Login / Register
 
recording other than 44.1?
New Reply
Subscribe
Reag1502
Thread Starter
#1
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #1
Gear addict
 
Reag1502's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: overlooking the pacific ocean
Posts: 367

Thread Starter
Reag1502 is offline
recording other than 44.1?

I got the API A2D mic pre which is great sounding, and it has the option of using sampling rates from 192 all the way down to 44.1. So far I have only been using 44.1, and would like to know what the benefits are to using higher sampling rates? If I go all the way up to 192 are my recordings going to sound better? How does all that work? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Thanks
#2
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #2
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: Songwriter Gulch, Nashville TN
Posts: 12,930

Bob Olhsson is offline
Try it and listen.

While there's little theoretical advantage, it's not uncommon for some gear to sound better at some sample rates than others because of implementation.
__________________
Bob's room 615 562-4346
Georgetown Masters 615 254-3233
Music Industry 2.0
Interview
Artists are the gatekeepers of truth! - Paul Robeson
#3
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #3
Gear Head
 
jeff_way@yahoo.'s Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Nashville
Posts: 50

Send a message via Yahoo to jeff_way@yahoo.
jeff_way@yahoo. is offline
There are a couple advantages as far as the quality of the plugins...but other than that, there is no advantage. Going up to 192 is ridiculous; it's just a way to make more money. Papers have been written on this subject. Try reading some of them...I learned a lot from doing so. Many of the highest engineers in the business still use 24/44.
Reag1502
Thread Starter
#4
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #4
Gear addict
 
Reag1502's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: overlooking the pacific ocean
Posts: 367

Thread Starter
Reag1502 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_way@yahoo. View Post
There are a couple advantages as far as the quality of the plugins...but other than that, there is no advantage. Going up to 192 is ridiculous; it's just a way to make more money. Papers have been written on this subject. Try reading some of them...I learned a lot from doing so. Many of the highest engineers in the business still use 24/44.

That's pretty much what I thought. I'm sure if there is a difference only bats can hear it. On another note though, I think when I do mixdowns in Cubase it's 16/44. Now, will THAT make a difference in sound quality? Should I reset it to 24?
#5
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #5
Lives for gear
 
sonicdefault's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,855

sonicdefault is offline
Recording at higher sample rates definitely sounds better, especially when there are many tracks. I regularly record at 44.1, and 96k, and there is no doubt, recording at 96k can make a difference. At this time, however, the benefits are relatively small when you look at the big picture, and that's why many engineers are recording at 24/44.1, because there is a general consensus that a higher bit depth makes more of a difference. Your main concerns in regards to whether or not you should record in HD should be how powerful your recording setup is, and what your target medium is (due to considerations of things such as sample rate conversion). My advice is that if you can do it without it affecting your workflow, and it sounds better to you, then go for it. Also, I should say the obvious... that where you record and the techniques you use make far more of an impact than a higher sample rate. Personally, I stopped caring so much about this subject the moment I saw the world freak out over their iPods. Because I'm somewhat of a purist when it comes to recording, I figure that recording at higher rates can only help, and I choose to do it for my own satisfaction as well as the rare individulas that would actually appreciate it. I agree with Jeff, by the way, that recording at 192 is ridiculous at this point, and that another real benefit of higher rates is that some plug-ins become more precise.
Reag1502
Thread Starter
#6
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #6
Gear addict
 
Reag1502's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: overlooking the pacific ocean
Posts: 367

Thread Starter
Reag1502 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonicdefault View Post
Recording at higher sample rates definitely sounds better, especially when there are many tracks. I regularly record at 44.1, and 96k, and there is no doubt, recording at 96k can make a difference. At this time, however, the benefits are relatively small when you look at the big picture, and that's why many engineers are recording at 24/44.1, because there is a general consensus that a higher bit depth makes more of a difference. Your main concerns in regards to whether or not you should record in HD should be how powerful your recording setup is, and what your target medium is (due to considerations of things such as sample rate conversion). My advice is that if you can do it without it affecting your workflow, and it sounds better to you, then go for it. Also, I should say the obvious... that where you record and the techniques you use make far more of an impact than a higher sample rate. Personally, I stopped caring so much about this subject the moment I saw the world freak out over their iPods. Because I'm somewhat of a purist when it comes to recording, I figure that recording at higher rates can only help, and I choose to do it for my own satisfaction as well as the rare individulas that would actually appreciate it. I agree with Jeff, by the way, that recording at 192 is ridiculous at this point, and that another real benefit of higher rates is that some plug-ins become more precise.
thanks, I could not of asked for a better answer
Led
#7
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #7
Led
Lives for gear
 
