44.1/48/88.2/96 Sample rates. 16/24 Bit. How do you do yours.

unclebill98

Well i thought I'd ask me fellow studio heads that question.

I use 44k sample rate @ 24 bit for all my recordings. Its not a computer performance issue. I just never see the point in capturing something that can not be heard by the human ear.

I've been at recordings for commercially released albums and again there doing the same as I do.

I've been to seminars and have had the same song played to me at 44.1/16 and at 192/24, not one person around me could hear the difference and there was a few nodding there head in a "yes, yes i hear that" kind of way.

Most people are bounded my there setup as to the max they can get. But if your setup allows such massive sample rates what is the point?

I've talk at end to studio heads about this and it does spark off a good debate so let the treads begin. Maybe someone can convert me??

There is the whole "sure ain't it bounced down to 44.1/16 for cd".

Is it about capturing as much as you can to have an overall great production?

studiorat

I find cymbals and vocals sound better with 96kHz. S's and T's sound smoother to my ears. Basically using the higher sample rates means that the anti aliasing filter is higher. For a 44.1kHz recording the filter is set to around 22kHz, although this is above human frequency ranges, I believe that you can hear the distortion caused by ringing further down the spectrum.
I've recorded an Orchestra at 88.2kHz and converted the files then to 44.1kHz for listening copies and everybody could hear the difference.
I also feel the imaging is better at higher rates though I've been unable to do a straight A/B comparison on the same equipment. But listening to one and then the other I think there is a noticeable difference.
I have done some classical work at 192kHz and the 'depth' in the recording at that rate was fantastic. 192k does however eat hard drives for dinner.

I'd also hazard a guess that the summing may be better at higher rates too.

mike65

24/44 my hardware wont support higher Khz rate with analogue in and out selected.

Mike.

studiorat

About 50/50 44.1kHz and 96kHz always 24 bit.

PaulBrewer

A lot of my customers use 96khz. All use 24 bit. The differences are pretty big using high quality gear.

It's just a case of gathering as much musical info as possible into a recording.
A great recording hacked down to an MP3 will sound better than an average one suffering the same fate.

As the 'Rat says, hard drives become an issue at higher sample rates.

frobisher

I'm a 44.1k, 24 bit kinda guy. If the hat fits......

PaulBrewer

A big mistake in my experience is record at 48khz , then convert the mix to 44.1khz. ...... that's an easy way to screw things up.

ogy

A big mistake in my experience is record at 48khz , then convert the mix to 44.1khz. ...... that's an easy way to screw things up.

i know theres no advantage to doing that, but is it a major problem if you do? like if your working on something for a video maybe you'd record at 48khz then if you wanted to do a CD mix you'd go down to 44.1khz. if it caused major problems would going from 96khz to 44.1khz not have similar problems?, i.e. the same calculation errors as 96khz = 2 x 48khz. Do you think its better going from 88.2khz to 44.1khz rather than 96khz to 44.1khz?

mike65

Niall - Dahlia wrote: »

Personally I think this is a debate solely for sound engineers...the consumer listening on his iPod couldn't ive a ****!

So true! More and more people listen to music at too high a volume through inapropriate gear (and ear wax).

And frankly the latest hip-hopping emo-thrashing 2 stepping gabba track won't benefit from audiophile standards anyway!

/runs and hides

Mike

PaulBrewer

ogy wrote: »

i know theres no advantage to doing that, but is it a major problem if you do? like if your working on something for a video maybe you'd record at 48khz then if you wanted to do a CD mix you'd go down to 44.1khz. if it caused major problems would going from 96khz to 44.1khz not have similar problems?, i.e. the same calculation errors as 96khz = 2 x 48khz. Do you think its better going from 88.2khz to 44.1khz rather than 96khz to 44.1khz?

Yes indeed, the 'simpler' the calculation (i.e. 88.2 to 44.1) the better it sounds.
Your video mix /cd mix analogy is true, my point was whatever small gain you get by going 48 you loose going back to 44.1.

