|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Apr 30, 2022 14:07:13 GMT -6
I've always worked on 44.1, prioritizing my CPU power has been the culprit for that - but I have a better computer now, and am also running a lot of HW inserts.
I read your converter works better at higher sample rates - perhaps your recordings will respond better to plugins and analog processing as well.
What sample rate do you guys use to record and/or mix and why?
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Apr 30, 2022 14:12:36 GMT -6
I don’t find the sonic differences meaningful, but there are definitely tactical considerations.
1. Is CPU, as you mentioned.
2. Latency is lower at higher sample rates, if that’s a concern.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Apr 30, 2022 14:21:51 GMT -6
I've been running at 88.2 or 96lkHz as much as possible since about 2007. I find it makes a difference. More information is never a bad thing.
Why? I was producing an album (swampadelica Sac Passe) at the Phish Barn where the plan was track 2" and immediately capture to PT. At the time drive space was small and expensive, 250 gigs was a massive drive. I wanted to run at 44.1 to save space... Pete Carini who ran the studio said no way you should capture at 88.2 we do everything there.
I said ok but we need to hear it first. So the band cut on 2" then Pete made two dumps... 44.1 and 88.2 and everyone listened and had a vote. And no doubt we could all hear the difference. The 88.2 capture sounded and felt more like the analog master. Well ok! Settles that.
This was a JH24 with an API Legacy & PTHD converters... No plugs no processing straight up transfer at unity gain monitored through the desk.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Apr 30, 2022 15:11:00 GMT -6
88.2. Occasionally 48. Older converters I had sounded like trash at 44k1/48, now there’s not so much diff.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwlee7 on Apr 30, 2022 15:18:05 GMT -6
When I started sending stuff out to have live drums put on tracks, I was told to record in 88.2. I said okay and that was that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Apr 30, 2022 15:28:11 GMT -6
88.2k over here
|
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Apr 30, 2022 15:34:40 GMT -6
I've been running at 88.2 or 96lkHz as much as possible since about 2007. I find it makes a difference. More information is never a bad thing. Why? I was producing an album (swampadelica Sac Passe) at the Phish Barn where the plan was track 2" and immediately capture to PT. At the time drive space was small and expensive, 250 gigs was a massive drive. I wanted to run at 44.1 to save space... Pete Carini who ran the studio said no way you should capture at 88.2 we do everything there. I said ok but we need to hear it first. So the band cut on 2" then Pete made two dumps... 44.1 and 88.2 and everyone listened and had a vote. And no doubt we could all hear the difference. The 88.2 capture sounded and felt more like the analog master. Well ok! Settles that. This was a JH24 with an API Legacy & PTHD converters... No plugs no processing straight up transfer at unity gain monitored through the desk. It's useless though if the stems were recorded at 44.1 no? To up-sample would just bring a bunch of empty information into the file that isn't there?
|
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Apr 30, 2022 15:51:45 GMT -6
96 usually, sometimes 48 if I need to save CPU/disk space. But 96 almost always sounds better to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossanova on Apr 30, 2022 16:16:52 GMT -6
I've been running at 88.2 or 96lkHz as much as possible since about 2007. I find it makes a difference. More information is never a bad thing. Why? I was producing an album (swampadelica Sac Passe) at the Phish Barn where the plan was track 2" and immediately capture to PT. At the time drive space was small and expensive, 250 gigs was a massive drive. I wanted to run at 44.1 to save space... Pete Carini who ran the studio said no way you should capture at 88.2 we do everything there. I said ok but we need to hear it first. So the band cut on 2" then Pete made two dumps... 44.1 and 88.2 and everyone listened and had a vote. And no doubt we could all hear the difference. The 88.2 capture sounded and felt more like the analog master. Well ok! Settles that. This was a JH24 with an API Legacy & PTHD converters... No plugs no processing straight up transfer at unity gain monitored through the desk. It's useless though if the stems were recorded at 44.1 no? To up-sample would just bring a bunch of empty information into the file that isn't there?
You’ll still have less aliasing and other gremlins with the 44.1 files being processed at 96, unless everything is being processed with well-implemented oversampling at 44.1. I tend to record at 96 lately because it does sound more transparent to my ears, and I sometimes use creative repitching on vocals and that performs better at higher sample rates. Added: I also find that ITB compression seems to perform better at 96, presumably due to the additional peak information, but I don’t know if that’s a placebo. |
|
|
|
Post by robschnapf on Apr 30, 2022 16:23:37 GMT -6
96k forever
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 17:06:29 GMT -6
192K when I can. 96K on my Zoom H8 (because that's the highest it will go)
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 30, 2022 17:34:02 GMT -6
48/24
I perceive no benefit for me going higher
|
|
|
|
Post by ml on Apr 30, 2022 18:09:03 GMT -6
48k here and also most of my collaborators.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Apr 30, 2022 18:21:46 GMT -6
It's useless though if the stems were recorded at 44.1 no? To up-sample would just bring a bunch of empty information into the file that isn't there?
