Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - Page 9 - 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 5th August 2012 | Show parent
  #241
Lives for gear
 
rocksure's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 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.

To do this then surely you need to have microphones that can capture sound above 24k. Which mics do you use that can do that? I have read that some of the top sound designers recording at 192k, saying it is particularly applicable for slowing down sound effects for film. I'm not really sure I understand the reasoning for that though myself.
Old 5th August 2012
  #242
Reviews Editor
 
Diogo C's Avatar
Mixing at 88.2 right now and it sounds better to my ears. As some of you already pointed out, there seems to be something working under the hood on the plugins that greatly benefits from higher sample rates.
Old 5th August 2012
  #243
Lives for gear
 
scruffydog's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
44.1 at 24bit
Old 19th September 2016
  #244
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
44.1 / 24bit sounds the best to me
Old 19th September 2016
  #245
Gear Maniac
 
Useg DG's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
44.1 24 bit.

I recently listen to an album that that I had mixed for some Haitian clients in the States that had been recorded on ADAT'S that sounded amazing (can't take credit for Mike Fullers mastering magic) and the ADAT converters are not even 24 bit if I recall correctly.

Maybe there is some slight improvement for people working with classical music or film where there is a need for an increased dynamic range; but I seriously doubt that the average end recipient in a movie theater would notice a substantial difference if the move soundtrack he or she listen to was delivered in 44.1 instead of whatever other sampling rates are floating around there.

I find these sampling rate discourses to be sort of like political or legal jargon where a whole bunch of complicating words are used in order to disguise the truth; for a group of people to separate themselves from others and feel special with their "expert knowledge".

It is not like people in a night club are going to say "wow can you here the Neve pre amp on the baseline and the API compressor on the snare" if you know what I mean......



Sincerely,
Useg Diaz-Granados
www.oversightentertainment.se
Old 20th September 2016 | Show parent
  #246
Gear Maniac
 
OhioGreg's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grazi ➑️
44.1 / 24bit sounds the best to me
Same here!
Old 7th December 2016 | Show parent
  #247
Gear Maniac
 
evilgrill's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
22.05 kHz / 8 Bit

Sounds OK on my phone.
















Seriously though... 44.1/24 has been the standard choice for punk and metal stuff.

Mixed a solo project at 88.2 once. Sounded better.
Old 8th December 2016 | Show parent
  #248
Lives for gear
 
chrisdee's Avatar
 
9 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
96khz. Sounds cleaner and more open than 44 and 48 on my system. Avid Omni + Hd800
Old 8th December 2016 | Show parent
  #249
70% Coffee, 30% Beer
 
Doc Mixwell's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I use 44.1 at my studio for the most part,
but I do some work at 88 or 96, and we usually record location work for classical at 192K, but ever since I got a try out the Merging Hapi/Horus DSD setups I am in love with DSD256 now. It sounds absolutely amazing to me.

So, I sort of use them all when I want to.
Old 8th December 2016
  #250
Gear Guru
Location mini recorder = 44.1k for easy CD prep. Multitrack = 96k, I mix analog into 44.1 for CD prep.
Old 8th December 2016
  #251
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
If a system gives a clean 44.1 with good filtering of any frequencies above, it can be a benefit to not have the chance of accidentally baking any RF type interference, high frequency oscillations, etc., which may not necessarily be perceived on monitors. Especially when it comes to further processing.
Old 8th December 2016
  #252
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
A lot of converter chips use a single filter for both 44 and 48 with 48 being optimum. I've also found plug-ins that sound better at 48 than at 44.1 or 88.2. In the professional world 48k has been the standard all along and many were arguing for 50 or 60 at the time it was adopted.

We got 44.1 because we could record and edit it on video tape without a mainframe computer and the video could be transferred to a Philips video disk format that could be replicated in a vinyl plant. Nobody with any engineering know-how has ever claimed 44.1 was "perfect." It was considered "good enough" for distribution of a final product but not for production. You can record to MP3 too, buy why?
Old 8th December 2016
  #253
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
It's interesting to make the difference between 44.1k and 48k a place to draw a line, but everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I've heard plenty of recordings done at 44.1 that make my socks roll up and down, and have no apparent shortcomings. And surpass recordings done at "better" rates. At that point I have to acknowledge the reality of those observations and spend my time on things that make more apparent sonic differences.

The thing about recording at 48k, when it was more relevant, was that in that era the downsampling process tended to sound rougher, so you would probably try to capture at 44.1 after a D/A for the final distribution format and bypass SRC altogether, maybe after some more analog processing. Whether or not that's a better scenario is arguable.

In this era, I think it's really splitting hairs.
Old 9th December 2016 | Show parent
  #254
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 ➑️
...
I've heard plenty of recordings done at 44.1 that make my socks roll up and down, and have no apparent shortcomings. And surpass recordings done at "better" rates.
I could say that about cassette recordings too.
that doesn't argue that we should adopt cassettes as our professional format of choice.

those SAME recordings (done by those people in that place and at that moment) if done at 48k or 96k would certainly have the same emotional impact... and might very well have sounded better.

other than standing with hands on hips to prove a point, "these days" when hard rive space is cheap and computers are powerful, what possible REASON is there to choose 44.1 over 48 or 96?
Old 9th December 2016
  #255
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Because it's basically equivalent anyway. And the aforementioned possibilities of recording ultrasonic oscillations, RF and similar phenomena, that you don't want to inject into subsequent DSP.

