recording at 44100 or 96000?

  • Thread starter Thread starter threshhold2
  • Start date Start date
Working at 96 removes the inherent problems with brickwall filters at 44 or 48 -- which is especially relevant to budget equipment. It also improves the accuracy of metering which is handy when it comes to mastering tracks. It also allows EQ and dynamics algorithms to work far more accurately and sound more 'analogue'. The EQ, dynamics and metering advantages are retained when you finally sample rate convert to 44.1, provided you use a good SRC program.
 
I wouldn't worry about it. When it becomes the limiting factor to your recordings, you'll already know the answer to your question.
 
About the bottom of the things most of us need to worry about? :p
 
NL5 said:
I wouldn't worry about it. When it becomes the limiting factor to your recordings, you'll already know the answer to your question.
Click to expand...

Ooh. I like your answer even better. ;)
 
I just tracked a project at 24/88.2, first time I've went higher than 48Khz.

first think I noticed is that I can't run nearly as many plugs, which is probably a good thing...

This project is turning out to be the most "hi-fi" sounding thing I have tracked so far. i'm not sure if that is entirely due to the 88.2 sample rate or the way it was tracked cuz I experimented with some new gear/mics/mic placement... but yeah, just lots of clarity and seperation that I have struggled to achieve with other projects...

I dunno, I guess my advice would be to try it and see for yourself, or more importantly, see if you notice a difference.
 
I used to record at 44.1 when I started out and then I switched to 48 and I didn't notice a difference. After I ugpraded to a dual core system I started recording at 96Khz. I can hear more nuances than I did before and it is more detailed sounding. Whether or not it is worth it for you is really your own decision, but if I had a choice between 44.1Khz and 96Khz I would choose 96.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top