recording freq poll

what freq are you using


  • Total voters
    192
For pop music, 44.1. There's much more of an audible benifit at 24 bits vs 16 bits than using the higher sampling rates.
 
Killah_Trakz said:
why still the 441 and 48khz.!
Because 99% of people can't hear the difference, especially after you bounce down to 16/44.1. If the new standard sampling rate for CD's goes up I might reconsider, but right now it's not worth the extra work on my CPU and harddrives.
 
44.1KHz

I have a pair of digital mixers, and they top out at 48KHz...and, rather than do an unnecessary conversion from 48 to 44.1K, I just record at 44.1.

Once I win the lottery, though, I'll buy a new mixer that goes to 11, I mean, 96KHz.
 
wow!

I tried to a session in 44k n 48k and it sounded horrible (mention it was pt mpowered) but when i bumped it to 88.2k and just scrapped the whole project and started over in samplitude it was night and day too me and my girl.
 
at the point we are in now with music, especially with mp3s, I feel like anything over 44.1 is a waste of proccessing power.

however, for something like DVD-audio, 96 could be pretty nice - esp. on high end systems.
 
reshp1 said:
Because 99% of people can't hear the difference, especially after you bounce down to 16/44.1. If the new standard sampling rate for CD's goes up I might reconsider, but right now it's not worth the extra work on my CPU and harddrives.
Thank you for saving me some typing. :cool:

But I also do keep everything 24-bit until the end.
 
I would think that if a format change were to occur, it'd actually *be* bit depth as opposed to a higher sample rate.
 
Guys,
I record at 16/44.1 ... Now it sounds great, but I've heard that some interfaces when recording at higher rates actaully sound better becuase of their design. I think the issue was all the design was done targeting the highest rates and thats when the conversions are most precise, and they slack when converting on lower end of the spectrum.

What do you think about this?

-josh
 
Back
Top