Record in 24 bit with 44.1 OR 88.2 OR 192 ?

mactreouser

New member
Hi,
Recording source is the most important stage of the whole recording session as we know. In fact, other than 24 bit to go, what's your sample rate of choice?

* 44.1 OR 88.2 OR 192 the highest one?
* The highest sample rate the smoothest high end frequencies? (any experiences?)
 
You can find arguments supporting just about any sample rate from 44.1kHz up. Some converters just sound better at one rate than the others due to quirks of the design.

I prefer 48kHz.
 
I'm 44 with some 88 occasionally. I base that on what I expect to do for Computer processing & I've not recorded to computer but a couple-three times the last few years
 
Ya, the more hardware you have, you'll be able to make better choices. It's hard to know what any given converters are doing. It could be your card only does 48 and everything else is converted
 
Hi,
Recording source is the most important stage of the whole recording session as we know. In fact, other than 24 bit to go, what's your sample rate of choice?

* 44.1 OR 88.2 OR 192 the highest one?
* The highest sample rate the smoothest high end frequencies? (any experiences?)

This Andrew Scheps lecture is quite enlightening on the subject:




After watching the above video a few times I changed from 44.1/16 to 48/24. Upon the completion of a much more powerful computer I will be using 192/24.
 
I've been 24 bit 44.1k forever. 48k, if I'm doing video or if I'm doing someone else's tracks recorded at 48k.

The only reason to go higher is if you are trying to record sounds that are too high for anyone to hear. That should be the only difference between the different sample rates... the ability to capture higher frequencies.

However, like BSG said, some converters just sound better at certain sample rates. But that isn't a function of the sample rate, it is a function of the design of that specific converter.
 
The only reason to go higher is if you are trying to record sounds that are too high for anyone to hear.
You might laugh, but sometimes we actually do want to record things people can't hear. If, for example, you were going to slow it down, the supersonic frequencies become audible, and can often help it remain more natural sounding.
 
Most of the time, I'm not recording anything that would benefit. Testing things, like reworking a synth patch to sound more analog, etc..

Also, don't just assume your system can hi-fi even 96k.
 
All I can tell you is if you can't make one of the greatest, most celebrated by the audiophile community, best-sounding, most natural, most awe-inspiring and life-changing recordings of all time at 44.1kHz, raising the sample rate isn't really going to change that. And if your AD isn't absolutely stunning at 44.1kHz, it's time to get a new AD.

Blah, blah, blah - I have nothing against recording at higher sample rates - But I wouldn't feel compelled to either. And I consider myself relatively friggin' picky.
 
I've been 24 bit 44.1k forever. 48k, if I'm doing video or if I'm doing someone else's tracks recorded at 48k.

This likewise has been my practice since I changed to a presonus interface in 2004. Prior to that I had an emagic ISIS interface which was set to 44/16.
 
Not all indeed.
My studio sys can handle up to a hundred something. 192 if i remember right. So 96k isn't a problem.
My laptop for instance can't get over 48k.

I'm not speaking of the claims of performance, but if your monitoring is up to the task. Or, this card really does a crap job. There is no soundstage, compared to my old card, etc.. Like with the attached video I didn't watch. Who has monitoring and converters equal to Andy's.

You regularly do 384k and DSD256, right ? I, certainly, don't have proper monitoring for much above 96k
 
Usually 48/24 for all of the live stuff I do. Acruallly I do that for everything. I can't hear the difference. Seiously.
 
Appreciate all those inputs, Dudes!
* it seems, as long as 44.1khz with 24-bit of the recording source might achieve standard-good result, wasn't it?

* base on calculation wise, if we wish to up-quality from 44.1, it shall double the sample rate (88.2) instead of just one step up to 48. Am I correct?
 
When something gets downsampled from 88.2 to 44.1 (for example) I doesn't simply remove every other sample. At best, that is old advice. At worst, it's a myth. There is more involved in the conversion, so it doesn't matter what you are converting from and to.
 
You might laugh, but sometimes we actually do want to record things people can't hear. If, for example, you were going to slow it down, the supersonic frequencies become audible, and can often help it remain more natural sounding.

That's why I wrote the caveat. I've done that a few times, but it isn't something you would normally have to deal with when recording an acoustic guitar or the like.
 
Appreciate all those inputs, Dudes!
* it seems, as long as 44.1khz with 24-bit of the recording source might achieve standard-good result, wasn't it?

* base on calculation wise, if we wish to up-quality from 44.1, it shall double the sample rate (88.2) instead of just one step up to 48. Am I correct?

If you cannot get superb results with 44.1/16 or 44,1/24, then you can be pretty certain that the sample rate and bit depth are not going to be the reason. I think someone said something along those lines earlier.

So if you want to "up-quality", focus on your recording environments, your recording techniques, your signal paths, your monitoring system and your performances. That's where up-quality comes from.
 
It is my opinion a card/interface can sound like poo : )

There's mp3, but up and down can be more than one step -192/63/44
 
That's cool! This means, QUALITY it means a lot, not just about Bit Depth or Sample Rate, but included the source before recording! Ya, this make sense.

So, would you:
1) As higher Bit Depth and Sample Rate as possible if Audio Interface allowed and Computer could handle well?
2) OR, 16/24 Bit with minimal 44.1, that's good enough?

Yes, very personal preference. In fact, what/which is yours?
 
I'm 16/44, unless the DAW comes up 24-bit, or, something. If people were paying me, I'd want to insure the best quality by working out some test procedures across the different devices. I still look for "musical" and I have old stuff that can do that
 
Back
Top