POLL: What Sample Rate/Bandwidth do you use for recording?
- Thread starter Tim Brown
- Start date
amra
Well-known member
I record at 24-Bit, 96Khz.
Why because I can...lol.
I have a powerful PC, and a terrabyte of hard drive space. I can't hear any difference, but it doesn't make my machine run noticeably different recording in this format either. Due to my (admittedly shaky) understanding of the Nyquist effect which states something to the effect of "unambiguous reconstruction is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth", there seemed to be at least a possibility that recording at higher than 48Khz might have some benefit.
Peace!
amra
Why because I can...lol.
I have a powerful PC, and a terrabyte of hard drive space. I can't hear any difference, but it doesn't make my machine run noticeably different recording in this format either. Due to my (admittedly shaky) understanding of the Nyquist effect which states something to the effect of "unambiguous reconstruction is possible if the signal is bandlimited and the sampling frequency is greater than twice the signal bandwidth", there seemed to be at least a possibility that recording at higher than 48Khz might have some benefit.
Peace!
amra
BigRay
New member
crosstudio
New member
i record in 24/48 with the belief that recording at what was the highest sample-rate possible would give me the best opportunity to create pollish-ready turds.
i tried 24/88.2 on a song few months ago but never completed the tracks. i figured it would be easier for the processor to cut every other slice in the mastering step.
i tried 24/88.2 on a song few months ago but never completed the tracks. i figured it would be easier for the processor to cut every other slice in the mastering step.
Seems like most tools are geared towards 44.1khz. I am gonna get a nice 96khz capable converter but, I doubt I'll even use it. I need all the 44.1khz samples and midi sound banks etc. FL Studio and other programs I use work best at 44.1khz. I really like FL Studio for its ability to play midi with soundfonts internally.. keeping all the midi stuff in the digital realm. Also I like using it to make some nice drum tracks; I have a set of samples for each drum piece and have the program randomly choose from the set of samples for each beat.. seems to make the drums sound much more realistic.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
If that's that little silver box (a buddy of mine has one) try it at 44.1kHz. It sounds *WAAAAAAAYYYYY* better at 44.1 than at 96.
Fletcher
New member
I roll at 24/96 on my RADAR V for the most part. For straight on 'rock and roll' projects I will roll at 24/44.1 because the bottom sounds a bit tougher and I'm not quite as worried about the resolution of the cymbals and air on the vocals. For instrumental recordings, jazz recordings, ballads, etc. I find the added resolution of the 96k sample rate to be a good thing... but 44.1 does have "more balls".
It also makes a great deal of difference which converters you use.
With the Lynx "Aurora" converters the top is significantly clearer at 44.1/48 than with the Apogee AD-16 or Rosetta-800... at a 96k sampling rate the Apogee pretty much holds it's own. With RME converters the audio sucks across the board so it really doesn't matter what rate you're running... you're starting from a disadvantaged position no matter what you do.
To each their own I suppose... after all, ain't nobody ever walked down the street humming the sample rate now have they?
It also makes a great deal of difference which converters you use.
With the Lynx "Aurora" converters the top is significantly clearer at 44.1/48 than with the Apogee AD-16 or Rosetta-800... at a 96k sampling rate the Apogee pretty much holds it's own. With RME converters the audio sucks across the board so it really doesn't matter what rate you're running... you're starting from a disadvantaged position no matter what you do.
To each their own I suppose... after all, ain't nobody ever walked down the street humming the sample rate now have they?
Drewcifer666
New member
You didn't include 32-bit floating in your poll. A lot of programs use that, including Cubase, Nuendo, PTLE and others. When tracking I use 32/48, when making master files I do 24/44.1. and if I'm making my own CD copies obviously I do 16/44.1 with a decent dithering algorithm.
When making master files for the mastering engineer, I typically give him 24/44 WAV. I figure he's going to do some analog processing, and he has better dither than I do.
When making master files for the mastering engineer, I typically give him 24/44 WAV. I figure he's going to do some analog processing, and he has better dither than I do.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Converters aren't 32 bit... That's why it wasn't included I'd guess.
Farview
Well-known member
because it's still only 24 bits of information. The idea behind this is so your computer doesn't have to convert the 24 bit file to 32 bit float (adding 8 zeros at the end isn't a big trick for a computer) on the fly. However it makes your hard drive work 1 1/3 times harder to keep up, so your track count suffers.Drewcifer666 said:
IMO storing your tracks at 32 bit float is a waste of resources that accomplishes nothing.
The original poster seemed bemused that people would spend money for features they don't use. I don't think that is the point. The reality is you are really buying a collection of features, which include some you will use and some you will not.
Let's think of it this way:
An engineer buys an audio recording system that lets him record up to 128 tracks. Most of the time he never uses more than 32. Occasionally he might get close to 64. Waste of money?
This same audio system allows him to instantiate as many as 100 EQ's, 50 compressors, and 25 reverbs. On his biggest project he maybe has used 10% of that potential. Waste of money?
He bought a large bundle of software that includes a wide variety of effects and processing. While he uses the basic effects frequently, some of the wilder things like the Doppler Motion simulator he never really finds to be useful. Waste of money?
His system allows him to record at 192khz. For many reasons, he prefers to record at 44.1. Waste of money?
So the question remains: has he wasted his money because he isn't using every single feature?
Of course not! For every feature he isn't using, there may be 10 that he finds essential. And those 10 may be designed in a way that best fit his needs, compared to other available options.
In fact, I have the system described above, and I fit the profile of that engineer. And I don't think I've "wasted" my money in any way. No more than if I find I don't use all 88 notes on my piano on a given project.
Let's think of it this way:
An engineer buys an audio recording system that lets him record up to 128 tracks. Most of the time he never uses more than 32. Occasionally he might get close to 64. Waste of money?
This same audio system allows him to instantiate as many as 100 EQ's, 50 compressors, and 25 reverbs. On his biggest project he maybe has used 10% of that potential. Waste of money?
He bought a large bundle of software that includes a wide variety of effects and processing. While he uses the basic effects frequently, some of the wilder things like the Doppler Motion simulator he never really finds to be useful. Waste of money?
His system allows him to record at 192khz. For many reasons, he prefers to record at 44.1. Waste of money?
So the question remains: has he wasted his money because he isn't using every single feature?
Of course not! For every feature he isn't using, there may be 10 that he finds essential. And those 10 may be designed in a way that best fit his needs, compared to other available options.
In fact, I have the system described above, and I fit the profile of that engineer. And I don't think I've "wasted" my money in any way. No more than if I find I don't use all 88 notes on my piano on a given project.