Quantcast
What sample rate do you record at? - 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 27th January 2009
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
What sample rate do you record at?

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.
Old 27th January 2009
  #2
Gear Guru
 
NathanEldred's Avatar
 
7 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
44.1
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
bash's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
The poll would be more informative if you included bit depth, too.

44.1/24 bit.
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
I have an 8 core Mac Pro and PT HD and still I record at 24bit/44.1kHz. Let the salesmen argue about higher rates.thumbsup
Old 27th January 2009
  #5
Gear Nut
 
🎧 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.

Ever since moving to the DAW from my Yamaha MTX8 its been a struggle - my distorted guitars never sounded as good as what I was able to get on cassette with the Yamaha POS.

Recently I tried 96k with my Rosetta 200 and it actually sounds pretty good. NIGHT AND DAY difference - can't believe it!

For ~$1k you can get the Weiss SRC software. Its well worth it to me - I will never track digital again @ 44k.

Good luck,

hotshot
Old 27th January 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Head
 
🎧 10 years
You might want to add "44.1 for CD and 48 for DVD/5.1" to your poll.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I do 24/96 because I can, not that I seem to get any quality benefit from it (96, that is). Just in case somebody, for some reason asks for it.

For final delivery at 16/44 or 16/48 I do not need 96 kHz sample rate.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Deleted ff086b4
Guest
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!
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I still record at 44 or 48k.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #10
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 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.

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 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".

Make art, not 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!

At last there's some common sense to this topic!

Imagine if the Beatles recorded on cheap equipment simply because the kids in those days were listening to music on Fisher Price turntables? There would be nothing left for posterity.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #11
Deleted ff086b4
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➑️
I still record at 44 or 48k.
But is this because you hear no substansial difference between 44 and 96 or because you are concerned about the strain it will put on a system when you start getting into higher track counts?

With the system I have I can manage around 64 tracks at 96 and thats fine for the style of music I tend to record. The odd time I might have to bounce a small number of tracks. I know you've had a successful career Tony so if you are comfortable doing what you do then there's not much I can say except that my point is if we have the resources to record at a higher fidelity then we owe it to ourselves, the musicians, and the artform itself to do just that.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Avery ➑️
But is this because you hear no substansial difference between 44 and 96 or because you are concerned about the strain it will put on a system when you start getting into higher track counts?
My CPU is fine... but, I just don't feel the need to eat up twice the hard drive space.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Deleted ff086b4
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plugin ➑️
At last there's some common sense to this topic!

Imagine if the Beatles recorded on cheap equipment simply because the kids in those days were listening to music on Fisher Price turntables? There would be nothing left for posterity.
Posterity is important. The problem is a common arguement put forward by people against higher sample rates usually runs as follows: "well, recording at higher sample rates does not at all guarantee posterity because hard drives may become corrupt and even hard drives which are 10 years old cause problems" etc etc.

Yes, the song is in the digital realm and may run the risk of becoming corrupt, just as a song played back on analog tape may not play in 50 years time due to shedding.

But consider this... if a song is actually any good it will spread and be heard by many different people, and if it is recorded at high sample rates and distributed via the net in a lossless FLAC format, then that automatically assures that the song is backed up on countless hard drives around the country, world, whatever, and at a fidelity which is as close to the original source as possible. Oh, the wonders of the Internet!

Just the very fact that a song is actually GOOD, and distributed via the net in a lossless format, will mean it will be preserved for posterity. OK, something may happen to the individual studio tracks which comprise a song if you are not careful, but the master recording of the final song will be safe and snug on many hard drives around the world, and unless there is some catastrophic flux in the earth's magnetic field I doubt every single one of those hard drives are going to become corrupt anytime soon!