Debatable for sure but if something comes in that was recorded at 44.1 then I leave it there. I don't upsample. On the flip side, if I'm mixing through the desk then I'm almost always capturing mixes on an external machine... separate from the the main DAW and that stays parked at 88.2kHz. Having more information on the stereo mix isn't bad at all... why would I not want to send that to mastering? I also get the occasional project that was tracked at 3 or 4 different studios all with various sample rates. As the last guy to touch things before mastering I want to get everything at one sample rate. Reduces confusion & chances for human error. But again if something comes in at 48kHz and I'm going to mix ITB? Then I stay at 48kHz. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,099 
|
Post by ericn on Apr 30, 2022 22:49:59 GMT -6
192K when I can. 96K on my Zoom H8 (because that's the highest it will go) Yeah, Micheal you inderectly, / unintentionally bring up a very real and good point. My answer with a to of influence of post like this as high as the gear will support and the client is willing to go. Let me add this though I did a bunch of sessions at 192 and 96 that I felt like I had fought like hell for that last bit of detail only to find in the CD era was wiped out by either the sample rate reduction or the mastering soooo. I found at the time working at 44.1 16 but was far less frustrating. At the end of the day it isn’t about what you recorded or mixed at it’s what serves that project best. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Apr 30, 2022 23:24:52 GMT -6
When I started sending stuff out to have live drums put on tracks, I was told to record in 88.2. I said okay and that was that. Yep, I generally live in the 88.2 world. My ME of choice still thinks it converts down to 44.1 better (if CDs are being created). I like capturing more information. Cymbals, and rooms, piano and acoustic instruments all sound more life like to me. I wonder what the Mac Studio can handle at 192... Might need to try. Some exceptions include recent audio book recordings that the delivery was specified at 44.1. And some remote drum tracking where the project already existed at a different rate. I did upsample something recently because I was adding overdubs and will be mixing. So I wanted the most out of what I'd be adding to the project. |
|
|
|
Post by javamad on May 1, 2022 2:29:14 GMT -6
Well, I am now condemmed to go to the studio today and try 88.2 … thanks guys  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2022 8:47:45 GMT -6
I mix at 88.2 khz or 96 khz now. I convert the files beforehand. 88.2 is enough to stop automation from aliasing while certain processes like clipping and compression need to oversample even higher than 192 khz.
Old computers, I don’t give a damn that much and it’s 44.1 or 48 and carefully selected plugs to not make them freeze up or turn into pure grind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on May 1, 2022 8:56:28 GMT -6
Like wiz, I see no reason to change. 48/24 since Colt Capperrune was in short pants. (yeah, that's right, I'm calling him Moses) |
|
|
|
Post by subspace on May 1, 2022 10:37:33 GMT -6
I switched to tracking everything at 88.2kHz/24 bit in 2007, as my converters at the time sounded better there. Started tracking new stuff at 96kHz/32 bit in January 2021 after switching to Carbon.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on May 1, 2022 11:08:09 GMT -6
I'll add the multi-tracks of the streaming live music show are done at 48K, Yamahao QL-5 converters, sounds fine. Usually 80-90GB per show at 48K....
|
|
|
|
Post by entraind on May 1, 2022 11:49:25 GMT -6
88.2 here, the difference has been pretty noticeable in the a/b tests I've run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omicron9 on May 1, 2022 12:51:00 GMT -6
96k here. Same as jmoose: after various sample rate comparisons, I could hear more detail/dynamics at 96 than any of the lower sample rates.
-09
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on May 1, 2022 13:10:30 GMT -6
I have a Crane Song HEDD 192 and Avocet .... and my ears are 59 years old.
So 44.1 24 bit sounds fantastic through my Crane Song converters and to my ears.
I'll leave higher sample rates to you young bats :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by parasitk on May 1, 2022 15:29:09 GMT -6
If I'm mixing someone else's stuff, I keep it at whatever it is already. I never convert. I'll capture the mix at 96k usually.
For anything I record, either 88.2 or 96.
|
|
