What khz and bit Rate Do You Record At?

[Kestral]

Ok, this is for the high end folks only, what khz and bit rate are your recording at?

[Kestral]

Wow, people still record at 44.1?

I guess the good thing is you get tons of plug in processing power at that khz.

Curious to know why 44.1 khz is still fine for High End.

[bgrotto]

I recently switched from 88.2 to 44.1. I don't hear any difference with the audio, but there is a notable improvement with the performance of the plugins at 88.2. Happily, I'm almost 100% OTB, so plugin performance isn't all that important to me; certainly not worth the disc space/back up time/etc trade-off.

If any projects come across my way that need to be done ITB, though, I'll definitely go back to 88.2 for em.

[thenoiseflower]

I've recently been doing the same thing, for rock, now mostly @ 24/44.1, I was 88.2 for years, now I'm indifferent, actually like that 44.1 doesn't get as glossy.

for more delicate stuff I'll go to 88.2

[Kestral]

This is interesting, especially since I found this article today about kids preferring crappy MP3s for rock and pop music:

Music Is Dead: iPods and Young People Have Utterly Destroyed Music

[Dean Roddey]

But there's nothing crappy about recording at 48K really, so I'm not sure there's a connection there, at least not for most rock music anyway.

[NesNeedsGear]

24-bit/48k

simple and gets the job done.

[Bassmec]

44.1 24 bit, as yet I cant find anything wrong with it for rock and roll mind you if I got a decent job recording bat song perhaps I might change my mind.
On second thoughts, I hate the smell of bat guano!.

[youngmain]

I prefer filling up the hard drives.

[Bassmec]

Originally Posted by youngmain

I prefer filling up the hard drives.

To some people a hard drive is half empty, to me its half full!.

[edup]

actually it's just math and basically our ears can't pick up all those benefits of recording above 44.1 except on harmonics that's the only difference we may notice. problems recording at 48khz is when going to disc you have to down sample to 44.1khz and when doing that you create noise that we barely hear it if not at all.

ps: sorry for my bad english

[ahmz]

am recording at
24/48

[Kestral]

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

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

[cooker]

I clearly hear 24/48 is much better than 24/44 (you get more open highs). If I had the process power I would rather go 24/96 (mix sounds deeper).

[Ciozzi]

Originally Posted by cooker

I clearly hear 24/48 is much better than 24/44 (you get more open highs). If I had the process power I would rather go 24/96 (mix sounds deeper).

Hearing a clear difference between 24/48 and 24/44 means just one thing: time to upgrade your converters!

[Dean Roddey]

I've gone back and forth many times in various experimental bits, and honestly I don't think that 88.2K has any real advantages over 48K, if you are going to deliver at 44.1K which most everything will be, and the extra overhead when you use really heavy stuff like BFD or convolution reverbs and such is very significant.

[cooker]

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

Hearing a clear difference between 24/48 and 24/44 means just one thing: time to upgrade your converters!

You're right

[youngmain]

Originally Posted by Bassmec

To some people a hard drive is half empty, to me its half full!.

thumbsup

[DanDan]

44.1/24
It omits the audio damaging stage of Sample Rate Conversion.
I am guessing that the Clock has the least jitter or relative jitter at this rate also.

DD

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

Hearing a clear difference between 24/48 and 24/44 means just one thing: time to upgrade your converters!

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


gregory scott - ubk
.

[dkelley]

Originally Posted by Kestral

This is interesting, especially since I found this article today about kids preferring crappy MP3s for rock and pop music:

Music Is Dead: iPods and Young People Have Utterly Destroyed Music

that's irrelevant. there isn't anything sonically missing from 48k 24 bit.

the only reason to go higher is to reduce latency.

as always, imho. :-)

[BOWIE]

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??

I can run either but I prefer to keep it lower. Less wasted space, less processing, and the same sound by the time it gets to CD (or worse).

[desotoslo]

44/24

eh, why not.

[plexisys]

I've spent a lot of research, time and money making sure my entire system can pass at minimum 96k so it makes sense for me to do everythng at 96k. Drives are the cheapest part of what we do so I'd always rather have the extra digital space to work with.

I'm ready for plugins to start improving to higher resolutions.

[okydoky]

hi,

great thread!

i always record at the best sample rate and bit depth, but i don't vote in polls.


right.

[Cabbage]

Originally Posted by Ciozzi

Hearing a clear difference between 24/48 and 24/44 means just one thing: time to upgrade your converters!

...or plug-ins.
Petter

[deve]

24/96. If you have the processing power and the hard disc space why not use it?

[The_Controllers]

which single muppet records at 24/192 ehh? Show yourself! (Unless of course your sponsored by Lacie, then I understand )

[Coyoteous]

Originally Posted by The_Controllers

which single muppet records at 24/192 ehh? Show yourself! (Unless of course your sponsored by Lacie, then I understand )

- xtrmspl... it says in the poll.

BTW, I prefer "sample rate" and "bit depth" "khz and bit Rate."

[MatsonMusicBox]

First of all, it's "bit depth" not "bit rate" - the latter is something different.

I go 24/88.2 - I've seen enough science on it now to know that while we can't hear anything above 20K (lower than that for most people), things happening above it can affect areas that we do hear. Also, the filters can operate ata higher level and remove aliasing well above our audible range, wheras with 44.1, that could creep into the mix.

could I tell a difference in an audio test on a rock song in my littel studio? Probably not - but, as I said before, HP and space isn't an issue for me, so I go with the higher rate in that it might eek out a little more quality throughout the process.