Led's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 2,931

Led is offline
What about recording @ 384k? A developement group have been experimenting with this and found that it reproduces all the sub and ultra harmonics of analogue tape. Problem is no hardware will play it back, except for one which is just about to hit the market. Hmmm, interesting. Terrabyte usb keyrings for all.
#8
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #8
Lives for gear
 
uncle duncan's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,996

uncle duncan is offline
It might be good to try the higher rate on an intimate acoustic project, where sound quality and detail are going to be more obvious. But then, your sound is going to be limited by the quality of your A/D convertors. If they're not really special, like $1000 for 2 channels, then why bother? As far as mixing goes, if you recorded at 24/44, I would assume the 16/44 thing doesn't happen until after the track is mixed down? You definitely don't want to be working in 16/44, because with that resolution, everything is going to sound like poop.
#9
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #9
Lives for gear
 
max cooper's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: tx
Posts: 8,802

max cooper is offline
I use 48/24 usually. I notice a nice difference in the low end and I think it does translate even on an iPod.
#10
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #10
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 3,997

cdog is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reag1502 View Post
That's pretty much what I thought. I'm sure if there is a difference only bats can hear it. On another note though, I think when I do mixdowns in Cubase it's 16/44. Now, will THAT make a difference in sound quality? Should I reset it to 24?
Yes, you should always track with 24 bit or higher depth.

Your DAW for mixing should operate at 32 or 48 bits.

24/44.1 has always worked very well for me, I think the sample rate is about #20 out of 25 things in the signal chain that determine the final character and quality of the sound.

#11
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #11
Gear addict
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 407

bluegrasser is offline
Well my take is a little unorthodox:

I track to analog tape and mixdown to my Alesis Masterlink. The Masterlink's converters are not supposed to be the best in the world, but to my ear they sound just fine. I have found that on the Masterlink at least, recording at 24/96 does not sound as good at 16/44! Of course, I'm talking about comparing cd tracks after dither and sample rate conversion. 24/44.1 vs. 16/44.1 are closer in sound. The main advantage to 24bit to my ear is a slightly lower noise floor and maybe a slightly bigger/more articulate low end. But, I swear to you, there's is something about the 16bit recording that sounds more analog. Maybe it's just the Masterlink and maybe I got a wierd ear.
#12
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #12
Gear addict
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 474

Ibvee is offline
Quote:
What about recording @ 384k? A developement group have been experimenting with this and found that it reproduces all the sub and ultra harmonics of analogue tape. Problem is no hardware will play it back, except for one which is just about to hit the market. Hmmm, interesting. Terrabyte usb keyrings for all.
Heard from some folks that galaxy studio's is doing 384 for some time now... but probably only 'in the house', can't really find anything on their website though, except for the mastering page, but that isn't 'recording'...
#13
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #13
Gear addict
 
16/44.1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands.
Posts: 409

16/44.1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by uncle duncan View Post
It might be good to try the higher rate on an intimate acoustic project, where sound quality and detail are going to be more obvious. But then, your sound is going to be limited by the quality of your A/D convertors. If they're not really special, like $1000 for 2 channels, then why bother? As far as mixing goes, if you recorded at 24/44, I would assume the 16/44 thing doesn't happen until after the track is mixed down? You definitely don't want to be working in 16/44, because with that resolution, everything is going to sound like poop.
Not only the A/D converters, but mainly also the analogue design before conversion.
#14
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #14
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,884

Duardo is offline
Quote:
Recording at higher sample rates definitely sounds better, especially when there are many tracks. I regularly record at 44.1, and 96k, and there is no doubt, recording at 96k can make a difference.
I'm not sure that you can say that recording at a higher sampling rate "definitely" sounds better until you've tried every converter and DAW out there...and even then, "better" is somewhat subjective...we have someone else who's posted on this thread who mentioned that one system he's used sounds better at the lower sampling rates, which isn't all that uncommon.

I can't argue, though, that there's no doubt that recording at 96k "can" make a difference...

-Duardo
#15
25th October 2006
Old 25th October 2006
  #15
Gear addict
 
16/44.1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands.
Posts: 409

16/44.1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff_way@yahoo. View Post
There are a couple advantages as far as the quality of the plugins...but other than that, there is no advantage. Going up to 192 is ridiculous; it's just a way to make more money. Papers have been written on this subject. Try reading some of them...I learned a lot from doing so. Many of the highest engineers in the business still use 24/44.
Ridiculous it is indeed because most mic's used are rolling off around 20/22 kHz.
That's why i still recording at 44.1kHz.
Recording/mixing/mastering at 24bits (or more) is a good point.
#16
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #16
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2002
Location: Earth, NYC metro
Posts: 5,907
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via AIM to Jay Kahrs Send a message via Skype™ to Jay Kahrs
Jay Kahrs is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by 16/44.1 View Post
Ridiculous it is indeed because most mic's used are rolling off around 20/22 kHz.
Ummmm.....

Sure dude.

Whuddever you say.







