Recording in 44.1kHz, 48kHz or higher? 24bits or higher?

[Heabow]

Hey,

Just wondering how much it affects the final product. I usually work in 44.1kHz and sometimes 48kHz, never above. Always in 24bits, never above. What are your habits about it?

I've read - don't remember where - that Andy records in 44.1kHz / 24bits (maybe it's wrong tho)

Thoughts?

 

[Plendakor]

I'm positive that almost everybody uses 44.1/24 here
I prefer 320kbps tho

 

[Studdy]

I use 24bit, 48000. This is an age old debate. There are logical reasons for all bit depth and sample rates. Mine is simple. 24bit 48000 uses very little processing without sacrificing any noticeable quality. If I went to 16 bit for tracking / mixing , i would notice headroom differences and perhaps quality. If i go higher than 48000 I personally don't hear an improvement by the time im done mixing, and the processing power needed outweighs what i hear. Now with 64 bit here this is even less of an issue.

So I use 24bit, 48000khz. No rules though. I used to record at higher sample rates, my mixes were not better. Essentially you are using your ears to mix a final waveform that sounds good regardless of bit depth and sample rate. You will compensate/do whatever it takes to make it sound pleasing. A good example is go back to when 24bit wasnt even around, there were great records made still.

 

[Terminus]

Higher resolution = more bits and bytes = more audio 'snapshots' of the incoming signal

My guess would be that only people with expensive hi-fi stereos (and golden ears) will be able to tell the difference. Those people listening on their white ear buds through an ipod, not so much.

One thing I will say is that when I've used 96khz (still 24 bit), amp sims did sound a bit less stuffy and sterile, might be placebo though.

 

[AntonioPetrole]

I'm positive that almost everybody uses 44.1/24 here
I prefer 320kbps tho

what? You prefer recording at 320kbps? That makes no sense at all to me

 

[Plendakor]

Trolled Honestly tho I don't get why 48kHz would be better for video as it is said. I make videos and never heard a differance bitween the 2.

 

[MondoLikeMetal]

I use 44.1 and, because Cubase recommends it, 32bit float. Cubase claims 32 bit float gives you more headroom for plug-ins.
I can't see going above 48 on sample rate, unless you have a concert band session, where the freqs and dynamic range is all over the place, but for metal, rock, punk, naaa...

 

[AntonioPetrole]

Trolled Honestly tho I don't get why 48kHz would be better for video as it is said. I make videos and never heard a differance bitween the 2.

Wasn't really trolling, more just spouting misinformation.

 

[Plendakor]

Well I thought it was an obvious joke

Anyway, even if NASA would build a hypertechnological speaker in a super listening room 2000, I'm not sure the human ear would differanciate 192kHz 32 bit to 44.1/24. But I'm not the best example of having a good hearing.

 

[SoundsLikeFog]

Well I thought it was an obvious joke

Anyway, even if NASA would build a hypertechnological speaker in a super listening room 2000, I'm not sure the human ear would differanciate 192kHz 32 bit to 44.1/24. But I'm not the best example of having a good hearing.

I'm supprised that after 30 years of digital mediums, there's still so much misconseptions considering sample rates and gear specs exceeding 20khz. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with bat hearing or golden ears that trandescent the human hearing.

E: Though I too am as clueless as the next guy.

 

[MondoLikeMetal]

I heard that it's a cleaner, more error free process if you use an algorithm that just cuts it in half, so, for you audiophiles that like to exceed 48k, go 88.2k if the final product is going to be 44.1k and 96 if stepping down to 48k.

 

[~BURNY~]

I heard that it's a cleaner, more error free process if you use an algorithm that just cuts it in half, so, for you audiophiles that like to exceed 48k, go 88.2k if the final product is going to be 44.1k and 96 if stepping down to 48k.

Audiophile like to say all kind of bullshit. There is no scientific evidence to support this claim.

 

[Flow Of Time]

Even if the higher bitrate would sound noticably better (which I don't know), what would be the point of having the higher quality, if it's going to be resampled to 44.1 anyway? To be "future proof"?

 

[Winston Wolf]

There's no future.music is dead.

on topic:
16/44.1

 

[Heabow]

Thanks guys.

 

[Plendakor]

I'm supprised that after 30 years of digital mediums, there's still so much misconseptions considering sample rates and gear specs exceeding 20khz. It hasn't got a damn thing to do with bat hearing or golden ears that trandescent the human hearing.

I wasn't refearing to the human hearing range of frequencies but rather the number of samples. Just like if I tell you that the color yellow doesn't exist on the TV, you're eye won't be able to see the individual pixels from you couch and see that "oh damn, there's only 3 colors with differant intensities".

 

[XxSicRokerxX]

on topic:
16/44.1

^

 

[mva801]

^^^ Are you guys really tracking at 16 bit?

 

[Axonic Rot]

Hello internet. Every time there is a discussion about audio sample rates someone comes in and says "We can't hear past 20khz, there's no point!". True that homie, but we're not just talking about the increase in frequency response.

 

[Flow Of Time]

I still don't quite get where the point of the higher sample rate is. Even in case it sounds better, how does it help if no one is ever going to listen to it at that rate?