Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bill Fosbury]

I was chatting with a friend who has been involved, for decades, with audio for bars and dance clubs. During the conversation he said that all recording is now being done at 96k. I thought the rule of thumb was:

- if the target is a CD, ie 44.1, then you record at 44.1k, 88.2k, 176.4k. etc.

- if you target is audio for video then you record at 48k, 96k, 192 k etc.

Ignoring the disk space issue, if people are recording at higher sample rates, what are they using when the final result is going to be a CD?

[Barry Hufker]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do all my recording at 96k.  I like the idea of best quality for DVD and the resultant quality for CD is certainly fine.  Having said that, I have few requests for DVDs.

Obviously the "math" is simpler to go from 88.2 to 44.1.  I don't have any audbile problem downsampling from 96k to 44.1k.  I also like the idea that compression artifacts (from using a compressor/limiter) are pushed even a little further away and are lost completely when I down sample to 44.1k.  Although that may be true of 88.2 as well

As always, whatever sounds good *is* good.  I like the way my stuff sounds this way and so that's what I do.

Barry

[wwittman]

Since I take whatever I mix to to MASTERING, anyway... the format doesn't matter.

so I use what sounds best to me... 96k

[Vertigo]

Yeah, this is a topic that's been bashed to death for a long time now. Everyone has an opinion, and they're all different. Rupert Neve supposedly claims that you shouldn't use anything under 192 and Dan Lavry says that you shouldn't use anything above 96. Check Dan's forum if you want a LOT of opinions on this subject.

I go with 96k personally - like WW, it just sounds best to me.

-Lance

[Etch-A-Sketch]

And from what I understand... most software that converts higher sampling rates to lower sampling rates upsamples everything to Lowest common denomenator before downsampling.  So even if you record at 88.1KHz, the software is still going to upsample it to some insanely high sampling rate before bringing it down to 44.1KHz... it doesn't just divide by two.

Anyway...  If you're bringing it to mastering it most likely doesn't matter... in mastering they never downsample.  They simply convert to analog, send it through their analog gear, and then record the output at 44.1KHz.

[James Duncan]

I'm an 88.2 kind of guy... read the hype on dividing by two, and thought I'd follow it, and never really looked back. I never do any DVD work, and I have never really directly compared 88.2 to 96. I can tell you that I think 88.2 sound much better than 44.1 however.

One of these days, I gotta try a project at 88.2 with a song or two at 96 and see if I can tell the difference.

One of the things that drives me crazy is when someone tries comparing 2 sample rates by recording an acoustic guitar at the 2 different sample rates, and then uses that as the basis of comparison. I think that is an unfair comparison, unless of course all you are going to do is record an acoustic guitar.

I think a lot of the sonic differences between the sample rates can be heard in a FULL MIX, with all the processing, ITB summing and plugins included. For example, I think a lot of the EQ plugs sound much better at 88.2 than at 44.1.

These differences cannot be heard when comparing a single track of acoustic guitar at 44.1 and 96... You need a whole (mixed) song to compare.

[djui5]

88.2 for me please, with a side of fries.

[Barry Hufker]

88.2 -- lower in calories but higher in saturated fat.

Barry

[Fifthcircle]

Just to be a pain....  

From what I understand, if you have decent quality SRC, it doesn't really matter (easy on a PC- as R8Brain is free and R8Brain pro is so cheap, it may as well be free).  The issue is that in any case it is more than just removing every other sample.  To avoid aliasing, there are some rather complex filters involved.  These filters are what makes it a rather negligable difference.

With poor quality SRC, you're screwed either way and you may as well just stick to 44.1...

--Ben