Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - Page 8 - 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 4th November 2011 | Show parent
  #211
Gear Head
 
🎧 5 years
That article appears to be speculation only, journalists have a tendency to make up crap like that for the sake of something to write. It contains nothing from the major labels saying they plan to abandon the CD format.
Old 4th November 2011 | Show parent
  #212
Lives for gear
 
Zep Dude's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidH ➑️
That article appears to be speculation only, journalists have a tendency to make up crap like that for the sake of something to write. It contains nothing from the major labels saying they plan to abandon the CD format.
It doesn't matter if CD's are abandoned or not, actually I'd rather see them go. Once it is digital it's just 0's and 1's. Franky, it's to our advantage to get rid of CD's which are locked into the old 44.1/16 bit format. Online you can already purchase higher resolution version of records from HD Tracks etc.

CD's might end up just being something that people can hand out (or sell) at live shows, but even then people will just take them home, rip them and throw them out. Better will be to just give or sell memory sticks with the data.

Streaming music from clouds is the future and as time goes by resolution will increase. I'm sure the HD Tracks high resolution companies will eventually offer HD streaming (if Spotify doesn't do it first as a premium membership).
Old 5th November 2011 | Show parent
  #213
Lives for gear
 
stardustmedia's Avatar
The times already changing pretty much... I myself don't burn any CDs anymore. In the dance techno house scene, everything goes by MP3. There are still people buying vinyl, but CDs are done. If you have it digital, it's easier to play it thru Scratch or Traktor than fiddeling around with CDs.
Old 5th November 2011
  #214
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World ➑️
There are threads already on this topic; I am not as interested in why you record at the sample rate, but to get a feel on the percentage of users at the different sample rates they use.

If you have a Dual or Quad computer, I think for most you would have enough power to record at the higher sample rate. But when you bring down the SRC from 88/96 to 44, you do loose some quality so I understand why many just stay at 44. I have heard the argument that some plug ins are optizmed at the higher sample rate, while others say it takes up too much hard drive space, or unless you buy a Weiss SRC, it's not worth it. In my setup I clearly hear an improved top end at the higher sample rates, but when you bring it down to 44, the small difference does not merit the higher rate........for me. As was posted on another thread, the mic placement, EQ and compression settings make more of a difference than the sample rate.
actually i record at 192

within voltage resolution and clock jitter limitations
the higher the sample rate the better the a/d/a

but if you clip limit compress and beat the crap out of your content with bad fx then it really doesnt matter.
Old 6th November 2011
  #215
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
24/48 sounds good to me
Old 9th November 2011 | Show parent
  #216
Gear Nut
 
🎧 15 years
DSD for me...High res all the way.Great converters,monitoring,room,ears,whats not to love....Listen to 2Ls recordings,Telarcs,and now 5/4 productions. OOh WEEEEE.
Old 9th November 2011 | Show parent
  #217
Gear Maniac
 
sparrow's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
24/88 here and loving every bit of it
Old 9th November 2011
  #218
Gear Nut
 
alooker's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
track at 44.1/24bit, with the number of projects it's all about disk space and the ability to actually play back the track (these are not simple sessions and on hd5). Majority of work is mixing though, and we stick to what the label/artist/producer has sent over, very rarely we get above 48kHz. Sessions for TV are 48kHz, and for some reason more of the US sessions we get are at 48 than UK, no idea why though!
Old 23rd December 2011
  #219
Gear Head
 
wyattscott's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Per Dan Lavry, audio engineering super genius's white paper on sample rates on the Lavry website:

"Sampling (i.e. recording, audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.
While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data
transmission speed requirements).

2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates.

The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true."

