Record at 44 and upload to 88 or record at 88?

Revelation · 31st January 2006

I have 10 Gospel songs a client once to record in my studio. There will be over 10 tracks of midi on each song which we will convert to audio. The tracks will be string, brass, and percussion sections. My feeling is there is no advantage in recording them at 88 since most are 16 bit keyboard sounds. I am thinking about recording the tracks at 44, and then converting the audio tracks to 88 in my DAW. Then I would record the bass, guitars, and the vocal tracks at the higher sample rates.

Do you think this is a better way to record the tracks or do you think just recording at 88 is the better way to go? (I am using Mytek converters)

gsharp · 31st January 2006

You're going to end up at the same size anyway after you upsample. Just recording at 88 to start will save you a step.

mixerguy · 31st January 2006

Better engineering is WAY more important than using a high sample rate.

I have heard a good engineer do WAY better work at 44.1 than a lesser engineer working at 96k - in the same room, same console, same everything.

Do it all 44.1, 24 bit, and spend your energies on mic placement, mic choice, balance, pre choice, etc etc etc.

just my opinion.

YMMV.

jim demetri · 31st January 2006

i always work at 44.1 24bit . cant really see the point in going any higher . tryed it once and the benifits were so small that it wasent worth the risk of having everything ****ed up due to some crap convertion .

Revelation · 31st January 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim demetri

i always work at 44.1 24bit . cant really see the point in going any higher . tryed it once and the benifits were so small that it wasent worth the risk of having everything ****ed up due to some crap convertion .

There are many discussions on this topic. I clearly hear more air..sparkle when I record at 88. Besides the Waves and UAD plug ins are optimized at the higher sample rates. With Wavelab 6 having a very high end SRC, I am confident that my recordings will sound better when recording at 88. Just dont' ever tell me I need to record at 192.

prismtheory · 31st January 2006

Hey if you have the hard drive space always record at 88.2. If you record at 44.1 and then upsample to 88.2 you will actually be degrading the audio quality. So do either one or the other. Just make sure your computer can handle projects with file bandwidth that high...nothing's worse than getting those track counts up and then running out of power.
Sample rate doesn't matter...listeners don't give a f*&k about what you did to record only that it portrays the right vibe.
-Christopher

Riad · 31st January 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revelation

There are many discussions on this topic. I clearly hear more air..sparkle when I record at 88. Besides the Waves and UAD plug ins are optimized at the higher sample rates. With Wavelab 6 having a very high end SRC, I am confident that my recordings will sound better when recording at 88. Just dont' ever tell me I need to record at 192.

I would agree that one main reason to consider recording at a higher sample are the plug-ins.

I usually track at 96, but I've heard fantastic records at 44.1 - but these were not mixed ITB, almost all outboard gear.

Rob

Revelation · 31st January 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by prismtheory

Hey if you have the hard drive space always record at 88.2. If you record at 44.1 and then upsample to 88.2 you will actually be degrading the audio quality. So do either one or the other. Just make sure your computer can handle projects with file bandwidth that high...nothing's worse than getting those track counts up and then running out of power.
Sample rate doesn't matter...listeners don't give a f*&k about what you did to record only that it portrays the right vibe.
-Christopher

How can you say SRC does not matter? The one in Cubase almost adds like a filter to the sound. By having better SRC you will add less noise while you convert to 44. True, listeners don't care what you use, but your customer will care. "Hey why did it sound so much better at 88 compared to 44??

trident fan · 1st February 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revelation

How can you say SRC does not matter? The one in Cubase almost adds like a filter to the sound. By having better SRC you will add less noise while you convert to 44. True, listeners don't care what you use, but your customer will care. "Hey why did it sound so much better at 88 compared to 44??

i remember calling alesis after getting my masterlink and the tech told me he records at 16 bit 441 because it's going to end up there anyway and isn't worth the time and trouble of conversion. i mixed a song at 44.1 /16 bit and also mixed it at 24/ 96 and converted. put both of these on the same cd. the 24 bit sounded much better playing through a bunch of sources including the car. everyone who heard it liked it better.

NL5 · 2nd February 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by trident fan

i remember calling alesis after getting my masterlink and the tech told me he records at 16 bit 441 because it's going to end up there anyway and isn't worth the time and trouble of conversion. i mixed a song at 44.1 /16 bit and also mixed it at 24/ 96 and converted. put both of these on the same cd. the 24 bit sounded much better playing through a bunch of sources including the car. everyone who heard it liked it better.

I would venture to say that it was due more to the 16/24 difference than the sample rate.......

artbeat77 · 2nd February 2006

My questions, and I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, are if it is understood what the difference between sample rate and bit depth is, or what happens to a sample/ audio file during conversion? There seems to be some confusion here.

Here's a good read:
http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

artbeat77 · 2nd February 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by prismtheory

If you record at 44.1 and then upsample to 88.2 you will actually be degrading the audio quality.
-Christopher

What he said.

