TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- 44.1khz, 48khz or 88,2khz
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

44.1khz, 48khz or 88,2khz

For me personally I always seem to find 48khz better, I don't think the "audio quality" so to speak is in any way improved, but I've had suspicions that the rate and the DAC/conversion on the interface might make it seem a bit tighter.. Perhaps a clocking issue.. The same applies to 88.2 but why waste the extra bandwidth/cpu/mem.

Just thought I'd throw that out there and see what everyone else uses, thinks.

still using 44.1k production and 48k for video. 24bit always

after one of my releases got fucked up beacuse i sent in 48kHz/24bit i stopped doing that. 44.1kHz 16bit is good enough and it is what it will eventually be when released anyway. I certainly hope the standard will change soon tho to 24bit (whether its 44.1 or 48 i cant hear higher than 16k anyway so i dont care).

44.1/24

if i was going to use anything else, it would be 88.2... 48 and 96 are only good for film.

88.2/24

I wish 32 bit would be the norm, then it'd be a straight halfing on both the sample rate and the bit rate.

yeah 44.1/24 always unless i've got a sample in 16 bit. But for most cases 24 bit.

I've always just stuck with 44.1/16...if I ever have anything signed or need to do something serious I'll re-open the project and remaster it in a higher bitrate/depth.

44.1/24 need that 24 bit for recording might use 16 bit if I was all digital.

I always use 16bit.. never noticed a difference on 24...

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo I always use 16bit.. never noticed a difference on 24...

It is easier to fix/work with a bad recording that is 24 bit. Other than that I can't be fucked to tell the difference.

I would say an orange. How about a pillow? O wait this thread is asking about what sample rate other producers use. In that case I work in 44.1khz/24 bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 I would say an orange. How about a pillow? O wait this thread is asking about what sample rate other producers use. In that case I work in 44.1khz/24 bit.

What a douche.

quote:

Originally posted by alanzo What a douche.

I just added him to my ignore list. I love that functionality, it gets rid of all the people who love to swear and flame and generally not contribute anything useful at all.

quote:

Originally posted by derail I just added him to my ignore list. I love that functionality, it gets rid of all the people who love to swear and flame and generally not contribute anything useful at all.

boohoo. Yet another reading comprehension drop out. Uh i've yet to flame anyone that did not deserve some sort of cheeky response. Considering I asked someone to respond to an op if they are going to clutter a thread that is supposed to be beneficial to other producers. So how is that not a contribution, and have you read all my posts? That said, who gives a shit if you ignore someone? Lets go back to 3rd grade shall we? haha.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Lets go back to 3rd grade shall we?

44.1/24 here as well. I use 24-bit because I record a lot of vocals and instruments and it gives me the headroom that I want. I've recorded at higher sample rates, but it generally gives me HUGE files and negligible audible advantages, so I stick with 44.1kHz. Although, I have noticed that I can sometimes capture more detail (particularly with acoustic guitar) when recording at 88.2 or 96kHz, but even then, the quality of the recording is affected far more by the quality of the instrument/strings, the ability of the player, the mic(s), the position of the mic(s), etc.

quote:

Originally posted by derail I just added him to my ignore list. I love that functionality, it gets rid of all the people who love to swear and flame and generally not contribute anything useful at all.

wonder if im ignored? is there a way to see who ignores u?

i record in 24bit 44.1. In sofware like cubase the software always runs at 32-bit floating point anyway i think? Its only when recording that i change the bit-depth to 24 on my converters.

I think sample rate is very subjective. i have recorded at 96K and when finally converting to 44.1 i couldn't tell much of a difference at all. It sounded VERY slightly different, not better though.

I can imagine if you were recording an orchestra for example through extremely high quality A/D using high end mics, THEN you would hear the difference.

Common sense would tell you there is no difference over 44,1kHz.
Humans can't hear above 20kHz anyway. If there is a difference, it's probably only very minor and if someone claims there's a huge difference it's probably mostly psychological.
However plugins and synths may produce more accurate calculations at higher sample rates, but any decent synth or effect will already have adequate oversampling in it's engine. It's not worth the increased file sizes and CPU load. Stick with 44.1kHz 24bit for music.