Sampling Theory Page 27
Copyright
Old 23rd December 2011
  #220
Lives for gear
 
Circuitt's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
[/QUOTE] CDs never should have become the standard.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean MP3's. I kid
Old 23rd December 2011 | Show parent
  #221
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by tridelica ➑️
My mixes in Cubase, at 92/32, sound great. On CD, not so great.
Higher resolution is better, and it will be de rigeur in the future.
Also, when a person is tracking and mixing ITB, it makes sense to have maximum resolution until it is time to print to a stereo master.
Don't contaminate high-resolution audio until you have to.
Ever notice how sometimes DVDs and Blu-rays sound so damn good. That's because of the higher resolution, I assume. CDs never should have become the standard.
Are you talking about DVD-A?

Because the soundtrack to regular DVDs are encoded using dts or Dolby Pro Logic systems. Kind of like a better quality MP3. How good the audio actually is depends on how much space has been allocated for it by the DVD production team.

However, it will NEVER be as good quality as a pure 16bit/44.1k CD. Even on a Bluray film.

I'm no expert in this, but I do occasionally work for a DVD production company, covering their inhouse guy, so I know the processes that go on. There is nothing "hi resolution" about the audio on a DVD or even bluray disk.

If you're talking about purely audio DVD-A or if there's an equivalent Bluray format, fair enough - however, most of us haven't heard those!

Without wanting to be condescending, if your mixes don't translate to 16/44.1, work on them until they do, because most likely they won't translate to small speakers, club systems etc either. The best mixes work on everything from mobile phones to club PAs, within the limitations of those systems - and even as crap quality MP3s.
Old 23rd December 2011 | Show parent
  #222
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➑️
...I'm no expert in this, but I do occasionally work for a DVD production company, covering their inhouse guy, so I know the processes that go on. There is nothing "hi resolution" about the audio on a DVD or even bluray disk....
Then they are lazy hacks! Yes, Dolby digital is required however 48x24 and 96x24 PCM are supported by all DVD players.
Old 24th December 2011 | Show parent
  #223
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson ➑️
Then they are lazy hacks! Yes, Dolby digital is required however 48x24 and 96x24 PCM are supported by all DVD players.
I wouldn't normally disagree with you Bob, but I can categorically state that you're wrong here!

First of all - we're talking about a division of a major media company here - the've got offices in 4 countries, do many major film, TV and concert releases for all the major labels and film companies - Universal, Sony Pictures etc. I can't put a figure on it, but I'd wager as high as 1 in 4 major DVD releases are done by one of their branches. Hardly hacks!

Secondly, think about all the audio that goes onto a DVD. conservatively, with a 90min film you have a 5.1 soundtrack. Plus you might have 3-4 alternative 5.1 streams - alternate languages, directors commentary, etc etc. Plus any special features. Plus menu audio. Often there's a dedicated 2.0 soundtrack in each language as well, sometimes they just "fold down" the 5.1 mix.

Now - audio is a distant second to visuals in the DVD production world, just as in computer games. Uncompressed audio at 16/44.1 is roughly 10Mb/stereo minute. Which makes 30MB/multichannel minute. So that's 2.7GB/90mins, if my maths works correctly (after all, a 650MB CD is 70mins right?).

That's one soundtrack of 5.1. There could be 4 of these on one DVD. Given that one dual layer DVD is only up to 9GB, it's not going to be uncompressed audio, is it?

Obviously with Bluray, there's more space to play with and less compression needed (but of course, most of that extra space goes to video). If there's less different options needed on the 5.1 (for example, maybe there's only a full length English soundtrack, plus directors commentary, and subtitles for the rest) then the audio is encoded at a higher rate.

And of course, I'm not talking about DVD-A, where the whole disk is for audio.

But the idea that a standard DVD video or a Bluray is "higher resolution" than CD is totally and utterly wrong. That's what I was refuting, not the idea that DVD is incapable of supporting higher res audio.

When encoding a DVD you generally start off from 16b/48k files (yep, not even 24bit - most of the time the audio is supplied as 16b/48k. I've not seen anything different yet, although as stated my experience is limited. I assume occasionally 24bit is supplied). you then plug these files into the dts or dolby pro logic encoder, tell it what settings you require (depending on what the production staff have asked for) and it spits out a series of files that are the encoded, compressed soundtrack. Lossy compression, so no longer "full CD quality".

