24bit 88.2khz or 24bit 96khz?
Just upgraded my studio with a brand new Focurite liquid Saffire 56 and an Octopre MkII.
With every changes to my gear, I try to better myself. I band project is comming soon, they're gonna track in my studio and mix and master at another place. So, I need to export wave files at there best.
With my last setup (with m-audio delta cards) I used 24bit 44.1khz because it was hard to get a low latency tracking otherwise.
Now with the Focusrite, I made some tests a 96khz, at on point I had dropdowns because of an amp simulator (2 instances), when I recorded other tracks. I put it in ECO mode, and was ok to continue adding tracks to the project..
Now I need to tests a 20-30 track project to see if my computer will survive.. facepalm But I just wonder if I'm just wasting my time and should just lower to 88.2 or even stick with 44.1.
Remember, I kind want to be taken seriously from the big studio that will receive my tracks.. (be sad that the first thing the engineer says to the band is : Shit, this as been done by a newb or what ?) I want that band to come back for other projects..
If this is for CD release and not for the band to mime to while recording a video, I would stick with 44.1KHz rather than risk problems with your gear recording at the higher sample rates. If it's for video miming, then check with the other studio, but it's likely in that case that 48KHz would be preferred.
Same results... just a slightly different perspective...
Only if this will be exclusively a video release would I even track at 48k. Otherwise, track at 44.1k.
Since audio bandwidth and dynamic range is limited in video, in comparison... to upsample from 44 to 48 is less problematic for video, than to downsample from 48 to 44 for an audio release.
MadMax, post: 406369 wrote: Since audio bandwidth and dynamic range is limited in video, in comparison... .
Audio quality on YouTube may be less than ideal but uncompressed video with 48k audio is equivalent (marginally better) to CD audio.
I do agree that 44.1 should be just fine, and it makes things a bit simpler by letting you avoid resampling for CD products. As I understand it faster rates do decrease latency because samples spend less time in buffers.
It's gonna be an album on CD to be sold by a big label..(not for youtube) so I don't want to miss my chance ;)
I guess, it's gonna by use for hd video some day too...
if video is priority then 48K. if not 44.1. if you, or the label insists on high sample rates then 88.2. it's straight up math for the cpu, where it can just cut out every other sample (if my understanding is correct). trimming 96 to 44.1 is not as straightforward for the cpu, and i personally think the less calculations the cpu is doing, the better the sound.
you will hear the diff between bit rates, i highly doubt the difference in sample rates will be audible, nevermind any sort of a deal breaker.
higher sample rates do offer lower latency, but you may be able to get more out of your system w/ lower sample rates and buffer rates. anything 128 and below should be perfectly workable for an amp sim.
your best bet IMHO, is tons of headroom, and 44.1. i don't use dither, sample conversions, nada. from daw to cd, no additional math, other than what's ncessary.
they can easily upconvert your stuff for HD video, and the likely hood of anyone actually watching a dvd/blueray in true HD, (surround?), on a decent, properly set up system is slim. i think hd video is very noticeable in fidelity, hd audio, not so much.
plus your not making your harddrive acces/write twice as much data, that's going to be cut anyway. The only reason i would use a max sample rate is in restoration where you may only get to bake a tape and play it once, that's the only time i can justify it.