Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   High End (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/)
-   -   Which sample rate are you working at - in 'high end' studios - in 2015/16? (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/1036843-sample-rate-you-working-high-end-studios-2015-16-a.html)

The Beatsmith 10th October 2015 03:24 PM

Which sample rate are you working at - in 'high end' studios - in 2015/16?
 
Hi,

If you're going to - or run or work in a commercial 'high end' studio - what sample rate do most of the sessions work at, in 2015/2016?

Edit: to clarify, just for 'music', not music/audio for TV/film.

Cheers kfhkh

Ed

[email protected] 10th October 2015 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Beatsmith (Post 11396407)
Hi,

If you're going to - or run or work in a commercial 'high end' studio - what sample rate do most of the sessions work at, in 2015/2016?

Cheers kfhkh

Ed

I'm rarely asked for anything other than 24/44.1 (music) or 24/48 (picture) (depending on the end use.)

The Beatsmith 10th October 2015 10:08 PM

Hi Trev!

Would you rather run at 96 if it were your own project?

Recently did a session at Rockfield and was surprised that the engineer mentioned that most people were still asking for 44.1 -
by far.

I produced and tracked a project for a band at 96 there, and it sounds great (not necessarily because of 96 though) - seems a 'shame' to spend all that cash hiring a hi end place and sticking with 44.1. This project is going to vinyl too, so I thought it'd be nice to keep it 96khz all the way to mastering, but it seems like it's not very common - I only know my own workflows!

Selfishly, I have an album of my own which I've started at 44.1 and will be tracking all drums at rockfield or similar - and wondering if I should up everything to 96, especially for drums (most other things need retracking anyway)

Cheers :-)

Ed

nevefreak 10th October 2015 10:16 PM

If you use lots of plugs 96/24 going in, is the way to go.. then 32bit float internal. If you don't use a lot off plugs 44/24 is fine and 24 bit fixed internal is fine. It also depends on your converters. It's well documented 60khz is optimal. If you do a lot of plugin processing oversampling as well as floating point bit rate is going to sound better.

u47u67u87 10th October 2015 10:17 PM

Where's 192k? :heh:

I don't really ever see the need to pass 96k for most stuff, but sometimes, if I feel like I can, I'll run at 192.

Why not?

nevefreak 10th October 2015 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u47u67u87 (Post 11397135)
Where's 192k? :heh:

I don't really ever see the need to pass 96k for most stuff, but sometimes, if I feel like I can, I'll run at 192.

Why not?


If you have the processing power and disk space maybe it should be 192? Sampling rates are still very controversial. I only recorded at 96 because I thought it sounded better so I stuck with it.

People will drill you and tell you it doesn't sound better because of Nyquist/Shannon blah blah blah..... But if you think 192 sounds better, why not? neither Nyquist or Shannon ever used DAWs or plugins. If you are in fact a Nyquist/Shannon purist, then just record at 32k/16 bit. Most people can't hear above 16k. So you will be fine.

a.beck 10th October 2015 10:56 PM

I've never met anyone that can reliably discern any difference between 48k and 96 or 192, and all the properly double blind tests I've read about seem to back that up, so I don't bother anymore with anything higher than 48. I can't remember the last time I even heard about (let alone worked on) a project done at 96 or higher.

The Beatsmith 10th October 2015 10:59 PM

By the way guys: I was just wondering more what people are using in the real world, don't wait it to turn into a 'there's no point' debate kfhkh

Waltz Mastering 11th October 2015 12:02 AM

Estimated
44.1 - 50%
48 - 39%
88.2 -5%
96 - 5%
192 -1%

Woodwindy 11th October 2015 01:53 AM

I mix to a second rig, which can capture at a different rate than the project was tracked at. Once the mix goes through some outboard transformers and tubes, why not print the mix master in 2 tracks of the highest rate you can? Mastering will no doubt take it again into the analog world before printing to the final sample rate anyway.
Great topic for a fun Saturday evening discussion!

johnnyc 11th October 2015 02:55 AM

The prevalence of 44.1 is rather surprising.

Morrillo 11th October 2015 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Beatsmith (Post 11396407)
Hi,

If you're going to - or run or work in a commercial 'high end' studio - what sample rate do most of the sessions work at, in 2015/2016?

Cheers kfhkh

Ed

In all my sample rate test's transfering from my studer 2 inch the 192k! won, I know people say is not worth it, etc etc, but honestly I do hear the diference specially when I added the trinity 10M combo to my apogees ad16x's the low end is bigger, tighter

Just My Two Cents amigos!

TimDolbear 11th October 2015 04:25 AM

I work at 96k/24/32FLT

But in mastering, companies are doing more and more 192k, especially for Achieving. I was at Battery/Sony Studios in NYC 2 weeks ago and all achieving is now done at 192k.

DarkSky Media 11th October 2015 10:54 AM

For ease and flexibility a lot of people are still using 44.1kHz for music and 48k for AV. For sonics, 96k is still the sweet spot.

[email protected] 11th October 2015 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Beatsmith (Post 11397116)
Hi Trev!

