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

Which Sample Rate do you most commonly use when recording?

Discussion in 'Recording' started by DonnyThompson, May 27, 2015.

?

Which Sample Rate do you most commonly use when recording?

  1. 44.1

    47.1%
  2. 48

    23.5%
  3. 88.2

    11.8%
  4. 96

    17.6%
  5. 192

    5.9%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. DonnyThompson

    DonnyThompson Distinguished Member

    Which sampling rate do you most commonly use when recording?

    Please don't include mix projects which come to you where the SR is set by the client's project/files...

    I'm talking about when you begin recording a new project.

    along with your vote, comments -like bit resolution choices - are also more than welcome.

    ;)
     
  2. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    I recorded at 24/44 for years and it's only 2 years ago that I started to test 24/96. The last year I used 24/96 for every projects and I'm very happy with the results.
    I think that recording, mixing and mastering at 96 helps retain the quality of audio and allow all the processing to be done at higher resolution.
    Is my mixes sound better because I'm getting better or because of the 96khz? Things for sure, I'm not taking any chances ;)
     
  3. kmetal

    kmetal Kyle P. Gushue Well-Known Member

    44/24 at the studio. 96 on systems I setup. My personal setup is whatever iPhones record at 44/16 I'm guessing lol. It was always interesting to me that Reason, the softwares latency for playing the Vsti went down as sample rate increased. I wonder how sample rate relates to latency.
     
  4. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    To my experience, I track at lower SR without hearing ugly with better converters. Better converters sound more pleasing at lower SR.
     
  5. pcrecord

    pcrecord Don't you want the best recording like I do ? Well-Known Member

    That's interesting.. any idea why ?
     
  6. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I should confirm, I don't always track t 44.1 , but I definitely appreciate the sound of better converters "44.1 conversion" to others at lower SR. As an example, Lavry Blacks or Prism (two products I am familiar with and use) sound better @ 44.1 to an older RME FF800 at 44.1. So, I usually use these products tracking acoustic work on a laptop that I know runs better at lower SR. I use less cpu and HD space at 44.1. I trust my remote system better at 44.1 and love the sound of my conversion rate using good converters.

    When at 96k, both are not so much noticeable. So, I choose Lavry or Prism to record sessions I am doing at 44.1. Better converters appear to sound better at lower SR.
    As Bos has pointed out many times, better converters have better circuitry. Maybe he will chime in on this.
    cross references:
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  7. thatjeffguy

    thatjeffguy Active Member

    I track at 44.1/24. Most of my projects are destined to be distributed as CDs so I want to avoid the sample rate conversion process.
    ~Jeff
     
    kmetal and audiokid like this.
  8. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    I generally use 48k because it's the standard for film/video and I'd rather dumb it down to 44.1 for audio than upsample to 48 for video. Where I usually work 48 is the highest the converters go, but I'd still use 48 even if they went higher. Another reason I use 48 is that I have an Alesis HD24 and the clock is notoriously incorrect at 44.1.
     
  9. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Which Sample Rate do you most commonly use when recording?
    Hi @DonnyThompson

    I changed the Poll values to include multiples choices.

    I track at both 96k and "44.1 or whatever the destination is for that matter" on the same pass .

    which is another fantastic reason to incorporate the 2 DAW system. Track at high sample rate and capture the mixdown at the destination SR to avoid bouncing. Sounds good and is much easier to mix and compare finals at the "destination" SR.
     
  10. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    I render ("bounce") at the project settings and leave all sample rate and word length conversions to the mastering phase. That gives me a pre-master that has not suffered any conversion processing at all. For each output format there's only one sample rate conversion and one dither/truncate process.
     
  11. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    @bouldersound
    I'm not saying you should do what I do but, but just for conversation in regards to the OP and multi tracking at 44.1 to avoid bouncing
    @thatjeffguy has it right but I feel you could improve this.
    The sound quality of multitracking at a higher SR and capturing in once pass does sound better over apposed to just at 44.1. Plus (I'm sure those who do this already know), there seems to be a benefit to mixing into the destination SR on that same pass to my ears. But, this is also assuming your are into hybrid and wanting better than just "round Trip" sound quality and benefits.

    For those who say they let the ME do the rest... that may appear to be the obvious "standard". However, lets assume your ME doesn't have an uncoupled system and is taking your wonderful mix and bouncing it down. Most ME bounce . (n)

    So, we are still subjecting our "master" to be bounced later. Which is then downgrading the mix we tried so hard to do right .
    We could avoid this by tracking at higher SR and capturing the whatever destination SR in one pass, then pass that perfect mix onto the ME who wouldn't bounce our mix.

    Two DAWs also provide a way to mix into a SR that is the "destination" SR, like ME should do in the first place. And why imho, they are able to hear a mix better and make better changes than we can on one DAW. There is something about working on a stereo mix in a separate DAW that just turns out better sounding.
     
  12. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    To be convinced that mixing down live from the multitrack is superior I would have to see conclusive evidence that a live stream from the multitrack project:

    A. is different from the rendered file and
    B. is objectively better than the rendered file (fewer errors or whatever) and
    C. can be proven in double blind A/B/X testing to sound better to a significant portion of the population and
    D. sounds unmistakeably better to me.
     
