|
|
Post by christopher on May 1, 2022 16:32:22 GMT -6
I like 24/96 or 88.2.
Funny I had a young assistant setup a session for me not too long ago. Went great! Artist worked hard and performed well. I took the tracks home and started working on them. Oh crap.. he set it up for 16bit 44.1! $8000 converters @16bit, holy crap! Oh well. Truth is it sounded great, file size was easy to work with.. only a few annoying parts to work around where I could have gain staged better had I known.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on May 1, 2022 16:53:07 GMT -6
88.2k.
|
|
|
|
Post by bossanova on May 1, 2022 17:08:29 GMT -6
I like 24/96 or 88.2. Funny I had a young assistant setup a session for me not too long ago. Went great! Artist worked hard and performed well. I took the tracks home and started working on them. Oh crap.. he set it up for 16bit 44.1! $8000 converters @16bit, holy crap! Oh well. Truth is it sounded great, file size was easy to work with.. only a few annoying parts to work around where I could have gain staged better had I known. If you can make The Nightfly and Hourglass at 44.1/16 using considerably older digital systems, it's definitely not an impediment to making things sound good. Even knowing that, I still use 96/24 most of the time because it sounds virtually indistinguishable from what I hear monitoring the analog input before it hits the converters. I figure that can't be a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Chad on May 1, 2022 17:21:08 GMT -6
32Khz
8bit
Using my 1994 Apple Mac Performa 636 with internal CD Rom (even plays Redbook Audio CDs!!).
16Mb of Ram. 256Mb internal drive. Using a SCSI external Zip drive for storage.
Quality is wonderful. I can't tell the difference between these recordings and my Fostex X-26 cassettes, which means this is REAL analog in the Digital domain. AMAZING times we live in!
😉
|
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on May 1, 2022 18:24:48 GMT -6
96kHz.
I stuck with 44.1 for many years, and dabbled at 88.2 on occasion, but picture runs at 48kHz, and there’s always a chance these days that something will end up going to picture.
I’m fine to work at any common sample rate, but I do hear a not-terribly-subtle difference between 1x and 2x rates with my converters.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on May 1, 2022 18:39:02 GMT -6
24/96
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 1, 2022 20:55:36 GMT -6
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. This is effectively my situation. Old Toshiba Satellite/Budget Chromebook/HP Stream form the Unholy Trinity.  16/44.1 for Practice Vocals. Mostly 24/48 for the occasional collaboration. (Hopefully more as Pandemic eases) Fortunately, I'm just adding vocals. Chris P.S. I've read that Tony Maserati likes 16/44.1 for Rawk and Roll. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on May 1, 2022 21:50:36 GMT -6
96/24 here. Higher SR reduces aliasing in lesser plugins by a degree, but more importantly, it opens up a bit of flexibility with regards to transparent pitch shifting and time stretching.
|
|
|
|
Post by srb on May 1, 2022 22:20:36 GMT -6
96/24 when I record here for music production. 44.1/16 for my radio show.
|
|
|
|
Post by prene1 on May 2, 2022 1:01:35 GMT -6
I started around 88.2 around the 2005 ish times.
Then 2019-2021 I did all 96k.
Had a talk with Ken Lewis…….
Stuck at 48k. I don’t even bother anymore. Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on May 2, 2022 9:05:44 GMT -6
I did my first session at 96 followed by another take at 48. After mixing and converting both to 44.1, it was a no-brainer that the 96k had survived the signal processing better. My bias was in the direction of them sounding the same because I needed to buy a new computer if the 96 was better.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on May 2, 2022 13:24:15 GMT -6
Would a good guideline be, that if your recording area is just OK (or worse)... Don't worry about it?  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on May 2, 2022 14:01:50 GMT -6
Been at 96/24 for over 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by OtisGreying on Jun 18, 2022 17:20:15 GMT -6
Been experimenting with this and I think 96k sounds a bit more open on my Lynx Aurora N when recording vocals. Could be just placebo but I'm comparing with vocals done just yesterday at 48k, that's what I feel like I'm hearing right now. Also the low mids sound leaner on 96 but that could just be space from the microphone. Perhaps there is a positive difference if only a little.
Open-ness and leaning out low mids is usually what I solve for in my vocals nowadays so I'm tempted to try to incorporate 96k more. Just basically impossible if I'm recording vocals in a session I'm producing, one instance of Soothe with oversampling takes up 50% cpu of my brand new macbook m1 max.
|
|
|
|
Post by viciousbliss on Jun 18, 2022 17:39:17 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. So, you're not as concerned about the IMD anymore? I've been doing 44k with carefully selected plugins as you recommended some months back. I'm using stuff like Molot GE in insane mode, Dopamine, Satin, Lindell 902 and 80 at 16x, Echo Farm, H300, H910, Seventh Heaven Pro, some UAD stuff like Helios, Capitol Chambers, 480, and 224, Fusion Imager, Oxford Eq, Black Box MS, and sometimes Tube Tech MKII. Not sure if there'd be more benefit for these at 88 or 96 compared with whatever IMD I'd have to deal with. Guess I could always stick them in Metaplugin too. |
|
|
|
Post by christophert on Jun 18, 2022 18:46:07 GMT -6
96k - unless I am streaming, which means I have to work at 48k.
88.2 is pointless
|
|
|
|
Post by smashlord on Jun 18, 2022 23:35:04 GMT -6
Used to record exclusively @ 88.2kHz, but now I'm usually at 24/48Khz. I don't like spending money on hard drives and cloud storage and it sounds good to me and my clients.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 18, 2022 23:53:38 GMT -6
48/24 on my RADAR converters. Some of the most stunning recordings I’ve ever heard are 48/24. I do 96/24 from time to time when it warrants it’s rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by theshea on Jun 19, 2022 0:58:27 GMT -6
44.1/24 here. still blasting out hit after hit!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Jun 19, 2022 2:35:48 GMT -6
I might try moving to 48 over 44.1 if I can actually hear a difference.
Though I note many of my favourite albums were recorded at 44.1 / 16 bit !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jun 19, 2022 3:15:33 GMT -6
24/96 minimum. At work we do 32/384 with 24/96 as backup.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jun 19, 2022 9:48:11 GMT -6
96k - unless I am streaming, which means I have to work at 48k. 88.2 is pointless Not true at all |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 19, 2022 10:35:17 GMT -6
Always use 48k, many times jy productions go to video. I'd do 96k in a heartbeat if my computer wouldn't choke. When I begin my own work again, I'll hopefully have an M1 or M2 Mac mini and go 96 most of the time.
|
|
mjau
Full Member
Posts: 25
|
Post by mjau on Jun 20, 2022 6:14:43 GMT -6
88.2, and can’t imagine I’ll change. It’s what I’ve used consistently for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 20, 2022 11:27:13 GMT -6
I've always thought 48 sounded lots better than 44.1. Above that, it's in the realm of a bit better. One aspect of this has been that all converters sound different at different rates. To me, the only meaningful comparison is how it sounds converted to 44.1 or even an MP3.
|
|