Would you rather run at 96 if it were your own project?

[snip]

Cheers :-)

Ed

I regularly do my own stuff for publishing and I use 24/44.1. I have yet to hear a difference in a track that has been recorded high and converted down and one that has been recorded at target so I just think why bother (as I already go through hard drives like they are going out of fashion!)

johnnyc 11th October 2015 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morrillo (Post 11397625)
In all my sample rate test's transfering from my studer 2 inch the 192k! won, I know people say is not worth it, etc etc, but honestly I do hear the diference specially when I added the trinity 10M combo to my apogees ad16x's the low end is bigger, tighter

Just My Two Cents amigos!

Which converters did you use?

DannyMac 11th October 2015 11:59 AM

If the computer could handle it, I'd do EVERYTHING at 192k. It it's noticeably smoother to me

hughshouse 11th October 2015 12:43 PM

Pro Std. is now and has been for many years 24/48 for many very good reasons mostly associated with video. 24/44.1 accomodates "Red Book dither down" to 16/44.1 better than 48K. But with the very high likelyhood of optical disk storage and sales becomming obsolete down the road: 44.1 will loose it's relevance.

Fidelis 11th October 2015 03:59 PM

Everything I track is 24/88. But as I mostly mix this days, what I get in is:
70% 24/88 or 96
30% 24/44 or 48 - and for those projects a mix to a second rig, after the SSL, to 24/88.
Sounds better to me.

gainreduction 11th October 2015 04:11 PM

I had a 96k phase and am now back at 44.1. Last album I did at 96 got a thorough analysis in mastering and it contained pretty much no information at all above 22 khz.

With quality plugins I don't hear the (supposed??) aliasing problems at 44,1 either so I'm comfortable at 44,1 again.

For those interested there is a thread in the mastering forum about intermodulation distortion nasty-ness that can occur at 96k...

Pick your poison, I guess :)

Audiop 11th October 2015 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hughshouse (Post 11398208)
24/44.1 accomodates "Red Book dither down" to 16/44.1 better than 48K.

Would you mind clarify what you mean?

Squawk 11th October 2015 07:26 PM

(Not running a high end commercial studio, but freelance/location recording/music production & post, and working in my own space). I do most things at 96k these days. I have no problem working at 48k though, esp. if it's video/post work then it's always 24/48k.

For classical/orchestral recording, I've been working at 192k lately, which creates a few more considerations for us, but has been fine so far. I wouldn't personally work at 192 on anything that would be using a lot of plugins etc. though. Too resource heavy and no real benefit to the end result IMHO.

Most studios in town and producers I work with still do music projects at 24/48 or 24/44.1, but it's also going to depend on the project and if the artist/producer specifically requests 96k.

skybluerental 12th October 2015 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyc (Post 11397617)
The prevalence of 44.1 is rather surprising.

Not to people who have actually heard how small the differences are between 44.1 and 96 khz.

I once read a great quote by Tchad Blake.
He said, "If I have switch back and forth more than 3 or 4 times to hear a difference, I become uninterested in the difference."

pencilextremist 12th October 2015 12:41 AM

I like to work at 24/96 for everything, especially when tracking, my computer can easily cope with the load, hard disk space is not an issue anymore. It amazes me that so many people still use 44.1 and 48k in this day and age.

pencilextremist 12th October 2015 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u47u67u87 (Post 11397135)
Where's 192k? :heh:

I don't really ever see the need to pass 96k for most stuff, but sometimes, if I feel like I can, I'll run at 192.

Why not?

where's DSD 1-bit? gooof

u47u67u87 12th October 2015 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pencilextremist (Post 11399506)
where's DSD 1-bit? gooof

Where's 768khz/32? Where's DXD 352.8/24? :heh::heh::heh:

Squawk 12th October 2015 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pencilextremist (Post 11399503)
It amazes me that so many people still use 44.1 and 48k in this day and age.

Many studios and facilities still have older systems where cpu can sometimes be an issue with higher track counts and plugins, especially if LFAC based. also depends on who might be editing it, and what they are running at home, etc.

For post work, music for film, tv, etc. 24/48k is still the deliverable standard, so it very often stays there start to finish, especially if working directly with video in PT, Nuendo, DP etc.

I prefer 24/96k too, but any differences are often subtle compared to other things that are much more of a factor (room, mics, placement, source, preamp etc.).

chet.d 12th October 2015 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skybluerental (Post 11399455)

I once read a great quote by Tchad Blake.
He said, "If I have switch back and forth more than 3 or 4 times to hear a difference, I become uninterested in the difference."

yep.

psycho_monkey 12th October 2015 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyc (Post 11397617)
The prevalence of 44.1 is rather surprising.

Not really - in the real world at least.

It's really only online I see any strong defence of higher sample rates.

If you're working on a full production, most of the time a 96k sample rate would bring a computer to it's knees.

DarkSky Media 12th October 2015 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pencilextremist (Post 11399506)
where's DSD 1-bit? gooof

+1 :amaze: