent to the design of those convertors.
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #195
vly
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
Music- 44.1 - 24 bit

Audio or music for any video post 48 - 16 bit

If i can record in target s.rate-bit rate,i prefer that...
Old 21st September 2010 | Show parent
  #196
Lives for gear
 
3 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➑️
there are very real theoretical, measurable advantages to recording and signal processing done at a sample rate of 96k.
About 30 years ago, I read an article about bandwidth in analog recording and playback systems where the researcher showed that systems limited to 20kHz had audible artifacts, even for old people that couldn't hear above 15kHz. I'm thinking it was written by Boyk, but the details are lost in the fuzz of time. Anyway, the listening tests suggested that the entire chain had to have extension beyond 40kHz in order to maintain high frequency transient response in the 20-20kHz band. I do know that Nyquist is very limiting if you are attempting deconvolution of noisy spectroscopic data, so it's not surprising that it's limiting for audio also.
Old 22nd September 2010 | Show parent
  #197
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd ➑️
I both agree and disagree with what you know. What I hear depends on the convertors, and what I think is influenced both by what I hear, and also by a little knowledge of the maths that is inherent to the design of those convertors.
as a practical matter, I have yet to work with ANY multi-track convertor that sounds as good, to me, at 44.1 as at 96k.
Simple.

the 2 channel GML convertor, at 44.1, often sounds better than the multitrack convertors I end up using.
but I have not heard a 24/96 version, with that quality, from GML.
Old 22nd September 2010 | Show parent
  #198
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syncamorea ➑️
About 30 years ago, I read an article about bandwidth in analog recording and playback systems where the researcher showed that systems limited to 20kHz had audible artifacts, even for old people that couldn't hear above 15kHz. I'm thinking it was written by Boyk, ...
There's lots less controversial research done by others showing a requirement for a margin of error in real-world filter designs in order to achieve transparency in the audible range below 20 kHz..

Mainstream electrical engineers have never considered 44.1 to be sufficient for music since the early days of digital audio.
Old 22nd September 2010 | Show parent
  #199
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I can really recommend reading
Mixing Audio: Concepts, Practices and Tools (by Roey Izhaki)
and in this book he explains details about sample rate, and as I understand it, it would be useful to go for 88khz. In the book he explains why. Unfortunately we need much more CPU power for this, I also believe...

I am still recording in 44.1 khz.
Old 22nd September 2010
  #200
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
48/24 bit everytime. Most of the engineers in Nashville do the same...at least the ones I work with.
Old 23rd September 2010 | Show parent
  #201
Lives for gear
 
Lance Lawson's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I found out quite by accident that there are better sounding things beyond 16/44. When I first got Sonar I was still something of a digital novice. On Sonar I was default recording at 24/44. I still had my Cakewalk program insalled that maxes out at 16/44. I realized that Sonar sounded better but I didn't know why. I let them prattle on that it doesn't matter cause the ear can't hear the benefits of high sampling rates because the does indeed hear the benefits. Listen with your ears, its pretty obvious.
Old 26th September 2010 | Show parent
  #202
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Oh yeah this is great example :

YouTube - Audio frequency range of LP vs. CD
Old 27th September 2010 | Show parent
  #203
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
About 10 years ago I got a cd of the Kinks Greatest Hits---In their original MONO. Rhino release. All Rhino did was transfer the original mono master to cd [44]. No tweaking. I compared the original 45's to the new digital copy and lo and behold [except for the hiss and rifle shot pops] they were EXACT. Even the volume.

It seems our 'ears" have not come as far as we'd like to think.

I was given a Roland VS 1680 form a friend. I was prepared to HATE this thing. But this "thing" had been loaded with Burr-Brown 2134's on all analog in/outs. I've never heard a 24 track of any caliber that was any better sounding [It had other "difficulties"...].

No, I'm not going off thread here: My point is---What are we trying to do here? Isn't it record the best music/performance you can as accurately as possible to the human ear? What is all this posterity stuff? Do you think the Kinks [or their engineer/producer] sat around thinking, "Gee, I wonder if this mono format is going to be around in 30 years?"

No!! Does it sound good NOW. Period. That's all they thought.

So if it's 192 that floats your boat then use it. If you can make 44 "sing". Use it.

What you guys don't seem to be asking for---actually DEMANDING---from the engineers that bring you these lovely products is compatibility [I'm looking for a word here that means transferability---but it's not on the tip of my tongue. I checked]. If I transfer my 8 track cassettes to [pick a digital recorder] all I have to do is hook up the wires and press play. Magic. It "uploads".

