What khz and bit Rate Do You Record At?

[waxx]

24bit 44.1 mostly. If not it's because the 'customer' wants otherwise...

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by u b k

or you're processing your sounds with plugs, which to my ears sound better at higher s.r.


gregory scott - ubk
.

I was refering just to the recorded sound without processing and plugs. I understand plugs do sound better/different at higher sample rates but do you really think 48 can be MUCH BETTER than 44 ? To me two are the chances: bad converters or (most probably) placebo effect!

[Coyoteous]

I still think 64K would be the best compromise overall.

- me? I've used all 4 of the majors pretty extensively, and odd varispeed rates in between... also dabbled at 176.4 and 192.

[macleodgrant]

24b 48k - far more processing power and sounds great

[Hammer Mark]

Originally Posted by Coyoteous

I still think 64K would be the best compromise overall.

I agree. The guys who developed the cd format should have given us a little higher quality and less run time. This also would have had the collateral benefit of saving us from all the filler material by artists determined to fill a 74-minute cd -- 50 minutes is plenty. I have some great albums that run <40 minutes.

[Kestral]

Originally Posted by Hammer Mark

I agree. The guys who developed the cd format should have given us a little higher quality and less run time. This also would have had the collateral benefit of saving us from all the filler material by artists determined to fill a 74-minute cd -- 50 minutes is plenty. I have some great albums that run <40 minutes.

Some of my favorite albums are by The Doors (imo one of the truly great "album" bands), most of their albums are about 30 minutes.

[midiboss]

I am recording in the digital realm from 18 years ago. Comparing early age 44.1 to today, the evident improve on A/D/A, processor internal maths and extra convertion issues does IMO bring a better digital sound experience nowadays, however, and always at 24 bits, I preffer 48 khz to 44.1 because I perceive a bit more of bodiest spice on my virtual instruments, my guitar and voices, maybe a subjective impression, but that is a really persistent and iterative subjective footprint as for going and just ignore it. The only factor to considere for more or less Khz is not only the frequency hearing human threshold, there are too some facts about spatial sense depth and details definition closely related to that so paw 'crystal clear audio' myth. Maybe, just maybe, I would enjoy by listen my beloved Steely Dan old albums re-encoded to 24/96. Sometimes, and upon the musical material, I can feel some extra 3D positional improve at 96 khz indeed!, but ultimately, what the hell care to me, that indie band in the neighborhood or my adv customers about 3D and spiritual new ageish crystal divine sounds for youtubed material or that radio/tv death core jingles..I swear I haven´t won a damned dime by claim 24/192 in my recordings, the most sometimes I get is "jezzsh! what a cool loud it does burst in my iPOD..!! ( courtesy of Ultramaximizer -30 db compression ).


--------------------------------------------------------------------
someone does know when a 92 bits/768 KHZ protools ´ll be released? I need to record Sublime F-Art, my next cd, with the most audio pristine smelling audio possible.
www.carlosarellano.com/music

[kbshearer]

Not at all meaning the fun to be making but posts random the jibber while facts may be some persistent and iterative the random having the spiritual crystal divine be making the confusing bursting of the ipod.

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

[midiboss]

Originally Posted by kbshearer

Not at all meaning the fun to be making but posts random the jibber while facts may be some persistent and iterative the random having the spiritual crystal divine be making the confusing bursting of the ipod.

Kirt Shearer
Paradise Studios

Yeah man! I am glad you smartly got the essence of the message. In the age of not barrier comunication neurons working worth gold...even between foreign friends. Thanks.

Cheers

[liqueo]

I do 24/96 for HD a/v projects but 24/48 is still great for music. 24/96 does seem to give you a bit cleaner high-end. 192Khz just uses ridiculous amounts of drive space and I can't hear a huge difference (at least with my gear) that would warrant using that as a standard. Plus at those high rates I cannot run enough plug-ins and my virtual instruments crap out too quickly, even though my computer is a beast.

