What sample rate and bit rate these days?

TalismanRich said:
Yeah, 58, I've seen those, and all videos from Xiph.org. It's unlikely that I'll be having much of an issue with aliasing, as 90+% of my recording involves microphones, and I can tell you that most of those mics have rolled off well before I run into aliasing. I don't record synths which you can generate any signal you want. A guitar amplifier rolls off massively above about 8k. And, as a rule, I tend to roll off the higher frequencies, contrary to what things like the Focusrite Air mode does (on a Clarett, it boost +4dB at 24kHz! That's the perfect way to increase aliasing! Will someone explain why this is good???)

There are apparently quite a few issues that are alleviated by using higher bit rates within a plugin, I've never programmed one, so I can't comment on that, it's only what I've learned reading comments by some of the designers.

It's a bit like horsepower in a car, it's unlikely you'll ever use the full 600+ BHP output of a turbocharged V8 Ferrari, but it's there if you ever needed it, with the accompanying penalty of fuel usage. But putting a 1.8L 150BHP turbo in that same Ferrari means you're going to run out of steam at some point. I'll stick with my 88/24 settings and buy another SSD for $60 if I run low on space.
Click to expand...

For me, it’s easy to hear. Unless you are mixing for DSD or FLAC, I keep it at 44.1 - the sample rate conversion is the least musical of all audio processes, even with dither. With today’s conversion and filters, I find so much benefit to 24/44.1K. A great deal of resources hogging with 88.2k - there are a few plugins that perform better (subjectively better / cleaner / less distortion) at 88.2k. But as a practice, 88.2k uses a massive amount of processing (even if you have it), and the majority of plugins receive zero benefit but still use the resource. Here is another great video from Tom – more ‘current’ examples of how oversampling in the plugin itself, as a working practice, often offers a greater benefit the majority of the time. - You mentioned you have seen these, but for anyone else - Tom is great.

 
I would endorse Colt Capperrune recommendation for 48kHz/24 bit.


Just a thought, at mastering time you can take your 48kHz/24 bit mixed track, turn it to analogue to go through analogue mastering hardware, and A to D it at 44.1/16 bit for your 'mastered for CD' version of your master, if you are ever going to release to CD. No resampling involved.
 
I don't have time to watch the whole thing now (off to The Smoke for the PLASA exhibition) but the guy is WRONG on his first premise.
24 bits does NOT give you more headroom over 16 bits. 0dB FS is the max whatever the word length...what 24 bits DOES give you is a much lower digital noise floor, theoretically 144dB which means all the noise in a system is due to the analogue circuitry.

I do know that 44.1kHz can 'reconstruct' a perfect 20kHz sine. Do we need better than that?

Dave.
 
Maybe Colt should have used the term dynamic range rather than head room. That would have been more accurate.
Video stuff normally uses 48kHz and CD uses 44.1kHz. Given how CDs are becoming less popular and platforms like YouTube are more so it makes sense to me to start at the sample rate it is more likely to be used.

I must do a listening test of something recorded at 44.1, 48kHz and 192kHz using a microphone splitter so it is the same performance. I wonder if I would hear any difference? Trying to be as objective as possible, I would get some musicians to listen to recording A, B and C, what could they hear?
I will do this a publish results.

I will assume I know nothing, but I can collect data and analyse results!
 
96k or higher are only going to capture or allow noise to creep in (IMO) unless you’ve got some pretty special recording equipment or have a need to generate signals well above human hearing. Personally, I think it’s 98%+ marketing fluff.

p.s., and what kind of output device would reproduce even an audible 24kHz tone, and whose ears will hear it? I'm not saying there's zero possibility that recording, tracking, mixing at ultrasonic frequencies might not end up producing a different spectrum in the audible range; but I don't think there are many places that could actually validate that the difference was due to real content being captured and having an effect on what the listener hears, vs. artifacts introduced from mis-handling/distorted through processing along the way, i.e., by software or hardware that wasn't originally designed to preserve that content with accuracy. Let's face it, your best microphone and A/D processor should probably produce nothing but a few bazillion zeros above 24kHz. Will they still be zeroes at the end, and if not, will the presence of anything, zeros or ones, tickle some algorithm in a way that was not intended? My 2.000_¢
 
Last edited:
keith.rogers said:
96k or higher are only going to capture or allow noise to creep in (IMO) unless you’ve got some pretty special recording equipment or have a need to generate signals well above human hearing.
Click to expand...
Enough of the theory, I want proof.
Find me a sample of the same material recorded in different sample rates. I want to listen for myself.