IME recording at 88.2 or 96kHz does make a difference...depending on coverters & the rest of the front end and all that...a GREAT 48kHz A/D will beat the snot of some piece 'o poo $149 96kHz box ANY day of the week.

With high-def there's more depth and detail in the recordings...a little more "true" to the input signal where there's a slight difference with 44.1/48kHz...especially with jazz or classical, folk...any kind of music that has a lot of space and dynamics.

Going with 192 is just stoopid at this point in time. I can't think of any real reason to do it...other then for the sake of doing it.

Having said that...for rock music 24/48kHz is just dandy!

I'm in the middle of a record right now that has material tracked at several different sample rates and we just finished tracking another six tunes...all done to 2" tape at 15ips and that was captured at 24/48kHz to comp together takes, do overdubs & whuddever and then it's out of the DAW for an analog mix.

There's 4 or 5 tunes from the first batch of tracking that were captured from 2" tape at 88.2...those mixes were done at 88.2 and will go to mastering at 88.2. A few of the other songs were tracked in their homes at 44.1 and those were mixed down too rather then upsampling to 88.2 even though I'm mixing on a console. There's one last song that might make the cut...I recorded that one for a radio broadcast earlier this year and that's at 16/44.1 on a DAT tape!

Whoever ends up mastering it might hate me 'cause there's different combinations of sample rates...but the songs all sound just dandy and nobody will be the wiser after when they listen to the record or hear cuts on the radio.
__________________
J. 'Moose' Kahrs
producer|mixer|recordist
MooseAudio.com
mooseaudio.bandcamp.com
Quote:
All you need to make a record is a mic, some tape and maybe some bad reverb...
#17
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #17
Gear addict
 
16/44.1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands.
Posts: 409

16/44.1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs View Post
Ummmm.....

Sure dude.

Whuddever you say.







IME recording at 88.2 or 96kHz does make a difference...depending on coverters & the rest of the front end and all that...a GREAT 48kHz A/D will beat the snot of some piece 'o poo $149 96kHz box ANY day of the week.

With high-def there's more depth and detail in the recordings...a little more "true" to the input signal where there's a slight difference with 44.1/48kHz...especially with jazz or classical, folk...any kind of music that has a lot of space and dynamics.

Going with 192 is just stoopid at this point in time. I can't think of any real reason to do it...other then for the sake of doing it.

Having said that...for rock music 24/48kHz is just dandy!

I'm in the middle of a record right now that has material tracked at several different sample rates and we just finished tracking another six tunes...all done to 2" tape at 15ips and that was captured at 24/48kHz to comp together takes, do overdubs & whuddever and then it's out of the DAW for an analog mix.

There's 4 or 5 tunes from the first batch of tracking that were captured from 2" tape at 88.2...those mixes were done at 88.2 and will go to mastering at 88.2. A few of the other songs were tracked in their homes at 44.1 and those were mixed down too rather then upsampling to 88.2 even though I'm mixing on a console. There's one last song that might make the cut...I recorded that one for a radio broadcast earlier this year and that's at 16/44.1 on a DAT tape!

Whoever ends up mastering it might hate me 'cause there's different combinations of sample rates...but the songs all sound just dandy and nobody will be the wiser after when they listen to the record or hear cuts on the radio.
So it's analogue -> a/d -> d/a -> analogue -> a/d?
What a waste of sound that is, because there are 2 conversions to much.........
Shure dude.........

After the first a/d............stay digital!!!!!!!
#18
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #18
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2002
Location: Earth, NYC metro
Posts: 5,907
My Recordings/Credits

Send a message via AIM to Jay Kahrs Send a message via Skype™ to Jay Kahrs
Jay Kahrs is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by 16/44.1 View Post
So it's analogue -> a/d -> d/a -> analogue -> a/d?
What a waste of sound that is, because there are 2 conversions to much.........
Shure dude.........

After the first a/d............stay digital!!!!!!!
Well yeah, I guess it's something like that.

Track to 2" 24-track...dump to DAW via Apogee AD16 & Toolz HD converters...all comps, underdubs & other "work" is done ITB.

For mixing I split out of the DAW & fill up an analog console...my Trident for the first batch & probably the Neotek Elan at the Oxide Lounge in IL for this newest batch...but yeah...mix on a real console with real outboard gear and the 2-track mix is captured to digital...or maybe to analog 1/4" tape. Most of the stuff already sounds plenty thick, it's not like it needs "more" tape but maybe...

And 'ya know...I guess whoever ends up mastering this record will do ANOTHER round of A/D - D/A for whatever processing they'd like to use since none of the cats I send things to work ITB.

Besides...what's it matter when you've got steller converters like Mytek's and Apogees around? Does the shit sound good or not? If it sounds good and is being "improved" then who gives a fuk about another conversion?
#19
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #19
Gear addict
 
16/44.1's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Netherlands.
Posts: 409

16/44.1 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs View Post
Well yeah, I guess it's something like that.