When tracking MIDI, especially from VIs, I keep the tracks in 16/44 as this frees up so much processing power and RAM. I think once snow leopard is released where we can use all available RAM, and hard drive price continues to drop, and processor technology gets more advanced (nahalem, etc.) we will see the high rates used more.

[jchadstopherhuez]

Originally Posted by Kestral

Wow, 44/48khz over 88.1/96khz by over 2 to 1

Did everyone hang onto their Pro Tools Mix systems or something??

yes.
been making records for 10 years on my mix rig. no complaints so far. plus..it is paid for.

i have recently been mixing in cubase on a mac intel...totall in the box...i do not use very many plugs...i think if i did..i could see the advantage of moving up to 96k. for the most part...i lay down the sounds i want in tracking...very little eq/comp/plugins happen in a mix for me.

in a perfect world..i'd love to still cut on a 2" 16 track, mix to 1" through a vintage neve desk. master off of the 1" tape straight to a lathe...let the people who buy the records listen on a killer system in a nice room...

we are not in that world.

i still make a master of every record i do at 24/44 and that is what i listen to for pleasure on my personal home system. my home rig has rotel, accurus, dual, dynaudio, b&w and adcom components...along with a mac mini and a nice d-a for playing back itunes and other digital files.

i also buy tons of vinyl....new releases and classics...i would say, 5-10 per month minimum.

i despise mp3's. never downloaded a single song from itunes or similar. the only downloaded records i have are things like daniel lanois new project...which i paid for...and downloaded 24 bit files.

i know that i am very much a minority in the grand scheme of the record buying public. most people barely care about cds anymore...its quanity over quality period. that sucks....but it is life.

i have done tons of projects at 96khz and above...i have found that for the music i produce...(mostly rock, indie rock, and alt country bands..) working at 44.1 works for the balance of sonics and $$$ that i need to retain in my world.

i personally like iz radar converters...as well as the old ad8000 from apogee....works for me. all at 44.1....24 bit files.

when the music buying public finally decides that quality is important again...i'm happy to make the investment in doing all my stuff at high bit rates. i personally have not found it advantageous enough to do everything at 96khz.

i can see that changing soon..particularly when i do retire my radar/protools mix system.

personally i'd love to get the maximum fidelity out of every project i do...as a guy who does this for a living..ie. to buy food..pay my bills...i have to find a balance of fidelity vs. time and budget constraints...with the added factor of the end delivery medium in mind.

so for now...when it is not all analog...i am running 44.1 24 bit.

cheers,

jchristopherhughes

[LSD-Studio]

I still don't get why anyone would wanna record at a higher samplerate than the SR on the final medium.
sure, it sounds more open or whaever during mix, but those highs will be gone after the downsampling anyway...it's not like bitdepth and dither...it just gets cut off.

no advantage for me but less dynamics and added noise, aliasing etc during SRC.
I think lavry's whitepaper on that topic should be a must read for every audio engineer...I can perhaps understand 48k or even 88.2k but 192 is just nonsense IMO

for me it's 44.1/24 for Audio CD and 48/24 for DVD...as simple as that.

[zoom]

44.1 or 48 - depends on the target format.
88.2 or 96 - depends if the customer want this.
176.4 or 192 is a waste of data for audio recording. use 192 for measurement purposes sometimes.
24bits? never below!

cheers
stefan

[u b k]

i'm thinking of switching to 22k for a while, see where that gets me. 12 bit, while i'm at it.

see, you think i'm kidding...


gregory scott - ubk
.

[powlow]

24 bit / 48 kHz mostly...seems to be a slight edge over 44.1 kHz
I have been wondering about 88/96 kHz for "future proofing" i.e. DVD audio, etc. plus if you do get your stuff onto DVD you can use the higher rates

[Benmrx]

Originally Posted by u b k

i'm thinking of switching to 22k for a while, see where that gets me. 12 bit, while i'm at it.

see, you think i'm kidding...


gregory scott - ubk
.

Oh no I don't. Acoustic drums @ 12 Bit can be freakin' awsome! Same with some electric guitars.