what khz and bit rate do you record at and why?
- Thread starter pattonfreak1
- Start date
bryan_kilco
Member
44.1 and 24 bit.
Why? It's Reaper's default and I don't know enough about this area to justify experimenting with changing it.
Why? It's Reaper's default and I don't know enough about this area to justify experimenting with changing it.
ashgallows
resonant manipulator
as high as my system will handle for both. I feel like hard drive capacity is negligible now, and if that isn't an issue why not have the truest replication of the signal possible?
brianhood
No Care Ever
44.1/24 because I honestly can't hear a different between 48kHz and up. (at least in heavy music)
Punkyskunky
Engineer at Brett Brothers Studio
44.1kHz and 24 bit are the industry standard. Do higher sample rates sound better? I'd say they definitely do. But the problem is that %99 percent of people will listen to music at 44.1kHz or lower anyway simply because they don't know any better/don't care/get given it that way...
It really depends on what your intentions are. If you're material is gonna end up at 44.1kHz 16 bit on a CD or streaming on Spotify then I don't really see much point to worrying about it too much.
Plus, you'll save a ton of space on you're hard drive in the long run due to the smaller file sizes.
However, If you do have the capacity to listen back/record at really high sample rates on a top notch ADC+DAC then sure, go ahead and record at 96,176... or even 768kHz! and I guarantee you'll enjoy the difference in quality. I recently purchased an awesome high end DAC and have really enjoyed listening to some of my favourite mixes with the improved clarity and punch, it really takes the listening experience to a whole other level.
Anyways, hope this has been of a little help to you.
Good Luck in your Musical Endeavours.
It really depends on what your intentions are. If you're material is gonna end up at 44.1kHz 16 bit on a CD or streaming on Spotify then I don't really see much point to worrying about it too much.
Plus, you'll save a ton of space on you're hard drive in the long run due to the smaller file sizes.
However, If you do have the capacity to listen back/record at really high sample rates on a top notch ADC+DAC then sure, go ahead and record at 96,176... or even 768kHz! and I guarantee you'll enjoy the difference in quality. I recently purchased an awesome high end DAC and have really enjoyed listening to some of my favourite mixes with the improved clarity and punch, it really takes the listening experience to a whole other level.
Anyways, hope this has been of a little help to you.
Good Luck in your Musical Endeavours.
BassTard
Member
Bit depth: 24bit every time!
Sampling rate: If I'm aiming for audio only, I'll be using 88.2kHz. If aiming for video it's 96kHz. Just cause my lectures in mathematics and signal theory have taught me to favour an integral devider. (Not very complex knowledge, though.) I still deem 44.1kHz (and CD-Audio) as a standard for consumer-files.
EDIT: I don't think final products will have to be any higher than 48kHz.
Oversampling has helped me a lot, back in the day of DirectX and VST(1) Plugins - and so I tend to stick with it now. It's not the extra high frequency information that's been recorded (in fact I'm quite a fan of lowpass far below the nyquist). It's the output quality of digital audio processing and effects (in particular: aliasing), especially concerning heavy dynamics and analog modeling.
EDIT: So even if the final product is 44.1kHz, it made absolute sense to mix in 88.2 and then convert the final master.
Maybe I will rethink someday. Because this topic is also very entangled with the quality of the algorithms. (I tend to messure and know my plugs.) Moreover, in these days of high CPU power, a lot of the critical plugins allready use internal oversampling. So I'd probably be happy to use 44.1 on a lot of occasions.
I'll be receiving my new converters in February - and I'm planning on making some contemporary A/B tests, finally. (All steps from 44.1 up to 192.)
Sampling rate: If I'm aiming for audio only, I'll be using 88.2kHz. If aiming for video it's 96kHz. Just cause my lectures in mathematics and signal theory have taught me to favour an integral devider. (Not very complex knowledge, though.) I still deem 44.1kHz (and CD-Audio) as a standard for consumer-files.
EDIT: I don't think final products will have to be any higher than 48kHz.
Oversampling has helped me a lot, back in the day of DirectX and VST(1) Plugins - and so I tend to stick with it now. It's not the extra high frequency information that's been recorded (in fact I'm quite a fan of lowpass far below the nyquist). It's the output quality of digital audio processing and effects (in particular: aliasing), especially concerning heavy dynamics and analog modeling.
EDIT: So even if the final product is 44.1kHz, it made absolute sense to mix in 88.2 and then convert the final master.
Maybe I will rethink someday. Because this topic is also very entangled with the quality of the algorithms. (I tend to messure and know my plugs.) Moreover, in these days of high CPU power, a lot of the critical plugins allready use internal oversampling. So I'd probably be happy to use 44.1 on a lot of occasions.
I'll be receiving my new converters in February - and I'm planning on making some contemporary A/B tests, finally. (All steps from 44.1 up to 192.)
Last edited:
wishtheend
clip the apex
48khz/24bit. No real reason except I'm done with CDs and everyone listens on digital so 48khz is not usually an issue.
egan.
daylightdies.com
I used to be a 44.1/24 guy but now I'll pretty much do anything. I think anything from 44.1 up with great converters is fine however clients ask for all sorts of things. Typically, rock at 44.1 or 48, classical at 88.1 or 96k, vo at 48....etc.
MrBongo
idiot at work
recording: 44.1kHz 24bit.
While mixing though, I often switch over to 88.2kHz. This is whenever I use certain plugins, because their sound changes with sample rate. Not just a miniscule difference in the treble response like several theories try to convonce you of, but a really big alteration of its characteristics. Might have something to do with programming issues, whatever, at least it IS there, and I like it better than the 44kHz sound
While mixing though, I often switch over to 88.2kHz. This is whenever I use certain plugins, because their sound changes with sample rate. Not just a miniscule difference in the treble response like several theories try to convonce you of, but a really big alteration of its characteristics. Might have something to do with programming issues, whatever, at least it IS there, and I like it better than the 44kHz sound
BassTard
Member
@MrBongo: Yeah, it's not the treble response - those artifacts can actually reach down close to the fundamentals of the material. It seems not to be a trivial task to write algorithms that ain't sensible to this. I notice it often with new freeware companies and especially with stuff that's been done with... dare I say it... SynthMaker 
.
We did exzessive tests back in 2006 (there's been huge progressions in plugin development, no doubt about it). And it was very obvious how much the sound changed. And there's still some plugs which are very critical. (Though I try to avoid them nowadays.)
EDIT: I did a quick comparison, using modeled distortion. It's the same effect and setting - just different sample rates. This kind of stuff it's not just measurable or even miniscule - it's clearly audible, especially in a dense mix. But every step of oversampling (x2) will have a big impact on CPU, and there's definitely a frontier where it doesn't make any sense anymore.
.We did exzessive tests back in 2006 (there's been huge progressions in plugin development, no doubt about it). And it was very obvious how much the sound changed. And there's still some plugs which are very critical. (Though I try to avoid them nowadays.)
EDIT: I did a quick comparison, using modeled distortion. It's the same effect and setting - just different sample rates. This kind of stuff it's not just measurable or even miniscule - it's clearly audible, especially in a dense mix. But every step of oversampling (x2) will have a big impact on CPU, and there's definitely a frontier where it doesn't make any sense anymore.
Last edited:
Interesting. So if i have the option to run 48/24, should I? I'm not making CDs mind you, I'll just be posting songs online
BassTard
Member
@pattonfreak1: Just go for it, picking 48kHz is fine for some good sounding music. And you got the right basis if you wanna add some Youtube clips (or the likes) later on.
MrBongo
idiot at work
i clearly stated it´s NOT about artifacts, but about a change in sound. Like two different.
BassTard
Member
With amp sims, noticeable differencefrom 44.1khz to 96khz. Since I've upgraded my computer I'm using 96khz sample rate and it really makes a huge difference in the high end of distorted guitars. I can't say much toward anything else but recording guitars since I havent dived into much mixing since I got my new pc gear, only had it for a few weeks now.
So in REAPER I notice a bit of improvement switching from 44.2/16 to 48/24. Not anything drastic but it does seem "better".
However in Cubase 8 it sounds noticeably WORSE...Like REALLY bad.
Why would this be?
However in Cubase 8 it sounds noticeably WORSE...Like REALLY bad.
Why would this be?
MrBongo
idiot at work
does cubase correct the system´s sampling rate as well when changing it inside the program? I know Reaper does
some ampsims, drive plugins and a vocoder do that, as mentioned above. Some just a bit, some are able to sound as if you inverted settings when switching between 44 and 88. Not sure why though.
Some months ago I posted a comparison between 44.1, 64 and 88.2 kHz in another board (upload already deleted).
People were like "wth is wrong there?", but all that changed was the host´s sampling rate
no worries
some ampsims, drive plugins and a vocoder do that, as mentioned above. Some just a bit, some are able to sound as if you inverted settings when switching between 44 and 88. Not sure why though.
Some months ago I posted a comparison between 44.1, 64 and 88.2 kHz in another board (upload already deleted).
People were like "wth is wrong there?", but all that changed was the host´s sampling rate
BassTard
Member
@pattonfreak1: I can only guess there might be a problem with phase coherence on multitrack recording/playback. But I'm not knowledgeable on Cubase. Did you re-record or convert your audio?
@MrBongo: Interesting, I will do some investigations myself.
@MrBongo:
Interesting, I will do some investigations myself.
mickrich
Member
- Aug 2, 2007
- 1,753
- 70
- 48
24/44.1 for audio here.
Nyquist frequency is half sampling rate and is the highest frequency reproduced at a given sampling rate.
To prevent aliasing, which is misreading frequencies above nyquist, converters have a low pas filter just below nyquist so at 44.1 nyquist is 22.05KHz.
Anti aliasing filter is at 20KHz rolling off to 22.05KHz.
I am a human being and can not hear above 20KHz so 44.1 it is.
If I'm doing video I use 16/48 because that is the standard for video.
Nyquist frequency is half sampling rate and is the highest frequency reproduced at a given sampling rate.
To prevent aliasing, which is misreading frequencies above nyquist, converters have a low pas filter just below nyquist so at 44.1 nyquist is 22.05KHz.
Anti aliasing filter is at 20KHz rolling off to 22.05KHz.
I am a human being and can not hear above 20KHz so 44.1 it is.
If I'm doing video I use 16/48 because that is the standard for video.
