I track and mix at 44.1 so there are no surprises in the end as far as losing detail in my resolution.

I don't dither...ever. It's best if you can to leave the dithering to the mastering tech when they convert your final mix from 24 bit to 16 bit.

I track songs with big arrangements at 44.1 (I need to upgrade my computer before it will be able to handle a lot of tracks at 96) and sparser arrangements at 88.2. I plan to track everything at 96 as soon as I can upgrade. I always record at 24 bit.

I have a couple of reasons for wanting to track at higher sampling rates. I believe the evidence that people can hear the difference between higher sampling rates (88.2 and 96) and 44.1. While the standard today is 44.1 (CD), tracking and making master mixes at higher sample rates provides the possibility of transferring today's mixes to tomorrow's media.

Also, I follow the principle that you're only as good as your weakest link. I want to make sure that the sound quality of my tracks isn't my weakest link.

I do understand CoyoteTrax's viewpoint, though, and I feel it is a legitimate approach. I create several 44.1 mixes during the process of tracking and mixing to get an idea of what the final product will sound like.

James, ur wrong!!!

jahme,

When you say that I am wrong, I assume you are referring to whether or not people can hear a difference in audio recorded with sampling rates higher than 44.1 kHz.

This is a much-debated topic. I agree with the views expressed in the following article:
http://

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinion until scientific evidence conclusively proves whether higher sampling rates are better or not.

I do definitely hear a difference (myself) between 44.1 and 96.1 and after tracking some beautiful Native American flute for a few weeks I re-sampled down to 44.1 to render a final mix and the difference was so vast I almost broke down and cried man.

96kHz is beautiful stuff, it really is. And I would loooooooove to track everything at 96, especially when storage is so affordable...even cheap. But I fall in love with the sound at 96 and become quickly unhappy with the lower resolution.

It's not like I'm making professional records, but you probably know what I mean James.

CoyoteTrax,

I understand what you're saying. In truth, I rarely listen to the finished version of things (CD or final audio files). I prefer listening to the mix in my recording program at the studio where I can enjoy the higher bit depth/sampling rate.

I'm jealous that you're recording Native American flute. I've been trying to locate some Native American players in my area to add some flute, guitar, bass, and drums to some of the songs I'm recording for an album (a little Bill Miller-type flavor). I haven't been able to get anyone to call or write me back. Enjoy your recording!

James_Jonasson wrote: jahme,

When you say that I am wrong, I assume you are referring to whether or not people can hear a difference in audio recorded with sampling rates higher than 44.1 kHz.

This is a much-debated topic. I agree with the views expressed in the following article:
http://

Of course, we are all entitled to our own opinion until scientific evidence conclusively proves whether higher sampling rates are better or not.

Don't worry about that clown-troll. He has some of the most blatantly trollish replies on here, so just ignore him.

Funny that those articles have interesting ideas regarding the effect on people on frequencies above 20 kHz but really don't say much about how most loudspeakers have their cutoff frequencies way below 44.1 KHz. I believe Tannoy has some monitors with a ultrasonic frequency tweeters (not mine which are the Reveal Active lol)

Adore wrote: Funny that those articles have interesting ideas regarding the effect on people on frequencies above 20 kHz but really don't say much about how most loudspeakers have their cutoff frequencies way below 44.1 KHz. I believe Tannoy has some monitors with a ultrasonic frequency tweeters (not mine which are the Reveal Active lol)

Don't get sampling rate 44.1 kHz mixed up with frrequency spectrum 20 Hz - 20 kHz.

24bit@48k for tracking and mixing. Gets exported to a stereo 2 track to 24bit@44.1k and the mastering software moves it down to 16bit.

Never had any problems with clarity and wil continue to do it that way.

mr-nice

try using 24/44.1 instead....

i'm sure you will find it sounding better..... the loss you get from the sample rate conversion is greater than the advantage of recording and mixing at 48....

why did you choose 48?? listening tests or theory??

imo 44.1 is for cd....48 is for movie work.... it's that simple....

iznogood wrote:

why did you choose 48?? listening tests or theory??

Both, for some reason 48k sounded a bit more clear than 44.1k, And a few people I know and on other forums seem to think so too.

imo 44.1 is for cd....48 is for movie work.... it's that simple....

I know its for video work, but like I stated earlier I do notice a slight improvement in quality.

the loss you get from the sample rate conversion is greater than the advantage of recording and mixing at 48....

This of course all depends on how good the dithering in the app you are converting is. Honestly I never had any loss (at least I didnt hear any) of quality tracking and mixing in 48k. I have used 44.1k and it seemed a little less bright. This was a long time ago but i'll try 44.1k on a test project.

the hi-cut filter in 44.1k AD is way steeper than in 48k. I do hear quality difference.

The only program that i've personally noticed so bad sample rate convertion that 44.1k sounded better than 48k was Cool Edit Pro 1.

What about using 88 kHz ? Seems that sampling frequency is not used much .... right or wrong ?

gnarr wrote:

The only program that i've personally noticed so bad sample rate convertion that 44.1k sounded better than 48k was Cool Edit Pro 1.

Like I said that was probably the result of bad converters.

Adore wrote: What about using 88 kHz ? Seems that sampling frequency is not used much .... right or wrong ?

Its not used much, IMO I think anything higher than 48k would be a waste of HD space, especially if your project is just going to a regular audio CD. Now if your project is going to be mixed for a DVD or SACD then I would probably track, mix and master 24bit@ 88k or higher.