I apologize for this post: Sampling Rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ptron
  • Start date Start date
P

Ptron

New member
Sorry about this. I know this has been gone over and over but I'm still confused about what sampling rate to record at. I've heard so many conflicting arguments. Recording/Mixing at a higher sampling rate, then reducing has sonic benifets. AND Recording/Mixing at a higher sampling rates, then reducing introduces sonic anomalies and wastes resources. Someone said to us 88.2 since it was exactly double the final rate and would reduce better. A mastering house my friend has used a couple of times wants the digital mixes at 48. A study someone here once posted a link to concluded 50 something was the highest rate that would make a difference to human perception. Plus there's the consideration of future media that can take advantage of the higher sampling frequency. I'm still foggy on this whole thing, but leaning towords just sticking with 44. Enlighten me, Please!

Ptron
 
44.1 is fine.....48 isnt enuff of a difference for the trouble.....88.2 if you have the resources would be awesome and like you mentioned, mathematically easier.......

bit rate seems to make more of a noticable difference........definitely use 24 bit if you can.......
 
Gidge said:
bit rate seems to make more of a noticable difference........definitely use 24 bit if you can.......
Click to expand...
The term "bitrate" applies to audio compression mechanisms such as MP3's and is defined as the average number of bits that one second of audio data will consume.....

When you're talking "bits" in the context of 16-bit or 24-bit digital audio, it's known as wordsize.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes in mastering 48k is fine if they're going to go back out to analog again anyway.
Wayne
 
16-44, 16bits data cycled 44,000 times a sec by a processor/cpu...

24-96, 24bits data cycled 96,000 times a sec by a " " ...

more bits - more data - better for mastering...
 
wetteke said:
44100 16 is ok but everything higher sounds better.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: sigh.

I understand what samplerate and wordsize are (I record everything "important" at 24 bits) , what I meant to ask was, if those much more experienced than I in digital audio, thought there was any point in recording at higher sampling rates, even if the music would eventually end up at 44.1. Or perhaps in consideration of future DVD or whatever audio players that might be able to play 96 kHz stuff. Maybe this should be another bloody poll: What sample rate do you record at? and why? Hmm...maybe I'll do that.

Ptron
 
I track at 48KHz/24-bit, I mixdown to 88.2KHz/24-bit...

The reason? Look at digital imagingas an example - if you start with lo-res and apply effects/resizes/etc, you end up with a murky fuzzy mess - if you strta with hi-res, and apply the same processes, the results are much clearer and you lose very little detail. When you dumb it down to lo-res, you end up with a much better result.

Exactly the same rational for digital audio.... record as high a resolution as is practical (for your rig) - then you'll maintain resolution through whatever DSP you apply, then you can always dumb it down to the comparatively lo-res Redbook spec later with less degeneration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top