Of course, all of the above only applies if the music is good. If it's not, well then who cares about posterity?!
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
taturana's Avatar
 
12 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➑️
My CPU is fine... but, I just don't feel the need to eat up twice the hard drive space.
+1
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Deleted ff086b4
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➑️
My CPU is fine... but, I just don't feel the need to eat up twice the hard drive space.
Lately I've been backing up songs with large track counts and high sample rates on external hard drives. Backing up a song recorded at any sample rate is a good habit to get into of course and with hard drives at such low prices these days it allows me to back up each song on its own separate hard drive, sometimes I might back up one song on 2 different hard drives just for peace of mind if I decide to free up space on the host computer.

You can spend just 500 dollars per album on external hard drives, giving you 7 or 8 hard drives, each with large GB capacity, and each hard drive can contain back ups of 1 or 2 projects recorded at high sample rates. It gives you and the musicians peace of mind and allows you to use your host DAW to record at any sample rate you choose without having to worry about hard drive space.

500 dollars - people spend alot more than that on analog tape per album!
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Deleted ff086b4
Guest
By the way, I'd like to say that I find it VERY hard to hear a difference between 96khz and 192khz, and can completely understand if someone chooses not to record at 192.

I think the benefits of 96khz are worth striving for though if one has the resources.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
cavern's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
24/44.1

tried them all the way to 192.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #18
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
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. Backing up a song recorded at any sample rate is a good habit to get into of course and with hard drives at such low prices these days it allows me to back up each song on its own separate hard drive, sometimes I might back up one song on 2 different hard drives just for peace of mind if I decide to free up space on the host computer.

You can spend just 500 dollars per album on external hard drives, giving you 7 or 8 hard drives, each with large GB capacity, and each hard drive can contain back ups of 1 or 2 projects recorded at high sample rates. It gives you and the musicians peace of mind and allows you to use your host DAW to record at any sample rate you choose without having to worry about hard drive space.

500 dollars - people spend alot more than that on analog tape per album!
I have enough hard drives to keep track of... I can fit twice as many songs on the same hard drive at the lower rates. It's just better for my own workflow.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Addict
 
magnet's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Lately i've been doing everything at 24/96 and I am clear that it sounds much, much better than 24/44.1 or 24/48.
And I just love the sound of 24/192 but I only work at that rate when I'm recording a soloist.


best wishes
magnet
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Registered User
 
Rick Sutton's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Avery ➑️
Considering the fact that CDs will officially stop being manufactured in 2012
Official? Somebody forget to tell me.
It's not official until I've been officially notified.
I'll let you know when that happens.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Glenn Bucci's Avatar
 
42 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by James_Avery ➑️
By the way, I'd like to say that I find it VERY hard to hear a difference between 96khz and 192khz, and can completely understand if someone chooses not to record at 192.

I think the benefits of 96khz are worth striving for though if one has the resources.
I agree the higher sample rate sounds better, but the question is, unless you spend $1,000 on a Weiss SRC, does it makes sense to still use the higher sample rate, as when we go down to 44, we lose some of the quality we had at 96? I think that is the real sticking point. I have a home studio and I want to spend my money on other things that will benifit my studio more. Besides many pro recordings are done at 44 still.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
Glenn Bucci's Avatar
 
42 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont ➑️
I still record at 44 or 48k.
Do you believe there is a difference between 44 and 48 even with SRC back to 44? I believe the filters jump up a little that may give a better top end, but it's so hard to do a proper test and confirm this.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
malgfunk's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I mix @ 88.2/96 24 bit OTB and mixdown to a Tascam DV-RA1000HD in DSD format. I love it.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #24
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I use 48K. I figure, if there are any squirrley issues with the filter, this will make up for that. But it's not enough higher than 44.1K to make any noticeably difference in CPU load or disc storage. And it's DVD format so if you end up on DVD you are good there. And SRC is quite good these days, so I don't think it's much of an issue.

If you use big drum synths (I use BFD) or soft synths of various types, there's a huge jump in overhead between 44.1K or 48K and 88.2K or 96K. A big drum synth can eat up up the bulk of even a quad core machine at 96K if you are using high numbers of velocity layers (which is necessary for a realistic result.)

However, one thing I've considered is that, I've learned the hard way that I should ALWAYS do multiple test passes at a song. If I don't then I always regrets it later because there are so many little niceties that you don't think about until you've been through it one time and then listened back to it a bit.