Last edited by toledo3; 9th December 2016 at 08:03 AM..
Old 9th December 2016
  #256
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Also, you *could* say that about cassettes, but you'd be making a bad analogy that in no way holds water.

Come on. Cassettes?

To illustrate the difference between 44.1 and 48? Give me a break.

Personally, I've recorded at 96k for years, but have been recording at 44.1 for a few months and noticed no difference, aside from more effective usage of DSP/RAM.

But to go back to Bob and your point about 48 vs 44.1 - If it's really an apparent difference between 44.1 and 48, then nobody who wants to bitch about it should have a problem telling the difference between two files at those different sample rates. But I'll go ahead and wait forever for that one to happen...

Last edited by toledo3; 9th December 2016 at 08:03 AM..
Old 9th December 2016 | Show parent
  #257
Lives for gear
 
Brian Campbell's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I work mainly in post so 48k for scoring, but I do all recording at 48k. The exception is overdubs on outside projects that are at different sample rates, the majority of which are 44.1.
Old 9th December 2016 | Show parent
  #258
Moderator
 
Trev@Circle's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
24/48 here unless asked for something else.
Old 9th December 2016
  #259
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
I've been defaulting to 88, on my dual-core MacBook Pro. But then I bought the Waves Abbey Road Plates.. what a CPU hog! Now I'm looking into 48KHz.. Oy.
Old 9th December 2016
  #260
Lives for gear
 
climber's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
So... Were CD's officially obsolete in 2012?

24/48 for recording and mixing.
Old 9th December 2016
  #261
Gear Head
 
Miraclesleeper's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Recently I've been trying 96k for a change but have decided that I don't like the sound as much. At first I thought it was better because it definitely sounds like there is more detail being captured, however, it sounds brighter and the bass is different, it sounds tighter but not quite as fat. I seemed to get a lot of ear fatigue working at 96. It's like there is too much information. Of course you just mix to compensate and end up with the results you want anyway but it's not worth the headache imo.

Always recorded at 44.1 before that but a few days ago I did a mix at 48k and is was the fastest I've ever worked, nailed the mix on the 2nd go. Not sure if it has anything to do with it but I think 48 just has that extra bit of detail and things seem to sit better. I believe I read somewhere that the perfect sample rate is actually somewhere in between 50 and 60 so it makes sense as 48 is the closest to that. Going to work at 48 from now on.
Old 9th December 2016 | Show parent
  #262
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by climber ➑️
So... Were CD's officially obsolete in 2012? ...
They are no longer included with new computers which was the biggest CD player market.
Old 10th December 2016 | Show parent
  #263
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miraclesleeper ➑️
it sounds brighter and the bass is different, it sounds tighter but not quite as fat.

96k is the new 30ips
Old 10th December 2016 | Show parent
  #264
Deleted e68ee4e
Guest
96/ 24-32bit. Gives me more room to play.

44.1 gets dirty, quicker to my ears.
Old 10th December 2016 | Show parent
  #265
Gear Head
 
Miraclesleeper's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle ➑️
96k is the new 30ips

Good comparison, I seem to prefer 15 ips with tape too, though I haven't tried the real thing. Going by the UAD ampex
Old 10th December 2016
  #266
Gear Head
 
Atomick's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I'm on the 24b/96k tip, not because I can consciously hear the difference, but because I was latitude for potentially extreme processing, hard drives are cheap, and you only live once.
Old 11th December 2016 | Show parent
  #267
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by toledo3 ➑️

Personally, I've recorded at 96k for years, but have been recording at 44.1 for a few months and noticed no difference, aside from more effective usage of DSP/RAM......
then that's what you should do

but you "noticing no difference" isn't the same as there being no audible difference to others.


I didn't say 44.1 'sounds like a cassette'
I said, people made records on cassettes that had incredible emotional impact and no one cared they were made on cassettes.

the point remains that arguing 'sound quality doesn't matter' or even 'little differences in sound quality don't matter' is an entirely DIFFERENT discussion than 'which format SOUNDS BETTER'
Old 11th December 2016
  #268
Lives for gear
 
thismercifulfate's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
48k if I think I'm going to exceed 128 tracks, 88 or 96 for everything else. I've never tried 192... I should give it a shot for something like solo piano recordings sometime.
Old 11th December 2016 | Show parent
  #269
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
The one I NEVER understand is 88.2

If you can afford the disc space for 88 you can afford 96.
88 is based on superstition in today's world. (I.e., no software ever 'divides by two' to convert to 44.1)

88.2 has no reason to exist.
Old 11th December 2016 | Show parent
  #270
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwittman ➑️
The one I NEVER understand is 88.2

If you can afford the disc space for 88 you can afford 96.
88 is based on superstition in today's world. (I.e., no software ever 'divides by two' to convert to 44.1)

88.2 has no reason to exist.
The only reason for 88.2 is that for a while in the '90s the best sounding sample rate conversion available was the Pacific Microsonics model one that could only do 2 to 1 conversions. The idea that 2 to 1 conversions are "better" has been utter nonsense for more than twenty years.
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