I am advocating for 48kHz 24 bit to provide better compatibility with the distribution media without having to up sample the music.
 
Xenon 6 said:
Enough of the theory, I want proof.
Find me a sample of the same material recorded in different sample rates. I want to listen for myself.

I am advocating for 48kHz 24 bit to provide better compatibility with the distribution media without having to up sample the music.
Click to expand...
The samples would have to be 'forensically' beyond reproach and of what music? Have to be acoustic only in my book, not some 'pop' mish-mash.

The D/A replay setup would have to be of the very highest quality and the speakers truly state of art...Do you have such a monitoring rig?

But, assuming such a top end system is available IMHO you still would not be able to tell the difference.

Dave.
 
Xenon 6 said:
Enough of the theory, I want proof.
Find me a sample of the same material recorded in different sample rates. I want to listen for myself.

I am advocating for 48kHz 24 bit to provide better compatibility with the distribution media without having to up sample the music.
Click to expand...
You are going to have to do that yourself man.

44.1 is likely going to get you awesome quality. Better than most streaming forums will playback, so... The key is getting great recordings in. Same old thing. Shit in/shit out. It does not matter the recording bit depth, if the signal in sucks. The output is going to end up at 44.1 16-bits for the consumer at some point anyway. . Why bother recording at the max of your interface if you don't have your shit together?

If you like to waste storage space, then by all means record at 96 or whatever. Your ears and others listening are not going to hear a difference in any way. It's just a bunch of bits you will pay for honestly.

Also, go ahead and buy those Mogami cables as well. Great stuff to waste money on to feel good about yourself because a retailer convinced you to spend money on their overpriced product... Woohoo! gold contacts! HAHA!

Lots of BS in the recording world. It's the gullible ones like us that support them... Sad bastards we have been...
 
Xenon 6 said:
Jack Joseph Puig, the highly acclaimed mix and mastering engineer, has an opinion on this:

Click to expand...

I wonder how much of Jack Joseph Puig's opinion is based on peculiarities in his equipment as his conclusion is opposite to may people's?
 
JimmyS1969 said:
44.1 is likely going to get you awesome quality. Better than most streaming forums will playback, so... The key is getting great recordings in. Same old thing. Shit in/shit out. It does not matter the recording bit depth, if the signal in sucks. The output is going to end up at 44.1 16-bits for the consumer at some point anyway. .
Click to expand...
I disagree. If it is in a video format it will be at 48kHz. The film world uses 48kHz, so if your music is recorded at 44.1, it would require up-sampling that is never kind to music. Given the decline in CD sales I wonder how much longer 44.1 will be used for anything?
 
But, the THING is....yes, 48kHz is necessary for video but WHAT video? If it is of the LSO or Boston Phil' then yes, the buyers in that market will expect sound of the very highest quality. But honestly, what are most videos? "tik tok trash" listened to on BTth buds.

Recordings of real instruments by virtuoso players WILL likely end up on CD. I still buy them (Beatles remix).

Now, there IS the other debate about 96kHz. This makes more sense for some people because I understand lower sample rates can, in very special circumstances, have a problem with high level, high frequencies. This much higher sample rate also gives lower latency IF (big if) your computer can handle the data rate.

Dave.
 
48/24. Always. That's what I work in while recording and mixing. It's slightly different for Mp3 bounces. See below. Just stick with that. 24-bit instead of 16 is always a good idea--don't use 16-bit if you an avoid it. Any Mp3s I bounce for myself or clients/artists are always at 320 k Bits/sec (highest encoder quality), 44.1/24.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top