In that case, if I'd already worked out the song well, and had all the drum processing worked out already, it would be reasonable for the final attack to just create an 88.2K project, import the existng drum setup to the new project (it's MIDI so the change in rate doesn't matter), then do a mixdown and freeze BFD, and then do the recorded audio. In that case, it would be feasible since I'd not need to be messing with BFD during the tracking.

Once tracking is done it's not a problem. Just crank the latency up and it can easily handle the load during mixing. It's just that need to monitor through the DAW at very low latency that makes BFD just chew up CPU like crazy at high sample rates.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #25
Gear Maniac
 
fuddfar's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
44.1 or 384(analog)
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
johnnybregar's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
The only problem with recording at 48 (or 96) for CD's is that the math involved in converting the sample rate to 44.1 is WAY more complex and is likely to have more errors and potentially more artifacts.

According to JJ Johnston, you're better off recording at 44.1 if you want to keep the sample rate smaller (for space reasons) and 88.2 if you don't care about space and want (debatably) higher quality.

If you're interested in the math, go here: Implementation.

Incidentally, it appears that a 10% increase in sampling rate (48 vs 44.1) decreases the work that needs to be done for the low pass filter at nyquist...
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnybregar ➑️
The only problem with recording at 48 (or 96) for CD's is that the math involved in converting the sample rate to 44.1 is WAY more complex and is likely to have more errors and potentially more artifacts.

According to JJ Johnston, you're better off recording at 44.1 if you want to keep the sample rate smaller (for space reasons) and 88.2 if you don't care about space and want (debatably) higher quality.

If you're interested in the math, go here: Implementation.

Incidentally, it appears that a 10% increase in sampling rate (48 vs 44.1) decreases the work that needs to be done for the low pass filter at nyquist...
I'm not so sure that this is a real issue anymore. It's been discussed many times before so I won't belabor this point here again.

Anyway, one thing I've never quite groked is that, if you can completely reproduce the wave from the original samples, and you absolutely can, then you should be able to just sample that virtual wave just like you do a real wave. If you do it in floating point form, then any aliasing it would seem would be microsopic.

So I don't see why you could not do effectively perfect sampling from any rate to another rate with effectively no artifacts. If you can reproduce the wave in order to play it back, then you can do the same for re-sampling. The math isn't that hard to take the original samples and effectively rebuild the wave and then 'virtually sample' it again, all digitally without loss.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
hi,

the original poster forgot to include 192khz [and 384khz for the pyramix guys].

i think the best way to go at it is to track at 192khz, or higher [if you are able], then mix down to stereo [or whatever format you are working in], with a console.

then you can record that mix back into the session at 192khz and keep that as your reference. you can also do as many other mixes as you like, at all the other sample rates, without having to do any sample rate conversion.

if you are using pro tools for your tracking, you just buy a copy of logic and some good stereo a to d to mix to. you can run it right alongside the pro tools session on modern computers, or you could run it on a laptop or something. you are just using it as a two track mixdown deck, so its no problem.

this way you can have first generation copies of your work at any / all sample rates.

i'm sure lots of people do it differently. however, in my opinion, it is disingenuous to try to justify recording at low sample rates by saying that the public doesn't care.


right.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
Glenn Bucci's Avatar
 
42 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
The original BFD's (which I own) were all sampled at 44, so your computer has to work harder to upload them to higher sample rates. I also own the XFL set but am not sure at what sample rate they were recorded at. I have not checked on Version 2, since I am so happy with version 1 all though I may buy the Andy John's set for BFD's.
I will have to do some test to see if I hear any improvement at 48 over 44.
Old 28th January 2009 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
hmm, about 60% of you don't bother will higher sample rates.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 4616 views: 618977
Avatar for smoke
smoke 7th May 2021
replies: 98 views: 40515
Avatar for dfghdhr
dfghdhr 5th June 2021
replies: 295 views: 75903
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 185514
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