different sample rates for different songs?

[KeithRT99]

hey guys, i'm going to start tracking my first album on sunday, and i was wondering has anyone ever done albums where say, a few songs are at one sample rate, and another few at a different rate?

i really want to do my entire album at at 88.2, but i figure i'm going to end up doing the majority of the songs in 44.1. I was thinking of doing my guitar only songs in 88.2 and my more densely arranged songs in 44.1 (seems kind of backwards to me now that i think of it)

has anyone ever done something like this/encountered this? Do you thing the quality difference between the songs will be too noticeable in a negative way?

 

[JBroll]

It does seem backwards. It also seems to be of questionable usefulness, unless you plan on having tracks around for the 2056 remaster of your album in 53.2-bit, 256kHz HyperCD and want everything to be in tip-top condition for the next generations of children with the hearing ranges of dogs. Keep things simple.

Jeff

 

[fatalforce]

You probably won't notice an audible difference. Once your done with your guitar songs in 88.2 your gonna downsample to 44.1 when you bounce or burn to disc.

 

[colonel kurtz]

my philosophy is to keep going down with the sample rate until you can hear the difference

seeing how my room is pretty crap, and i don't have any ridiculously good mics/pres, i usually stick to 48k...my converters will do 96k, but at this point i just don't reap the benefits of the higher samplerate. it also eats up shitloads more hard drive space and CPU power when mixing.

 

[Phoncible]

so when you, with a "pretty crap" room (and thereby i assume listening), cannot hear the difference you assume someone with good listening cannot either?

 

[RKelly]

88.2 would be my recommendation if you can keep everything there. It's a more "musical" transition from 88.2 to 44.1 (just half sampling) so you won't get as many artifacts as going from 96k or even 48k.

Will you hear a difference? Probably not. A lot of engineers I work with do work at 88.2 but they stay at that sample rate the whole project.

I usually work at 44.1 because a lot of editing happens on my laptop with an MBox so it's simpler.

But if you can, higher sample rates have never hurt anyone...

 

[KeithRT99]

my current plan is to mixdown from whatever sample rate to 1/4 in. tape, then bring it back in at 44.1. that's part of the reason why i was thinking of doing higher sample rates. Also i hear a difference in the final product that i like, when i mix at high sample rates - even if it ends up as 44.1.

 

[James Murphy]

my philosophy is to keep going down with the sample rate until you can hear the difference

seeing how my room is pretty crap, and i don't have any ridiculously good mics/pres, i usually stick to 48k...my converters will do 96k, but at this point i just don't reap the benefits of the higher samplerate. it also eats up shitloads more hard drive space and CPU power when mixing.

48k is useless if you're recording an audio CD... all the albums you listen to are done at 44.1. avoid the weird math of the the conversion from 48 to 44.1 that you will have to make before burning to CD. this subject has been covered in this forum easily 10 times.... and it's always been clear at the end of the discussion that pros making music for release on audio CD's record and 44.1/24 and there's no reason to record any higher. you won't hear a difference. if you are recording some piano & voice mellow jazz like Diane Krall or something, then 88.2 is a more reasonable option... though you'll still have to downsample to 44.1 to burn to CD, but at least the math of that conversion is simple. if you're recording for a DVD release though, 48 is good. once again though, this has all been covered and hashed out here many times... even the part keith just mentioned about using higher rates when the mixes will be printed to analog... in which case i see no use for going higher than 48.

 

[Darkening]

listen to yames.

 

[poidaobi]

, unless you plan on having tracks around for the 2056 remaster of your album in 53.2-bit, 256kHz HyperCD and want everything to be in tip-top condition for the next generations of children with the hearing ranges of dogs.

Jeff

 

[cobhc]

listen to yames.

Who?