This is how it works - I've seen it done, done it myself as well. The idea that DVDs/Bluray are "high resolution audio" is marketing I'm afraid.
Old 27th December 2011 | Show parent
  #224
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zep Dude ➑️
It doesn't matter if CD's are abandoned or not, actually I'd rather see them go. Once it is digital it's just 0's and 1's. Franky, it's to our advantage to get rid of CD's which are locked into the old 44.1/16 bit format. Online you can already purchase higher resolution version of records from HD Tracks etc.
Many HDtracks files are nothing but upsampled 16/44.1 or worse. Selling them in a 24/96 package does not make them sound better. There has been some protests over this, but only after people have started to analyze the frequency range of those 24/96 files. This also means that it is more important to believe that they are High-Rez than that they actually are, as customers can not notice the lack of high-rez by ear...

CD is not the ideal way to distribute digital audio, that is true. They are just files. The other side of the coin is that it is easier to loose a file than a physical disk, and that disk has also the booklet. Also some people like to resell their disks at some point, selling a downloaded file is not all that popular yet.

Oh, the Question: 24/88.2. 24 bits for safety, 88.2 for cowardice (people might think I do not hear the difference).
Old 29th December 2011 | Show parent
  #225
Lives for gear
 
PaulMac's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
44.1kHz for the majority of projects e.g. rock bands.
88.2kHz for bands that will end up with more dynamic range in the end.
96kHz for orchestral film scores and foley.
48kHz for most other film scores.
Old 30th December 2011
  #226
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I've been considering going under 88.2....It would gain me a lot of tracks and squeeze processing power for sure. My thing is I've tested plugs at 88.2/96khz and there seems to be a big difference with some plugs and eqs that sound very different to me. For me it has nothing to do with the audio and would mean less if I used mostly analog comps and eqs. However, that's not the case and the difference between 41/44 and 88.2/96 with plugs seems to be something going on under the hood. It wasn't one of those I can barely tell the difference things either. It was so drastic in some cases with some plugins I would probably make different decisions...that startled me a bit. It has been about 2 years though since I tested it and have had a upgrade in clock and converters.
Old 2nd August 2012 | Show parent
  #227
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
resampling back down to 44.1

For those of you who record at 24/48, 24/88.2, or 24/96 due to perceived audio improvements compared to 44.1, if your final medium is 16/44.1 for CDs, and you are mixing ITB, what in-house re-sampling have you found to be effective?

For example, I am using Samplitude.
Could I expect to have better final results for a project recorded and mixed at 24/48 and resampled down to 44.1 than if I did everything originally at 44.1?

(So far, I've always worked at 24/44.1)

And -- is it best to reserve down sampling for a final 2-track mix (essentially as part of mastering), rather than to down-sample every individual track? (I'm not talking time considerations, which has an obvious answer, but rather bandwidth and sound quality).

Love to hear what ITB mixers/masterers (i.e. 1 person studios) are doing here, that are not sending out to analog desks or Sterling Mastering.

Thanks, Craig
Old 3rd August 2012 | Show parent
  #228
Lives for gear
 
rocksure's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyattscott ➑️
Per Dan Lavry, audio engineering super genius's white paper on sample rates on the Lavry website:

"Sampling (i.e. recording, audio signals at 192KHz is about 3 times faster than the optimal rate. It compromises the accuracy which ends up as audio distortions.
While there is no up side to operation at excessive speeds, there are further disadvantages:

1. The increased speed causes larger amount of data (impacting data storage and data
transmission speed requirements).

2. Operating at 192KHz causes a very significant increase in the required processing
power, resulting in very costly gear and/or further compromise in audio quality.
The optimal sample rate should be largely based on the required signal bandwidth. Audio
industry salesman have been promoting faster than optimal rates.