Legacy · 2nd February 2006

I don't necessarily agree that an upwards SRC degrades the sound. It certainly changes it but if you use a very high quality SRC I think it is often beneficial. Plugins sound better to me at higher sample rates, albeit subtly.

In any case, I vote for recording at the higher sample rate. In my experience if you are using good SRC (or very good D-A / A-D conversion) the end result is still better than 44.1 to begin with.

Its all subtle degrees in my experience but why not do what sounds best. Or of course, test it yourself and do whatever sounds best to you. I did and so far I always prefer higher sample rates for recording and often prefer upsampling for mastering. YMMV.

-Silas

Riad · 2nd February 2006

I would recommend a book:

Digital Audio Explained (for the audio engineer)
by Nika Aldrich

lucey · 2nd February 2006

track, mix, deliver to mastering at 88.2. simple, better for the plugs, more air, easy SRC down if the ME is all digital.

trident fan · 2nd February 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by NL5

I would venture to say that it was due more to the 16/24 difference than the sample rate.......

you're probably right

31st January 2006	#1
Revelation Lives for gear Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: New York Posts: 1,131 Thread Starter	Record at 44 and upload to 88 or record at 88? I have 10 Gospel songs a client once to record in my studio. There will be over 10 tracks of midi on each song which we will convert to audio. The tracks will be string, brass, and percussion sections. My feeling is there is no advantage in recording them at 88 since most are 16 bit keyboard sounds. I am thinking about recording the tracks at 44, and then converting the audio tracks to 88 in my DAW. Then I would record the bass, guitars, and the vocal tracks at the higher sample rates. Do you think this is a better way to record the tracks or do you think just recording at 88 is the better way to go? (I am using Mytek converters)

2nd February 2006	#13
Legacy Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NYC Posts: 632	I don't necessarily agree that an upwards SRC degrades the sound. It certainly changes it but if you use a very high quality SRC I think it is often beneficial. Plugins sound better to me at higher sample rates, albeit subtly. In any case, I vote for recording at the higher sample rate. In my experience if you are using good SRC (or very good D-A / A-D conversion) the end result is still better than 44.1 to begin with. Its all subtle degrees in my experience but why not do what sounds best. Or of course, test it yourself and do whatever sounds best to you. I did and so far I always prefer higher sample rates for recording and often prefer upsampling for mastering. YMMV. -Silas __________________ Silas Brown Legacy Sound High-End Location Recording Legacy Mastering Mastering for classical, jazz, and acoustic music

2nd February 2006	#15
lucey Gear Guru Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Columbus, Ohio Posts: 12,365	track, mix, deliver to mastering at 88.2. simple, better for the plugs, more air, easy SRC down if the ME is all digital. __________________ brian lucey magic garden mastering The Shins, Dr. John, The Black Keys, OAR, David Lynch, Sami Yusuf, moe.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should I record at 44.1/24 or 96/24?	chipwits	Music computers	24	29th July 2006 01:21 PM
If you were going to record a classic folk record, how ?	fivestarstudios	Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording	9	8th July 2006 03:36 AM
To record or not record in stereo, that is the question?	Big 3rd	High end	6	26th March 2005 02:28 AM
Anyone bought a record from the "last record" thread?	Jay Kahrs	So much gear, so little time!	7	3rd May 2004 01:53 AM

31st January 2006	#2
gsharp Lives for gear Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 722	You're going to end up at the same size anyway after you upsample. Just recording at 88 to start will save you a step.

31st January 2006	#3
mixerguy Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,965	Better engineering is WAY more important than using a high sample rate. I have heard a good engineer do WAY better work at 44.1 than a lesser engineer working at 96k - in the same room, same console, same everything. Do it all 44.1, 24 bit, and spend your energies on mic placement, mic choice, balance, pre choice, etc etc etc. just my opinion. YMMV.

31st January 2006	#4
jim demetri Gear Head Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 58	i always work at 44.1 24bit . cant really see the point in going any higher . tryed it once and the benifits were so small that it wasent worth the risk of having everything ****ed up due to some crap convertion .

31st January 2006	#6
prismtheory Gear maniac Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 296	Hey if you have the hard drive space always record at 88.2. If you record at 44.1 and then upsample to 88.2 you will actually be degrading the audio quality. So do either one or the other. Just make sure your computer can handle projects with file bandwidth that high...nothing's worse than getting those track counts up and then running out of power. Sample rate doesn't matter...listeners don't give a f*&k about what you did to record only that it portrays the right vibe. -Christopher

2nd February 2006	#11
artbeat77 Lives for gear Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 542	My questions, and I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, are if it is understood what the difference between sample rate and bit depth is, or what happens to a sample/ audio file during conversion? There seems to be some confusion here. Here's a good read: http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

2nd February 2006	#14
Riad Lives for gear Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Monroe, NY Posts: 1,097	I would recommend a book: Digital Audio Explained (for the audio engineer) by Nika Aldrich