Again most of my Pro customers mix out of the box (in through analogue gear, summing amp or buss comp/ eq) at 96khz 24bit.

That's the file that gets mastered, usually through analogue gear again.

Your 88.2 point is absolutely true, slightly nonsensically I'm referring to the 'general area' of 96 or 88.2 as opposed to 44.1/48 and 176.4/196.

Perhaps I should wake up fully before taking on numbers!

studiorat

It would seem like 88.2kHz into 44.1kHz would be an easier calculation, however, even if the conversion is to exactly half the original rate, a simple
linear averaging of adjacent samples doesn't produce a correct result. There's a lot more to modern SRC than just throwing away half the samples.

PaulBrewer

I second that, because if it was the case there'd be no need to go 88.2 as you'd only be using 44.1 of them!

PaulBrewer

Savman wrote: »

Man I could never be a studio boffin. You lot and yizzer fancy mumblings, live is the way to go. Mic it up and turn it up

Aye! But if you're not there to hear it!! Then wha?

Savman

Man I could never be a studio boffin. You lot and yizzer fancy mumblings, live is the way to go. Mic it up and turn it up

studiorat

Savman wrote: »

Man I could never be a studio boffin. You lot and yizzer fancy mumblings, live is the way to go. Mic it up and turn it up

THAT'S IT! An auld '58 and a few crazy boxes! Wha?
Now you know how I feel when youse lot start off with yer line arrays and tha!

Savman

studiorat wrote: »

THAT'S IT! An auld '58 and a few crazy boxes! Wha?
Now you know how I feel when youse lot start off with yer line arrays and tha!

/drool

Seziertisch

It been a while since I read it, but this is discussed at length in Bob Katz's Mastering Audio (highly recommended, by the way). I don't have a copy on hand to refer to, but if I remember correctly he seems to think that the quality of the converters is very important in digital recording. I think a lot of times oversampling is used for the initial audio to digital conversion, meaning that the audio is converted as a matter of course to 192 khz. Then depending on the sampling rate you have selected it is then down-sampled to that rate (or not as the case may be). He thinks that the quality of the converters used for this is decisive, i.e. that when you select a higher sampling rate these converters have less to do in their down-sampling and thus are less influential on the sound quality.

He reckons that more time and effort needs to be put into producing better converters rather than manufacturers pushing up the sampling rate.

Anyway, from my own experience I would say higher sampling rates are nice but in a home studio set up a little impractical depending on how much processing you intend to do in the digital domain. The audiophile in me knows it sounds better, the musician in me thinks a higher sampling rate won't improve my music.

Although, theoretically going for higher sampling rate at the time of recording vs. the sampling rate at mixdown means that the shortening of the wordlength that occurs every time something is processed on the digital level shouldn't become an issue in the sound quality of the final recording as the extra wordlength afforded by the higher sampling rate will be lost when it is mixed down to cd or mp3.

Anyway, hope I got all my facts more or less right. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong

squibs

The differences are pretty big using high quality gear.

Agreed (given my very limited experience with higher end stuff). I would put the signal rate towards the bottom of the priority list for good audio though. I bet most people in a blind listening test would choose a recording from a well specified pro-rig at 44/16 over a recording from a prosumer rig at 96/24.

studiorat

squibs wrote: »

Agreed (given my very limited experience with higher end stuff). I would put the signal rate towards the bottom of the priority list for good audio though. I bet most people in a blind listening test would choose a recording from a well specified pro-rig at 44/16 over a recording from a prosumer rig at 96/24.

Absolutely. When I made the move from PT LE to HD I was sitting with my mouth wide open for the first recording sessions I did with it. Digi 001 to Apogee 16x's HUGE difference!!! It just makes the recording process so much easier. I got 4 years out of the 001 setup, unless we all start recording at 64bit
I don't see me changing the current convertors for much longer that that.

PaulBrewer

Yes, I agree with that.