  13. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    My above comments are hypothetically assuming we are tracking a multitrack (live or studio) at 48 to avoid bouncing. If so, I would without doubt track at 96 and recapture the mix on an uncouple system . To my ears and extensive testing... The sound quality under good conversion is without doubt better tracking @ higher sample rates and recapturing the mixdown over tracking at just 48 or 44.1 ;)
     
  14. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    If this was the only reasons why you do audio, then of course, who cares about half of this nonsene in Pro Audio.

    I'd be happy with Pro Tools and playing around with plugins like the rest of the world.
    If all we are measuring to is earbuds, then who cares right. Why even buy quality gear for that matter? And I mean that sincerely.

    Assuming my workflow includes "hybrid".
    There are more reason than the actual sound quality to this madness. Avoiding a lot of steps, saving time and money are some of them. I need very little gear and almost no extra software in comparison to investing in an HDX system. I am saving thousands to achieve a fast and excellent end product. Its also easier to compare mixdowns and learn cause and effects when you have multiple mixdowns on a seperate DAW like Mastering Enginners work. . But, I do agree its all subjective too.

    The workflow of two DAW's makes faster finishes and if money is the ultimate deciding factor, two DAW's wins in speed in my studio.

    If you aren't using analog "hybrid" or round trip processing, then none of this would even make a bit of sense. Its not even a topic you need to discuss. Track at whatever you like and have fun trying to win the rat race best you can.
     
  15. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    For my stuff 32/44.1 Take a look at Pensado's place. I rarely see his sample rate readout higher than 48. 44.1 alot of time.

    I'm a believer that higher sample rates mattered more in the early days of digital. I remember reading somewhere that the sample rates are dependent on the resonance of the crystal and if it's a crystal that naturally resonates at 44.1 or 48 your better off using that sample rate.

    That said I don't think I've ever heard a shootout of 44.1 to 96k ect that sounded exactly that same raw. There is definitely a slightly different sound happening. In the end you mixing will shape it to what you want.

    Tech stuff aside it's also about plug in count. 96k is too resource hungry for me.
     
  16. bouldersound

    bouldersound Real guitars are for old people. Well-Known Member

    Rendering is 2-20 time faster than real time playback. That's a lot of hours over the years. There would have to be more than a little sonic improvement to make it worth sitting around all that time waiting for the mix to play.

    No, those two points (intentionally the last out of the four) are not my only reasons for doing audio, they are standards which have to be met before adding substantial amounts of time to my mixdown process. The A/B/X testing has nothing to do with earbuds or mp3s and everything to do with not getting caught up in confirmation bias.
     
  17. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    Pensedo doesn't talk about 2 DAWs as far as i know ( I don't know may people who are actually aware of this, yet ;)
    Dave is pretty locked into ITB and PT. Plus, a lot of us who where analog freaks now hear OTB is really pointless. I would never invest in analog mixing gear again.
    I am a believer ITB is superior to a console but I do hear improvements in better SR, better converters and without doubt, avoiding bouncing!!! Thats why a lot of us use excellent converters and track at 44.1. So yes, thats why and how you get the best results on a single system.
    Being said.
    I'd rather avoid bouncing and track at 96 any-day of the week over 44.1. But that's because I hear a way around this apposed to just tracking at 44.1 and using lots of plugins and average conversion.
    I "personally" hear the higher the sample rate (96k) and the less you use of both analog hardware and plug-ins the better. 96k sounds better, much better but not if you keep converting and bouncing and adding plugs etc etc etc..
    The less I alter the original source (be it) samples or organic and mess with the phasing the better it sounds to me. And this always ends up sounding better as an MP3 too.
     
  18. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    In a perfect world not having to use anything on the material would be great.

    So far that's never happened for me.. always need some eq. Or filtering, compression, reverb, delay ect. .
     
  19. audiokid

    audiokid Staff

    I agree.
    I'm also mixing for people so from that aspect, I am always having to study a mix that is full of changes from the last. Nothing is ever the same reference point. . This requires the need to get all sorts of issues solved really fast and well. I could never get what I do done on one system like you suggest. I could live with it, but I wouldn't mix for a business persay then. :)

    I would most likely be saying exactly what you are to me. What a bunch of BS. ;) I get what you are saying, and respect it but there is more ways to sum and save money than just using a single DAW.

    I can mix a session on a laptop, no extra plugs and no extra cards. So simple and cheap. Fast and full or improve that proficiency and sound quality even more. Which is all I'm sharing here. Less is more and two DAW's removes a whole lot of plugins and gear.

    I track at 96 and sum at 44.1. Love it.

    Enjoy...
     
  20. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    I'm not 100% sure but I think Pensado has to do real time mixdowns as he has some hybrid stuff like a Bricasti and a Shadow Hills comp that are analog. I'm not sure how that integrates but I would imagine there's some kind of real time mixdown when and if he uses that stuff..
     

Share This Page