The promotion of such ideas is based on the fallacy that faster rates yield more accuracy and/or more detail. Weather motivated by profit or ignorance, the promoters, leading the industry in the wrong direction, are stating the opposite of what is true."

Sampling Theory Page 27
Copyright

Hmmm.....this is a very interesting quote. Thanks for posting it when you did. I've only just seen it now. A good read.
Old 3rd August 2012 | Show parent
  #229
BOP
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
I prefer 96KHz but mostly because I am used to preferring high resolution sources in whatever I do, be it photo, video or audio. More data to operate on seems better in theory as long as the workstation can handle it and mine can.

I have enough storage too for it and I am relatively new to the idea of running a place of my own so I have no workflow to alter really.

Why not be future proof to some extent? We might not hear everything changing at all times but that does not mean that a piece of gear is not operating differently just because it gets fed a bigger range of frequencies which we cannot hear.

I am sure that it took a lot of time for some to move from 16 bits to 24 bits at one point for tracking and there where similar discussions about the price of dither.

Personal studios (which could be million dollar facilities, mind you) have the luxury of going for the little advantage at the price of time or workflow at times.
People who make most of their bread working for clients operate differently.

I'm comfortable using 96 without a/b ing the reasoning much, especially in a world where people pay 3 grand for a single "directional" cable
Old 3rd August 2012
  #230
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
still happy with 44/16.

I am anal about input levels anyway and I fix problems at the source, so I gain absolutely nothing with higher sample and bit rates.

Tried 96/24 quite a few times and the sound I get is indistinguishable from 44/16
Old 3rd August 2012
  #231
Lives for gear
 
mdoelger's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I record at 24/44.1

I also can't really distinguish between 96 and lower sample rates.

However, I use 24 so I don't need to be so "anal about levels".
Old 3rd August 2012 | Show parent
  #232
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➑️
Without wanting to be condescending, if your mixes don't translate to 16/44.1, work on them until they do, because most likely they won't translate to small speakers, club systems etc either. The best mixes work on everything from mobile phones to club PAs, within the limitations of those systems - and even as crap quality MP3s.
This! +100000

when it doesn't sound right, the sample/bit rate is NEVER* the problem.

__
*) as long as it is no less than 44/16
Old 3rd August 2012 | Show parent
  #233
Lives for gear
 
rocksure's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv ➑️
still happy with 44/16.

I am anal about input levels anyway and I fix problems at the source, so I gain absolutely nothing with higher sample and bit rates.

Tried 96/24 quite a few times and the sound I get is indistinguishable from 44/16
I can certainly understand why you would want to record at 44.1k....but why you would want to record at 16 bit when you have the option of 24 bits surprises me.
The dynamic range of 24-bit recording is theoretically about 144dB. With 16-bit it is only 96dB.
Old 3rd August 2012 | Show parent
  #234
Lives for gear
 
filipv's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksure ➑️
I can certainly understand why you would want to record at 44.1k....but why you would want to record at 16 bit when you have the option of 24 bits surprises me.
The dynamic range of 24-bit recording is theoretically about 144dB. With 16-bit it is only 96dB.
96 dB is already bellow my analog noisefloor, so no point going even further down, rly... increasing bit depth does precisely nothing. unless I want to record static noise, which I don't

16bit vs 24bit with regards to the noisefloor

Last edited by filipv; 3rd August 2012 at 09:27 AM.. Reason: just found this thread
Old 3rd August 2012
  #235
Lives for gear
 
