K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
what freq are you recording @ and why.
B
bepcec
New member
44.1 because higher freq is a waste 
Ciao.
Beppe
Ciao.
Beppe
Thunder33
New member
bepcec said:44.1 because higher freq is a waste
Ciao.
Beppe
my sentiments exactly.
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
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.
Ford Van
Banned
I vow to stay out of this by any more than saying that you are all high!
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
And???????..............
R
Robert D
New member
I use 44.1, and I wish I was high.
LemonTree
Suck 'em and see!
24Bit/48KHz which is subliminaly better than 24/44.1 
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
Wow!
why still the 441 and 48khz.!
why still the 441 and 48khz.!
reshp1
New member
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.Killah_Trakz said:
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
44.1kHz. If it isn't going to sound good there, it isn't going to sound good with anything else.
lpdeluxe
The Precision Bass Guy
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.
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.
H
Havoc
New member
Whatever I record would sound good on 8kHz...
K
Killah_Trakz
Who Cares!
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.
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.
S
shackrock
New member
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.
however, for something like DVD-audio, 96 could be pretty nice - esp. on high end systems.
Thunder33
New member
Massive Master said:
Words that I trust as truth.
MadAudio
Damned if I do
Thank you for saving me some typing.reshp1 said:
But I also do keep everything 24-bit until the end.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I would think that if a format change were to occur, it'd actually *be* bit depth as opposed to a higher sample rate.
S
Slowjett
New member
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
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
altiris
New member
Also some plugins dont work with highr sample rates than 44 or 48
