my sample rate is at 44.1 right now...how does raising the rate change your sound?

[heisleyamor]

Do higher sample rates mean higher quality? I record at 44.1 normally...Also my latency is at 4.0 ms...I record with a firepod going into my sony vaio through firewire with 1 gig hard drive...if things are skipping a little bit, should I just put the latency to 8.0 ms or higher? Let me know...thank you!

- Jeff

[heisleyamor]

I'm trying to get the best sound I can while using my shitty firepod...so let me know what sample rate you think would be best for a rocky/indie sound with crappy a/d converters

[Jonboy79]

If you can't make it sound good at 44.1 then you shouldn't worry about going any higher. To be honest, there are tons of threads on different sample rates and arguements as to why you should or shouldn't go higher than 44.1. Best bet though is to just do some recording at higher sample rates and compare them with the lower ones. If you like the way 48, 88, or 96 sounds over 44 then go for it. You also really shouldn't sweat your converters, while they aren't great they aren't bad and again, if you can't make the recording sound decent with what you got then it isn't the equipment.

[Hot Lipps]

i've read thru a lot of the treads about this subject and decided to do a test I recorded the same sequence from my mpc 4k and motif in all sample rates and listened. I then dithered them to 16/44 and listened a lot more closly. My personal prefrence is this: DRUMS sound better recorded in 48k. EVERYTHING ELSE sounded better @ 88.2. I couldnt tell the dif between 88.2 and 96k though....

you should probably do a test and choose with your ears. You might also want another person to administr the a/b testing so it remains completely objective.

[orksnork]

yep...double the strain on your pc going from 44 to 88...

i tried that once...had to convert the whole thing to finish up

[glitch]

Please search samplerate - you'll find more than enough to fill a year's worth of encyclopedias.

[Bob Olhsson]

The real issue is what a sample rate sounds like with your converters. As converters get better, there are fewer differences.

[LeeStoker]

My feeling is we are still ending up on cd 16bit 44.1k so I'll stick to 44.1k until things change. Does one sound better?? who cares it ends up on cd then to mp3 at this time. As you know it all gets squished to hell in mastering so I guarantee you will not hear a difference and your DAW recources will drop considerably. Specs are just that specs there where and still are many records made at lower bit and sample rates and are wonderful, made by talented people. If your mixes are not up to snuff to your ears at 44.1k study and practice more it is not the sample rate.

[Franz]

A common theory is this: It´s not the higher samplerate itself that makes it sound better, but the fact that the lowpass filter in your A/D kicks in at a frequency so high that you can´t hear it work. If you record at 44.1 kHz with cheap equipment, the filters will most likely start sloping at an audible frequence (and in a bad way). So, the weired thing is, the better equipment you have, the less reasons you have to go for higher samplerates, since the lowpass filters in a good A/D sounds a lot beter.

[heisleyamor]

so if i have a firepod...using a higher sample rate might be better? just want to hear what you have to say...I'll experiment with it still...