It seems that many still record at 44 or 48? What is your reason for this?

as opposed to what? be a little more spefic!

WIPO: Can't afford 96K+ converters/interfaces.

You have to work at 48 if your working with the video guys.

They want everything at 48 ..... it's the standard.



Hollywood baby.

48 is the standard for video, 44.1 is the what a CD is. There are probably a ton of threads on this site arguing the pro's and cons of recording at 88 or 96 (or got forbid 192) and then bouncing it down to 44.1 in the end.... but I won't open that can of worms here.

44.1 (or multiple thereof) for album projects.

48 (or multiple thereof) for video, DVD, and broadcast.

It's the same in NYC as LA. It's about the final medium. Now lets talk BIT RATE!

This thread was not intended to debating if the higher sample rates or better or worse. But more so on those who use 44 or 48 and why?

Personally I have a Pent IV 2.8 with a 2 gig's of ram, and two UAD cards. I find I have to be so careful with how many plug ins I use in UAD and native at 88. Using Giga Studio at 88 is also a real pain. I have to keep the buffers so high, the meters may be only at 60% but then when I play the keyboard to trigger Giga, they peak up to 90 or 100% with quick bursts. Having a dual processor would be really nice right now for my studio. I am hopeful to get by with 44 with most of my recordings and those with more of a basic drums guitar, bass and vocals to use 88.

Though I have heard some more sparkle in the top end with 88 over 44, I am not sure how much of an improvement it is after you dither down, but I do know that some Waves and UAD plug ins are optomized at the higher sample rates. However it appears that in the recording industry many who have the option of recording at the higher samples rates are staying at 44. I am curious as to why this is? I know Twisted Sister re-recorded one of the records in the last year and they stayed with 44 as well.

I don't find a difference really. I think that quality gear in other ways make differences. I might be trying 88 soon, but 192? No way.

I like to save hard drive space, be able to use my MPX-1 and other 44 only unit (via digital), save processing power, etc..

No reason to use it. 44 sounds ok to me!

you mean SRC down to 44

I use 44.1 because I'm too lazy to mess around with anything more, and I'm not doing anything for video.

I usually go with 48kHz for "rock" multi-track, It sounds a bit "meaner" IMO...running at 96 is almost a little too clean. Computer horsepower is almost a non-issue for me since just about everything is done in the analog domain...the DAW isn't much more then a giant tapedeck that runs a handful of plug-ins on submixes.

For 2-track stuff I print at either 88/96 or 44.1...NEVER 48kHz.