Skip to main content

For 24 Track Projects what Sampling Rate do you Prefer?

Member for

14 years 5 months
I typically use 48kHz for larger track count projects, and 96kHz for smaller track count projects. Just curious what rates most people are using.


Member for

17 years 3 months

JoeH Wed, 11/14/2007 - 17:19
It's very simple for me; 24/44 for most audio projects CDs, etc. No matter what I've read or heard, in my experience there is NO significant advantage to recording at 48k and then gearboxing it down to 44. (I don't pretend to hear the 2 db of difference at 22k in the stero soundfield that 48k supposedly yeilds, or whatever they claim it's better for...)

The potential loss and resultant corruption of sound during gearboxing does not, IMHO, give me any advantage over the supposed "Better" sound of 48k.

Conversely, I use 24/48 (and then dithered down to 16/48) for video projects: DVD soundtracks, etc. Before anything goes to the video software (Sony Vegas in my case), I let Sequoia/Samplitude do the dithering from 24bits to 16. I just like how it sounds this way.

But just to complicate things further, several radio and tv clients now have digital audio consoles and servers, which all run at 48k. What to do?

Since these projects will utlimately end up at 44k (CDs, etc.) I stick with the 44k rate and let them do the conversions. (They do the same thing for all of the 44k CDs they play on the air, so I'm not alone in this....)
Although a project may air once or twice on the radio (SR converted up to 48k), it will ultimately end up on someone's shelf in long-term life as an audio CD, so we stick to 44k.

What they do with it afterwards - MP3s, etc., I can't be overly concerned with, as long as I've done all I can on the front end.

Member for

21 years

Member Tue, 11/27/2007 - 10:21
With my HD24 it's come down to the speed of the hard drive I'm using. If it's fast enough and has a big enough cache onboard it hopefully won't bog down at 24 tracks and 44.1. I would love to record at higher resolutions but just can't afford the $20K upgrade and with my tinnitus I don't think I would truly appreciate the difference anyway. Right now all my stuff gets cramed into cd's anyway.

Remy thanks for making me laugh everytime I drop in here!

Member for

21 years

Member Tue, 11/27/2007 - 16:10
Hey guys Im recording an album at the moment at its 44.1/24bit and my mate whos a producer also was like man you should record at 48 but i think while its great to have amazing production which im into ..if the songs are shit they will still be shit just at a higher bit rate.
I think production is an artform but ive seen guys make great albums with shit equpiment so i think its really done to the person and not as much the bit rate.
well thats my two cents

Member for

14 years 5 months

Link555 Thu, 11/15/2007 - 15:26
Interesting. Thanks for the reply!
Does anyone use 96k regularly?

I have read many articles on the 96k versus 192k debate with hardware designers, but I guess I should have asked this basic question a long time ago.

Link removed

This article talks about the slowest sampling rate being around 44k for 22kHz frequenices (Nyquist). I read as well that NASA at one time believed that 60kHz would be enough, based on Nyquist ideas and real world conversion issues.

Anyway very interesting responses. Thanks very much!

Member for

21 years

Member Tue, 11/20/2007 - 13:22
If i'm recording concerts I always record at 48k 24bit, as I know it will most likely end up with a video track on a DVD. Otherwise I stay at 44.1k 24bit.

HD space is getting really cheap, and I've got all the processing power to work at even 192k 32bit 100+ tracks, so maybe I'll be trying that out for some sessions shortly.

Member for

16 years 7 months

cfaalm Tue, 11/20/2007 - 13:59
Since you'r running 24 tracks you should choose between 44.1KHz/24bit and 44.1KHz/16bit. Both are accepted standards.

I use 44.1KHz/24bit for most projects. I'm a two bit engineer ;-)

24 bit gives you a higher dynamic range so it is easier to avoid overs. If you are confident it won't happen, you can use 16 bit.
44.1KHz is all you need for CD and any lossy format (wma, mp3 etc). To save a bit of harddisk space and processing power I wouldn't go any higher.

48KHz or multiples thereof are nice with 24fps video. If you don't sync with video there is no compelling reason to use 48KHz.

Member for

15 years 11 months

RemyRAD Fri, 11/16/2007 - 15:06
The original 3M 32 track digital machine on 1 inch tape was 16 bit at 50kHz sampling. Said to have been the best sounding digital machine for that reason alone. And I think, we had to use a 12 bit and a 4 bit analog to digital and digital to analog converters because there were no 16-bit converters at that point in time.

Don't see those floating around much any more. Impossible to maintain.
Ms. Remy Ann David

Member for

19 years 9 months

Davedog Mon, 12/03/2007 - 17:42
I record everything in 24/48. Theres a bit more dynamic range (so it seems) and with all the acoustic stuff that goes down I think it makes it easier to separate at mix.

That being said, if you're rendering to 16/44.1 and you work carefully with the levels it shouldnt make a difference at all.

I do want to record an album at 192 sometime and just see what it sounds like............

Member for

21 years

Member Sat, 11/17/2007 - 16:59
I cant hear the difference between 44.1 and 48 but I can hear the difference between 44.1 and 192. can anyone say whats wrong with recording at the highest quality possible. I may be naive but I would like to see new high quality consumer audio products start poping up the way it is with video.

Go ahead and cut me down if you must, I wan't to be set straight.

Member for

16 years 7 months

cfaalm Tue, 12/04/2007 - 11:12
Jaike wrote:
So it makes no difference if you record in 32 bit or 16 before editing within Audition?

Well, the editing in 32-bit float will do VERY little damage to a soundfile.

To my knowledge there is no converter that works with a bitdepth of 32, so I guess no one records in 32-bit.

Imagine: 20xlog(2^32) = 192,66 dB dynamic range. Outra(n)geous!

There was a discussion some months ago here about whether 32-bits was a viable bitdepth to work with. I lost track of that thread though.