44.1khz / 24bit
i think that if you don't have a microphone, 48 khz or higher resolution is useless

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Common sense would tell you there is no difference over 44,1kHz. Humans can't hear above 20kHz anyway.

Yep. Also, people who have been in loud clubs without ear plugs more than a few times probably can't hear much above 17 - 18 kHz.

but they might be able to hear whether that 17k is a sine or a squere (dont ask me how), but if its a sine with samplerate at 34k its just a squere.

quote:

Originally posted by Eldritch Common sense would tell you there is no difference over 44,1kHz. Humans can't hear above 20kHz anyway. If there is a difference, it's probably only very minor and if someone claims there's a huge difference it's probably mostly psychological. However plugins and synths may produce more accurate calculations at higher sample rates, but any decent synth or effect will already have adequate oversampling in it's engine. It's not worth the increased file sizes and CPU load. Stick with 44.1kHz 24bit for music.

I am not sure if you are confused or not, but the sample rate for recording is not the same thing is as the frequency response that you hear.

PCM audio is like a film camera, it takes little snapshots of the waveform and then uses that to reconstruct the sound. The higher the sample rate, the more information it captures.

This applies to all frequency ranges. True people cant hear above 18khz most of the time (15khz is pushing it for a lot of people even, especially as they get older), but it doesnt mean you should choose a lower sampling rate and bit depth (think of the bit depth as like HDTV vs. Standard Definition).

Recording analog sounds should always be done at a higher bit depth/sample rate.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I am not sure if you are confused or not, but the sample rate for recording is not the same thing is as the frequency response that you hear. PCM audio is like a film camera, it takes little snapshots of the waveform and then uses that to reconstruct the sound. The higher the sample rate, the more information it captures. This applies to all frequency ranges. True people cant hear above 18khz most of the time (15khz is pushing it for a lot of people even, especially as they get older), but it doesnt mean you should choose a lower sampling rate and bit depth (think of the bit depth as like HDTV vs. Standard Definition). Recording analog sounds should always be done at a higher bit depth/sample rate.

No, I'm not confused. And I know how sampling works, thank you.
I know that sampling has some flaws on accurately sampling high freqs, but I don't believe the tiny difference is worth the much larger disk and cpu requirements.

quote:

Originally posted by palm but they might be able to hear whether that 17k is a sine or a squere (dont ask me how), but if its a sine with samplerate at 34k its just a squere.

You should read up on sampling theorem.
The steppy square-ish waveform will be reconstructed into a sine by the DAC. So it is possible to have a perfect sine at around 20kHz using a 44.1kHz sample rate. You cannot hear the difference of waveforms at that frequency because they will contain harmonics outside of the human hearing range. You will pretty much just hear the fundamental frequency.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby I am not sure if you are confused or not, but the sample rate for recording is not the same thing is as the frequency response that you hear. PCM audio is like a film camera, it takes little snapshots of the waveform and then uses that to reconstruct the sound. The higher the sample rate, the more information it captures. This applies to all frequency ranges. True people cant hear above 18khz most of the time (15khz is pushing it for a lot of people even, especially as they get older), but it doesnt mean you should choose a lower sampling rate and bit depth (think of the bit depth as like HDTV vs. Standard Definition). Recording analog sounds should always be done at a higher bit depth/sample rate.

This argument has been done to death, but actually there is a direct analogous link between what we can hear as our highest perceivable frequency and the sample rate, because that is the precise reason we record twice above 20khz, so that we get a full cycle of the waveform in a given recording. Yes the higher the sample rate the more information it captures but it is governed by a clear rule of diminishing returns (filesize vs increase in perceived quality) meaning currently, it simply not worth working at higher sample rates. This is not to mention that fact that when most people hear the final product of a higher sample rate recording it will not be reproduced on anything that would be able to take advantage or truly represent the increase in quality, especially with dance music.

There is an argument to work your entire project in a higher sample rate (and I know when very well respected engineer that will only work in 96k), as you can hear more during the creative process and therefore even if it does finally go down to a lower sample rate, you will have done the creative process with better perceived accuracy. Again, if equipment, filesize and all the initial sources were recorded or sampled at that quality it might warrant it, otherwise there is simply no point, as 44.1 is good enough for the general populations ear. Unless you are a mutant or one of the greatest engineers in the world, there is no way you can recognize the difference between 44k and 48k in a blind test.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.