What sampling rate do you use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wheelema
  • Start date Start date

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
Well then.... if it's good enough for your ears at this point, then keep doing it!!! ;)

Eventually however - you may find that, over time, your ears start telling you it's no longer "good enough!"

:)
 
thanks bear,

... do you think the fact that i am doing my basic tracking on 1/2 inch or 1 inch tape, and then throwing that onto the computer for mixing, has anything to do with what i'm hearing?
i have some stuff online that you could take a listen to, and give me your opinion, but i don't think am mp3 would be a good barometer, huh?
anyway, maybe i just got used to liking the sound of tape mixed down to dats, as was the standard in the past. maybe my ears are shot. maybe i've taken up enough of your time, and i'll leave you alone now. :)
peace - jv
 
Johneeeveee mentioned two things in the above posts that might tend to make his case. First, he is tracking to tape. If the full dynamic range of the tracks fit within the 96db +/- some safety margins...
Second, well, I was going to say if there's not any 'processing' in the box, the files don't need to grow, but then are you 'mixing' in there?
Wayne
 
it's a matter of finances

mixsit,
i record to tape and then bounce everything (which is usualy less than eight tracks) to cubase so i can mix it at home. i have access to short stints in nice studios (a couple hours, once in a while for free), but don't have the time available to mix through their analog boards (wish i did). what little effects i use are going to tape most of the time. i've parted ways with my label, and right now it's up to me to finance my recordings, and i'm just a poor musician, squeaking by.
if some of my process seems like it could use some advice, please let me know. i'm open to any ideas from more experienced engineers out there. i don't mean to hijack this thread, so if i'm better off expounding on this elsewhere, let me know that too.:)
thanks - jv
 
My only points were, that 16 bits might be fine to capture the tape, but once you start mixing in the box, 24 would still pay off. Either way, hard disk space doesn't add a bunch to the cost now'a days.
:D
 
i think that when you mix any number of tracks down to one (read "one stereo"), you are loosing resolution. my theory is, say you have 24 tracks. lets represent these in the form of a 24" x 24" box. that would mean you would have 24 boxes that size. when you mix down, you are trying to fit all 24 boxes into one 24" x 24" box. this is where a good eq is totally neccessary. you trim off what you dont need and shape what you do so that everything fits into that one single box. also, this shows that the more tracks you have, the more difficult it will be.
 
mixsit said:
My only points were, that 16 bits might be fine to capture the tape, but once you start mixing in the box, 24 would still pay off. Either way, hard disk space doesn't add a bunch to the cost now'a days.
:D
Click to expand...

thanks for the replies, guys.

...actually, i can afford another hard drive. when i spoke of finances, i meant i can't afford the time in the studio to mix down the tape on a nice analog board, which is what i would prefer to do. i have some engineer buddies who give me limited cheap or free access to their nice 1 or 2 inch machines and high end pres and mics, but for very short periods of time, here and there. so i have to dump the tracks to protools or cubase, and mix elsewhere.
peace - jv
 
If the project is staying digital I'll usually just use 24/44.1, but if I'm going to transfer to tape for mixdown (track drums and bass to tape, overdubs in PT) I'll track at 192...

Later,
musik
 
Older plugins like waves 3.x for instance sound a teensy weensy bit better at 88.2/96. Maybe. Which has something to do with digital filtering. With most newer plugs like UAD-1 for instance, this does not seem to be an issue. The whole sample rate quality issue has ALOT more to do with the quality of the converters analog component and digital filtering on the way in than anything else. Lower quality and older converters sound a teensy bit better at higher sample rates bec the filtering happens at higher frequencies so the top may sound more open. With newer converters 44.1 sounds the same as 88.2. The reason manufacturers still bother with high sample rates is bec there are alot of losers who believe the easy argument that the higher sample rates = better sound. These are the same people who drop $10k+ on PT HD even though they will have zero track transferring to other studios, though they could achieve the same thing musically with cubase SL for $250.
 
i think that when you mix any number of tracks down to one (read "one stereo"), you are loosing resolution.
Click to expand...

That's true, but keep in mind that this is what happens anyway when you listen to a mix through a (stereo) pair of monitors. In most cases, for PC users, the summing is done by software or digital hardware. Others output each track analog to a board and let the board sum it to stereo. Either way, you lose resolution.

You could try outputting a 24 track mix from 24 different monitors... your ears and brain might sum it though

That being said, I agree that there are overall benefits to higher bit resolution and sample rate - even if differences on individual tracks are hard to hear. All the small things you do to improve the quality of the mix add up in the end.
 
Yeah, but is there that much more benefit going higher than 24 bit. i.e. 48/96. At some point it would seem like you would start introducing unwanted artifacts into the mix.

24 / 44.1
 
I don't know of any A/D converters that go to 48bit. If they did, it would be useful - you'd have to worry less about clipping while recording.

If you're bouncing tracks / doing partial mixdowns, it might make sense to mixdown to 32bit - saves having to dither or amputate those bits until later.

Also, many FX calculate internally at higher bit rates - this improves the accuracy of their calculations and their overall sound quality.
 
All done in the box ....
Track at 24/48
Mixdown to 32/48
Then apply dither and go to 16/44.1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top