PaulBrewer

If I just might momentarily put on my 'pro' hat -

The Apogee stuff, apart from sounding great, has a long life.
Unlike a lot in the digital world their stuff has a long working life. The last generation converter the AD 8000 was top dog for about 8 years.
I expect the AD/DA16s to last as long. I'd wager most anything else you might buy digitally this year you won't be using in 2016.

frobisher

I moved from a home set up of a Digi 001 to a LynxOne. The LynxOne is a few years old but it's a rock solid peice of quality gear and the difference between to was jaw dropping. It's all about the A/D baby.

henessjon

Well

record the best quality and for cd go with 44/16bit,

unfortunately although I am interested in this topic I have much more things too learn, but when Im ready..... its all good advice.

its like chicken and egg for me ....,. so whos gonna discuss when its best to use high quality cables does anyone hear a difference?


I suppose Im aiming for high quality demos rather than professional label outputs.

boy when will I be ready for a commission??????

PaulBrewer

henessjon wrote: »

Well

so whos gonna discuss when its best to use high quality cables does anyone hear a difference?

VoVox.com .... a huge difference. One of the best Euro 80 a lad can spend!

jtsuited

i think one of the most important things is to stay consistent when you're working with sample rates. I find 48 to be ever so slightly than 44.1, but most of the time the sample rate conversion undoes any of the quality so i stick to 44.1.

as far as bitrate goes, I stay at 24bit as there is an audible difference. But maybe that's in the summing more than anything else.

unclebill98

cool, some good advice here about that.

I does seem that most people are depending on the system when it come to choosing there sample rates. Also needed is a big as hard drive!

I would love to try some highend AD convertors like Apogee. I am using a Digi002 myself and I have done sessions on PTHD, have to say apart from the speed I did not notice much else in terms of sound quality.

The AB test on sample rates was was done in a Studio in dublin on a blue sky 5.1 monitor system. The room had proper acoustic treatment, but like i said I could not hear any difference.

I never looked at the sample rate effect certain sound sources like cymbols etcs.

Well I do hope one day I can get the HD1 system and hopefully I can start using the higher sample rates...maybe by brain is just telling me my stuff sounds good cause i can't afford a HD system....

dav nagle

After recording an album on Reason through my Digi 002 at 96khz there were times when I had the sample rate set to 44.1 and didnt notice but maybe 7 out of every 10 times throughout the project I would notice the difference in sample rate.

Look at a digital song create on Reason at 44.1khz. Listen to it through. Now go to preferences/audio and change the sample rate to 96khz. Listen again. Certain elements sound clearer, especially the drums, the snare and hats sound tighter if not allot crisper.

Does it matter to joe soap? I dont know.

brettzy

PaulBrewer wrote: »

VoVox.com .... a huge difference. One of the best Euro 80 a lad can spend!

Hey Paul, do you sell vo vox??

Seziertisch

Another vote for Vovox here. Highly recommended. I don't know would it make as much of a difference in a pro studio situation, but in a home use situation where there could be a less than optimal power supply/earthing situation, you are mixing balanced and unbalanced gear, and your signal is at the mercy of whatever magnetic fields, ground loops, etc. that happen to be present, then I can say emphatically that there is a definite audible difference between Vovox and cheapie cable, even over shorter runs.

I also talked with the guys at Red Submarine over in Britain and they recommended power conditioning as a way to improve noise levels on recording. They sell one from ART which they said worked quite well. The guy I was in contact with said that he uses one at home himself and found it made a huge difference. That said I have no experience either way with power conditioning in general or this specific unit.

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

Another vote for Vovox here. Highly recommended. I don't know would it make as much of a difference in a pro studio situation, I can say emphatically that there is a definite audible difference between Vovox and cheapie cable, even over shorter runs.

.

There's no doubt. Great on Mics (obviously) but also on the line level to your Near Fields, specifically NS10s.
Strangely Jurg reckons that even by using a Vovox lead from mic to Multicore will give you 70%ish of the gain that a straight vovox path would have. In tests we've found that to be the case.