Is the [digital recorder] better sounding? You bet. So? If the source material sounded great on the original---it'll sound great on the new [digital recorder].

The fix on the posterity/portability [to other systems/rates] is to DEMAND something that converts one to another. Any other.

I know there are REASONS why "it can't be done" but that's just being reasonable with these engineers. Don't let them yank your chain any more. [And if they refuse? Take 'em out to the back alley and beat 'em like an old rug. Ok, a bit too drastic]

It's perfectly alright to have progress. We all like it. But you have to demand that the new stuff works flawlessly with the old stuff [44/24 now being the "old stuff"]---like black and white TV and color TV. No one argues that color is better. [You know that up until that digital change last year black and white TV's from the 50's STILL worked].

Then the discussion is ONLY about the SOUND of 44, 48, 88.1, 96, 192, and on into infinity without being clouded by other considerations.

Well, my ride is here. Nice chatting.

Old 27th September 2010 | Show parent
  #204
Here for the gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➑️
The biggest improvement for me has always been between 44.1 and 48.
+1

In the non-dynamic world of pop/rock where I live I would probably be happier at 48/16 than 44/24.


96 is luxury. Elegant and sweet in any production including a couple of guys in a room and some few overdubs, but above that track count I have to say I will go for 48 because of the advantages in workflow.
Old 27th September 2010 | Show parent
  #205
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
btw---I USE 44/24. Gimme a reliable reason not to and I'll consider switching.


[What's that Ma'? But I don't want to go...]

Old 1st November 2010 | Show parent
  #206
Lives for gear
 
StarfishMusic'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.

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.
What about usb flash drives? So cheap and small these days. No moving parts. A little bit inefficient cost vs storage space but cheap enough you can just charge them? Solidstate right? Must last indefinietely as will burnt dvdrs?
Old 1st November 2010 | Show parent
  #207
Lives for gear
 
jitterybit's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
192 sounds so much better in earbuds than 44.1.
heh
Old 1st November 2010 | Show parent
  #208
Lives for gear
 
mmcfarlane's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarfishMusic ➑️
What about usb flash drives? So cheap and small these days. No moving parts. A little bit inefficient cost vs storage space but cheap enough you can just charge them? Solidstate right? Must last indefinietely as will burnt dvdrs?
DVD-R's are not a permanent storage media. I've had some fail in just a few months. Pressed DVDs (for example a movie you buy) will last a long time but computer burned DVDs use a dye that degrades over time. There are archival DVDs that are designed to last longer, and are more expensive, but the condition of the drive that burns the DVD can also affect the longevity. I don't have detailed statistics but I have had a lot of DVDs and CDs fail after 6 months of temperature / humidity controlled storage.

I don't have any life expectancy details on flash drives, but again I suspect it depends on the quality of the device. 10 years seems to be a common claim.

http://www.corsair.com/_faq/FAQ_flas...r_leveling.pdf
Old 11th November 2010 | Show parent
  #209
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Sky ➑️
I can't argue the maths... But I know a cymbal or a hihat sounds smoother a 96khz than at 48 (using high quality converters in both cases), even if my conscious hearing range is the same in both SR. And that even if I perceive the same freq response for the snare attack, 96 sounds closer to the actual microphone without any AD/DA. I doesn't sound brighter, it sounds more real. I perceive more depth of field. So maybe there's more to it than our conscious freq range...

Peace,
96k has nice detail and cymbals sound great, no doubt. But I feel a loss of punch in the midrange. I can hear the texture of a snare a bit more clearly, but I can't feel it like at 44/48. I've switched from 44.1 to 48k which for me represents a good trade off between detail and punch. Actually, I now think, as Dan Lavry has said, that 60k would be the ideal rate.
Old 4th November 2011 | Show parent
  #210
Deleted ff086b4
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sutton ➑️
Official? Somebody forget to tell me.
It's not official until I've been officially notified.
I'll let you know when that happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamk ➑️
What is this guy talking about CD's not being manufactured after 2012? Maybe your smoking a little to much of the potz!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kheftel ➑️
I am also interested in hearing about whether CDs will continue to be manufactured after 2012.
Well, its been almost 3 years since this thread was started. And it looks like my "crazy theory" of CD's being abandoned in 2012 is starting to come true...

CD-format to be abandoned by major labels by the end of 2012 - Industrial Music Facebook news at SIDE-LINE.COM

Oh, how the times they are a-changin'.
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