1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.


Discussion in 'Recording' started by Cash, Jan 2, 2005.

  1. Cash

    Cash Guest

    Is there really so much of a difference between those sample rates?
  2. jonyoung

    jonyoung Well-Known Member

    The higher the sample rate, the more accurate the rendition of the original analog waveform you'll get, but then it comes down to how good your sample rate conversion is, since the end product will be at 44.1k. I used to track at 48k, but I decided to try something at 44.1k from the start, and I'm actually happier with the end result with my current setup. I was definitely hearing an overall sonic change from 24 bit @48k after rendering down to 16 bit @44.1k . It introduced a lot more high mids. Things are translating much better when I track at 44.1k . "Your results may vary".
  3. Massive Mastering

    Massive Mastering Well-Known Member

    I'm in the 44.1kHz/24-Bit group 90% of the time.
  4. Cash

    Cash Guest

    I'm recording at 48k/16bits, and mixdown em to 44.1k. I got the Emu1212m and it got the best converters in the world, hence i think there fairly good, lol. So since I somehow cant record at 96k i do it at 48k. But is it worth it? I mean will the quality be better if i record at 48 and convert to 44.1, or if I record at 44.1k in the 1st place?
  5. David French

    David French Well-Known Member

    Definitely, Definitely stick to 44.1.
  6. Kev

    Kev Well-Known Member

    44.1k 24bit for music
    48k for video

    experimented with 88 - 96k but I'm not heading that way any time soon
  7. mikE@THECAVE

    mikE@THECAVE Guest

    I like 48k a little better that 44.and think ill be using 48 its a little more lively can you hear it.??
  8. jonyoung

    jonyoung Well-Known Member

    48k definitely sounds better to me when it's at 48k, but when you convert sample rate to 44.1k, which you must for CD, you get truncation errors that change the harmonic content of the signal. Then ya gotta mess with EQ to try to recreate what you heard at 48k. For me, less work and better end results to start and end in 44.1k .
  9. FunkGarden

    FunkGarden Guest

    On our ProTools HD|3 with a 192 i/o we still record everything at 44.1. It seems really funny that converters go up so high and most people stick the the highest sample rate of the current medium. As soon as CD's go higher, We'll go higher.

    The other option that we have tried that sounds much better, is using a sample rate in multiples of 44.1, ie 88.2 or 176.4. That converts down very clean, but the end result hasn't proven itself to be any better than staying 44.1 the whole way, you just end up eating up your DSP/CPU power faster. =)

    The one reason its great to do the highest possible sample rate is if your bouncing to analog tape, thats a really great sounding workflow.

  10. lordtekken

    lordtekken Guest

    The reason most A/D converters have a 48k setting is simply for the film world. lol. it is not 2 get a "little tiny bit more quality" over 44.1k, cause in all honesty I believe you gain nothing over the 7k difference, except more complications when u forget its all at 48k ahaha. ;)

  11. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    You guys still with your original statements and or why?
    We know the next is going to be 392. Is this all hype or what? You still going to be 44.1 24bit?
  12. GZsound

    GZsound Active Member

    I had the same experience as many of you. I recorded at 48K thinking I was getting better resolution plus I came up from using ADAT's, but after converting to 44.1, my mixes sounded different.

    I started recording at 44.1 24 bit and it works just fine. The biggest problem today is that even recordings done at 44.1K end up being 128K MP3's.. Why bother with much higher sample rates?
  13. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    88.2k/24bit for me still. Real or imagined, I like my produced product at this setting.
  14. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Hypothetically, would everyone get the same results on my DAW system?
  15. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Hypothetically, yes. The internal recording algorithms are going to be virtually identical. The internal mix engines will handle the maths correctly etc for any plugins used. Plugins are usually oversampled anyway for better resolution even in hardware versions. The type of music one records can often affect the impression of what level sample rate is important too. IMHO of course. Plus in answer to the MP3 argument, I record audio and produce final format products to the best of MY ability and not the listening potential of the end user. I've already determined that most end users can't actually hear.

    What Mahler Symphony Did You Hear | TONE DEAF
  16. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    Of course, Chris' system is much higher end than mine. But Marines make do with what they have.
  17. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    John, you know I wasn't snubbing you or anyone here over who's is better? There are better systems than mine for certain. I'm trying to cut through all G.A.S. and misinformation. It could be we are all being lead to believe the HDX is going to sound better when it may not matter anymore. Follow? Or, why am I investing in converters that go beyond the logical. Lavry is at 96k and I'm thinking thats good enough.
    So my question was trying to understand if everyone would feel the same way on this thread if they used someone else's rig. Would you still feel 88.2 was necessary with my system or would 44.1 be comparable to your 88.2? Would I change to 196 if I was using Pro Tools all the time. Follow?

    I never go past 96 so why am I investing in converters that are 192 when the majority are ending up with 44.1? The obvious answer is, better converters must sound better at lower sample rates, yes?
    But, does the playback engine have anything thing to do with this from DAW to DAW?
  18. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    I didn't think you were snubbing me or anyone else Chris. I kind of wanted to point out that given a basic level of quality the "feeling" and results should be pretty equal.

    As to whether a set of converters that is the best in class at 192k out shines all others still at 96k, I couldn't say. I also have RME but not the latest. I don't feel 192k/176.4k would be significant enough improvement in clarity resolution for mixing to make it worth my while to use the disk space. If I were in your control room maybe I would feel different but I'm kind of with Remy. I'm waiting for DSD to become a reality rather than a parallel frontage road sort of path.
  19. TheJackAttack

    TheJackAttack Distinguished Member

    To say it perhaps in more plain fashion, I mix and record at 88.2k because of the audible characteristics that create an increased clarity for me to make critical decisions regarding eq/compression/etc. Can I do it at 44.1k? Yes. I feel it is easier for me aurally at 88.2k. Of course if I get the mic placement and levels correct, there isn't much for me to do unlike you rock guys.
  20. BobRogers

    BobRogers Well-Known Member

    I use 44.1 most of the time. My daughter has been using 96 a lot at school, so I've been trying that out. There's no question that you can hear the difference at the mix level. However, the differences (if any) in the final dithered product are so small that I don't feel it would be worth it if there are any stability or storage problems. (I've had a strange problem switching between 44.1 and 96 session. Some glitch between the Fireface UFX and PT9 that I don't understand. Easy to fix, but I'd like to find out what is behind it. Maybe I'll post on it later.) At any rate, I'm going to try the next project in 96 and see what I think.

Share This Page