Track to 2" 24-track...dump to DAW via Apogee AD16 & Toolz HD converters...all comps, underdubs & other "work" is done ITB.

For mixing I split out of the DAW & fill up an analog console...my Trident for the first batch & probably the Neotek Elan at the Oxide Lounge in IL for this newest batch...but yeah...mix on a real console with real outboard gear and the 2-track mix is captured to digital...or maybe to analog 1/4" tape. Most of the stuff already sounds plenty thick, it's not like it needs "more" tape but maybe...

And 'ya know...I guess whoever ends up mastering this record will do ANOTHER round of A/D - D/A for whatever processing they'd like to use since none of the cats I send things to work ITB.

Besides...what's it matter when you've got steller converters like Mytek's and Apogees around? Does the shit sound good or not? If it sounds good and is being "improved" then who gives a fuk about another conversion?
If you say so........
PDC
#20
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #20
PDC
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,888

PDC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdog View Post
Yes, you should always track with 24 bit or higher depth.

Your DAW for mixing should operate at 32 or 48 bits.

24/44.1 has always worked very well for me, I think the sample rate is about #20 out of 25 things in the signal chain that determine the final character and quality of the sound.

Respectfully,

Your choices right now are 16-bit or 24-bit word length samples. 24-bit is all you get even while sampling DSD, DXD as well.

DAW mix engine math has nothing to do with the 16 or 24 bit samples on the A/D side.

There are numerous debates as to whether 32-bit floating, 64-bit floating, or 48-bit fixed point math sounds best. I liken it all to accounting. When counting my cash, I want no amount thrown out due to errors in addition/subtraction. But that is just my opinion.
Reag1502
Thread Starter
#21
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #21
Gear addict
 
Reag1502's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Location: overlooking the pacific ocean
Posts: 367

Thread Starter
Reag1502 is offline
These are the sampling rates on the API A2D. 192, 176.4, 96, 88.2, 48, and 44.1. If for example I decide to use 48 sampling rate, is there anything I need to switch around on Cubase to make it work? Or can I just make the switch on the A2D?
PDC
#22
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #22
PDC
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,888

PDC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reag1502 View Post
These are the sampling rates on the API A2D. 192, 176.4, 96, 88.2, 48, and 44.1. If for example I decide to use 48 sampling rate, is there anything I need to switch around on Cubase to make it work? Or can I just make the switch on the A2D?
I do not know Cubase. I use PT HD. When setting up a session I have to select 16 or 24 bit, and then the sample rate. Likely you have to do the same. Irregardless of what you use, your audio engine does not change. You still have the 32-bit engine, or 64...whatever they use.
#23
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #23
Lives for gear
 
gsilbers's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora La Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula
Posts: 3,858

gsilbers is offline
so here is another question.... is it better to record at 88.2 or 96k?

well of course at 96 duh right? its higher... but then again... u have to downsample to 44.1k , right/? (for CD)

So, will the math be easier and more error-free when u down sample from 88.2 to 44 (88.2/2)
or from 96k to 44.1 (96/2.1768707483..)??

thats a lot of extra numbers with info... where does it go? cut off maybe.. does your computer really handle that as it should or are we thinking that our computers are doing magic inside and it should be inteligent enough to keep all that info?

but then again, youll have to have supersonic hearing to notice the difference, similar to
listening something at 44.1. 48 or 96.



at the end of the day... our 192k recording will be listened through an ipod with crappy headphones in mp3 format.

we should do everything in mp3 format! e
that why maybe electro/80's is getting having a comeback.
PDC
#24
26th October 2006
Old 26th October 2006
  #24
PDC
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,888

PDC is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsilbers View Post
so here is another question.... is it better to record at 88.2 or 96k?

well of course at 96 duh right? its higher... but then again... u have to downsample to 44.1k , right/? (for CD)

So, will the math be easier and more error-free when u down sample from 88.2 to 44 (88.2/2)
or from 96k to 44.1 (96/2.1768707483..)??

thats a lot of extra numbers with info... where does it go? cut off maybe.. does your computer really handle that as it should or are we thinking that our computers are doing magic inside and it should be inteligent enough to keep all that info?

but then again, youll have to have supersonic hearing to notice the difference, similar to
listening something at 44.1. 48 or 96.



at the end of the day... our 192k recording will be listened through an ipod with crappy headphones in mp3 format.

we should do everything in mp3 format! e
that why maybe electro/80's is getting having a comeback.
According to some it makes no difference. After talking to some digital engineers, and reading Nika's great book, in my mind, 88.2 to 44.1 makes sense. It is easier math. As for math errors and numbers being rounded/thrown away, that depends upon your software.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Checkmate Muzik / Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production
44

Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.