What sampling rate do you use?

What sampling rate do you record at?

  • 44.1

    Votes: 197 55.8%

  • 48

    Votes: 79 22.4%

  • 88.2

    Votes: 6 1.7%

  • 96

    Votes: 52 14.7%

  • 192

    Votes: 10 2.8%

  • 384

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • I'm waiting for 768

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • Total voters
    353
wheelema

wheelema

Boner-obo
Saw this thread over on gearslutz. Rather interesting given what I have read here and given where the manufacturers are apparently trying to take us.
 
44.1.....

if I ever upgrade my computer, maybe ill start using 88.2........
 
I'm just wondering...When yo u record at what ever rate dont you have to take it to 44.1 any ways to make it playable in a cd?
 
fldrummer said:
I'm just wondering...When yo u record at what ever rate dont you have to take it to 44.1 any ways to make it playable in a cd?
Click to expand...

For standard CD's, the signal is dithered down to 16bit/44.1. I believe there are other ways of doing this, but dithering is best, I believe.
 
i track and mix at 24/44.1. i haven't heard that huge of a difference betwen 48 and 44.1 to make me want to start recording in it, since all of my stuff is kicked down to cd anyway.

the big win is in the 24 bits (instead of 16), and while i won't say that sampling rate doesn't matter (far from it), the biggest difference is in the bitrate.

i prolly oughta start recording at 48 or 88.2, though, just so it's ready for the next format. sure takes up a lot disk space, though.

88.2......eats 150gb drives for lunch! :p


wade
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
I generally track at 24/48 and I mixdown at 24/88.2.........
Click to expand...
Can you explain why, Bruce? I don't understand why you would track at 24/48 and then upsample to 88.2 to mix? Why don't you just track at 24/88.2?
 
I think what blue bear didn't explain fully was that he tracks at 48 and then mixes on an analogue board to a master medium at 88.2. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember something about his setup.
 
kristian said:
I think what blue bear didn't explain fully was that he tracks at 48 and then mixes on an analogue board to a master medium at 88.2. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure I remember something about his setup.
Click to expand...
Ohhh. That would make a lot more sense. Haha.
 
16/44.1

... my ears are probably shot from drumming for 30+ years, but i think that 16/44.1 sounds fine to me, and it ends up there anyway on a cd (please don't shoot me yet). i know there is probably benefit to recording at higher rates before dithering down, but am i crazy to think that this is negligible. i can hear a slight difference on reverbs and certain effects, but i mix my stuff pretty dry.
16/44.1 sure saves me a lot of room on my hard drive:). anyway, i know this has probably been discussed to death elsewhere, but feel free to give me your two cents if you really think i'm missing out... and i guess i could always get another hard drive.
thanks- jv
 
hey blue bear,

... i respect your opinion here, as i have read many informative posts from you, and we both seem to have spent a lot of time listening to tape.
i understand enough about bit resolution to realize that recording at 24 is superior to 16... and i can hear the difference between the two. but once it is all dithered down to 16 bit for cd's, i don't hear as much of a difference. like i said, it seems to show up in reverb fades and the like, but i personally don't hear too much difference otherwise. could you recommend some specific sources that you think i should take a close listen to, so i might see the light, so to speak.
i am a long time musician, who has been on a lot of recordings, but more recently started recording and releasing my own material. i appreciate you and others on this board taking the time to share info.
peace - jv
 
The difference is akin to working with graphics. If you start with a lo-res picture, apply a bunch of hi-res processing to it, then dumb-it-down again to lo-res, the results are pretty grainy. If you do the same process with except start with a hi-res pictures, the end result is much much better.

It's exactly the same for digital audio -- maintain and work with as high a resolution as feasible until the very end... and at that point, you dumb it down to 16/44.1 for listening.
 
i understand

... but wouldn't a cdr copy of a mix recorded at 16/44, be a bit for bit copy of that mix... straight across the board? i may indeed be missing something, as i am an analog man, in a new digital world.
thanks - jv
 
It's when you have 16 or 24 tracks running side by side that the difference becomes critical. X amount of 24 bit tracks mixed down to a 24 bit stereo track and then dithered to 16 bit will sound better than X amount of 16 bit tracks etc.
 
I don't understand that last comment.... "...wouldn't a cdr copy of a mix recorded at 16/44, be a bit for bit copy of that mix?" The answer is "yes ", but that has nothing to do with what I described above!
 
ok, bear with me (no pun intended).
if i am happy with the way stuff sounds recorded at 16/44, when i mix down to cdr, i'm not losing any resolution, right? so, what i'm hearing while i'm mixing, is what my end result will be, unless i am mistaken.
i understand that a 24 bit recording dithered down to 16 bit would still retain more information than the method mentioned above, but i personally (and this is just my ears and opinion, mind you) just don't hear it as being substantial. this may be due to the fact that i don't use plugins, and record pretty sparse songs with 8 tracks or sometimes less.
i appreciate your patience, and input. thanks- jv
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top