phas3d's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Actually it will allow you to record without needing compressors at a lower level. Can be very handy if you record acoustic instruments, specially if the musician has trouble with with dynamics in his performance. Also because the resulting sound wave from digitalization is the result of the interpolation between bit depth and sampling rate will also give you more precision at the DA conversion stage. As an example compare a 8bit/44.1KHz sample with the same one at 16bit/44.1KHz.
Old 3rd August 2012 | Show parent
  #236
Gear Addict
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I just did a project and some how 1/2 way thru basic tracking with the same exact set up of mics etc., I switched from 88.2 to 44.1. I didn't realize it til the next day, so now 1/2 of the songs were done at 24 bit 88.2, the other half at 24 bit 44.1. The artist hasnt noticed any difference in sonic quality between tracks, and honestly the differences I hear are very subtle perhaps even placebo effect. I do notice the drums sound a little more 3 dimensional at the higher sample rates. But that could also be teh drumheads loosening later in the day. The jury is still out, but mentally at least I prefer 88.2
Old 4th August 2012 | Show parent
  #237
Lives for gear
 
DarkSky Media's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by phas3d ➑️
Actually it will allow you to record without needing compressors at a lower level...
Exactly. With 16 bit recordings, you have next-to-no headroom - any overs more than a few db will clip (while if you give yourself more leeway it costs you in noise floor at mix time). With 24 bit capture you can set VU reference levels conservatively to allow serious headroom, yet still capture the full dynamic range that the performers/instruments/mics/pres deliver.


Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv ➑️
96 dB is already bellow my analog noisefloor, so no point going even further down, rly... increasing bit depth does precisely nothing. unless I want to record static noise, which I don't

16bit vs 24bit with regards to the noisefloor
Curiously, the thread your link points to spells out the precise opposite of your "increasing bit depth does precisely nothing" summation - instead, tINY gives a patient and clear explanation of why the reverse is true. Ie with 16 bit recordings, digital constraints are the limiting factor, whereas they aren't with 24 bit.
Old 4th August 2012 | Show parent
  #238
Lives for gear
 
rocksure's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by filipv ➑️
96 dB is already bellow my analog noisefloor, so no point going even further down, rly... increasing bit depth does precisely nothing. unless I want to record static noise, which I don't

16bit vs 24bit with regards to the noisefloor

I don't follow what you are getting at here when you say 96 dB is already below your noise floor.
Chances are if you are recording at 16 bit your noise floor will be eating well into that 96 dB range. If you record at 24 bit and have a potential 144 dB dynamic range...that is going to leave you with far more potential "dynamic range" to play with before you hit your noise flooor. So, this means you can afford to gain stage properly
without needing to record anywhere near as close to 0dBFS as you need to do at 16 bit.
Old 4th August 2012
  #239
Lives for gear
 
Arksun's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I like recording some sounds at 96K which I know I'm going to put in a sampler and possibly play at much slower speed, which thus reduces the pitch and brings down the higher frequencies that are out of the audible range normally into the audible range. Cool for sound fx type stuff.
Old 5th August 2012 | Show parent
  #240
BOP
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arksun ➑️
I like recording some sounds at 96K which I know I'm going to put in a sampler and possibly play at much slower speed, which thus reduces the pitch and brings down the higher frequencies that are out of the audible range normally into the audible range. Cool for sound fx type stuff.
Interesting point.

This is connected to what I was saying in my previous post about going 96 just in case the plugins react differently.
If we have some higher end preamps and converters designed to roll off at frequencies way higher (I remember reading about 40, 60 and higher khz) than the limit of human hearing because rolling of lower would spill over into affecting the frequencies that we can hear - then in theory the same thing could happen with plugins and the recorded frequency and dynamic range.

Sound becomes math and then you operate on that math. It does not seem improbable that supplied with more data a plugin would react a bit different even in ways not expected by it's designers given the complexity of some plugins and the fact that most are made to simulate analog gear.

I think it is safe to say that sooner or later we will have to do higher sample rates. It is only a manner of time when listening to super high sample rate stuff becomes the next big thing after audio cables worth more than their weight in gold anyway, or maybe not
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 615182
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 55 views: 32243
Avatar for IM WHO YOU THINK
IM WHO YOU THINK 13th October 2020
replies: 98 views: 39100
Avatar for dfghdhr
dfghdhr 5th June 2021
replies: 1296 views: 181653
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