Sample Rate

[3holeface]

What sample rate is everyone using? With all the IR's and Slate samples at 24/44kHz doesn’t it make since to record everything at the same rate? I’ve been doing 24/48Khz for some time now and have been getting a couple of projects that were done in 24/96 and I'm thinking that maybe some of these things getting converted up are starting to sound weird. Is this paranoia? Just wondering what others are doing and if anyone has noticed anything strange with the higher sample rates.

-T.

 

[3holeface]

anyone?

 

[illegalfireworks]

i've been using 24/96 but i dont know what im doing lol

 

[coldthrn]

Currently I record at 24/48. I use to do 24/96, however it takes up way too much processing power and hard drive space. You cant tell the difference fidelity wise between the two. This has also been covered in other threads.

24/48 for the win.

 

[Metaltastic]

Actually, I would say 24/44 for the win, cuz there can be annoying artifacts when bouncing from 48 to 44, which is of course always inevitable, and the improvement when recording at 48 is that you can record frequencies at up to 24k, rather than 22k, which doesn't help all that much seeing as how we can only hear up to 20k! Furthermore, even if you were to argue about subtleties being captured that we still subconsciously perceive, we're talking metal here, and further more, I defy you to tell me you can notice even the slightest difference if you open up one of your favorite mixes and do a sharp LPF at like 18k. AND, Andy records at 24/44.1!

 

[Skaldir]

Yeah, it's difficult to convert from 48 to 44.1 khz, so when it's supposed to end on CD, you should use 24bit/44.1 khz. If you want to go higher 24bit/88.2 khz
When you record something that will end on a DVD project, then you can record in 48 khz

 

[Machinated]

Actually, I would say 24/44 for the win, cuz there can be annoying artifacts when bouncing from 48 to 44, which is of course always inevitable, and the improvement when recording at 48 is that you can record frequencies at up to 24k, rather than 22k, which doesn't help all that much seeing as how we can only hear up to 20k! Furthermore, even if you were to argue about subtleties being captured that we still subconsciously perceive, we're talking metal here, and further more, I defy you to tell me you can notice even the slightest difference if you open up one of your favorite mixes and do a sharp LPF at like 18k. AND, Andy records at 24/44.1!

Bang!

 

[coldthrn]

Actually, I would say 24/44 for the win, cuz there can be annoying artifacts when bouncing from 48 to 44, which is of course always inevitable, and the improvement when recording at 48 is that you can record frequencies at up to 24k, rather than 22k, which doesn't help all that much seeing as how we can only hear up to 20k! Furthermore, even if you were to argue about subtleties being captured that we still subconsciously perceive, we're talking metal here, and further more, I defy you to tell me you can notice even the slightest difference if you open up one of your favorite mixes and do a sharp LPF at like 18k. AND, Andy records at 24/44.1!

Good lord, I didn't know sample rates were such a sensitive subject!

 

[Metaltastic]

What indication did I give that they were? I'm just telling it like it is man!

 

[coldthrn]

I defy you to tell me you can notice even the slightest difference if you open up one of your favorite mixes and do a sharp LPF at like 18k.

That would tell me that you are looking for an argument. No argument here I was just stating what I use. Good to know I can go to 44k and get the same effect. However, to use strong words like I defy you, just touches it off that you are looking for a fight.

Let it be known 44k for the win!

 

[Metaltastic]

Fair enough - I meant it in kind of a ball-busting way, but I can see how it would come off as more agressive. No confrontational attitude intended!

 

[3holeface]

So is that why most samples sets and IR's are in 24/44 format? I notice with my BLA_Digi002 that it really starts to sound good at 96khz, dont know why but it does, is there anything I should watch out for when running at that format with samples and IR getting up converted in the program?
Thanks for the help.
-T

 

[MetalJonesy]

24/44.1 is the best way to go professionally. 48k and 96k only really come into play when doing audio for dvd and post production, as television audio is 48k. and as said previously recording at 48K poses alot more problems for when you have to convert it down to 44.1 as it has to drop out samples here and there, where as recording at 88.2 just means every other sample is dropped.

So yeah 24/44.1, or maybe 88.2 if you can be bothered!

 

[wishtheend]

24-bit/44.1 khz for me to. It's all going to CD/mp3s in the end - so I don't need anything higher than 44.1.

 

[C_F_H_13]

24/44.1 here. I'm glad this hasn't turned into a huge debate here. On GS and PSW there are threads that are literally 1000s of posts long with people arguing this.

 

[Uladyne]

24/44.1. I was just doing it for economical reasons, but it's cool to know that it seems to be the way to go.

 

[Metaltastic]

24/44.1 here. I'm glad this hasn't turned into a huge debate here. On GS and PSW there are threads that are literally 1000s of posts long with people arguing this.

BUT...BUT...192K GIVES BETTER STEREO IMAGING AND BETTER CRISP DETAILS AND BETTER DIMENSION AND WANK WANK WANK WANK WANK

 

[Ermz]

I won't be laying shit on 96k and 192k until I've done the comparisons myself, but for standard band, CD-recording purposes I use 24/44, as many here evidently do. It's easier on the CPU and HDD and since you downsample in the end, it seems self-defeating to use higher rates.

 

[TheWinterSnow]

i once laid out some tracks in 96 and 192, in both you can hear a huge clarity difference. So if you plan on having HD tracks in 5.1, i would go for it, then when you want to you can listen to the highest of the highest quality; just imagine the quality of your home theater when you are running a high end 5.1 in 192/32, your friends' jaw will drop from what they are hearing and so will yours, its the 1080p equivalent of audio. However your versions on CD that you will have for fans and for yourself for broadcasting reason will be sampled down.

when you use a higher bit rate you get higher sensitivity, which helps the realism, the higher sampling rate helps naturally dither the digital distortion/pixlation in the audible frequencies, which makes the high end sound crisper without being harsh and the fundamentals become stronger. but that it just from my understanding of aural physics and from personal experience.

 

[PostMortem1666]

I use 24/48 only because my 2 pres will only run via ADAT together at 48 and I can't figure out how to change it so I just deal with it. If i had the choice I would go back down to 24/44.1