For 24 Track Projects what Sampling Rate do you Prefer?

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:45 am

I typically use 48kHz for larger track count projects, and 96kHz for smaller track count projects. Just curious what rates most people are using.

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:00 pm

When dealing with PCM, you might as well stay in the 44.1kHz realm. There just isn't any real practical reason not to. Our automobiles would run better if we were using nitro methane but we don't. Neither should you. It's not practical. Why do people and other audio folks always want to be impractical? You are not impressing anybody with your lack of knowledge being impractical. Your releases will still be on CD, MP3, i-Pod, for years to come, which really don't care about higher resolution blah blah. You don't even need 24-bit unless you are a 2 bit engineer. 96 DB of dynamics processing power is more than most of us analog engineers ever had. And we still made recordings that to this day blow people away. So save your church and your congregation some money for more humanitarian purposes and go with the flow of 16-bit 44.1kHz like most of us professionals do that are practical people.

A terribly practical woman who is practically terrible
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:34 pm

LOL- great thanks for the input!

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:19 pm

It's very simple for me; 24/44 for most audio projects CDs, etc. No matter what I've read or heard, in my experience there is NO significant advantage to recording at 48k and then gearboxing it down to 44. (I don't pretend to hear the 2 db of difference at 22k in the stero soundfield that 48k supposedly yeilds, or whatever they claim it's better for...)

The potential loss and resultant corruption of sound during gearboxing does not, IMHO, give me any advantage over the supposed "Better" sound of 48k.

Conversely, I use 24/48 (and then dithered down to 16/4 Cool

for video projects: DVD soundtracks, etc. Before anything goes to the video software (Sony Vegas in my case), I let Sequoia/Samplitude do the dithering from 24bits to 16. I just like how it sounds this way.

But just to complicate things further, several radio and tv clients now have digital audio consoles and servers, which all run at 48k. What to do?

Since these projects will utlimately end up at 44k (CDs, etc.) I stick with the 44k rate and let them do the conversions. (They do the same thing for all of the 44k CDs they play on the air, so I'm not alone in this....)
Although a project may air once or twice on the radio (SR converted up to 48k), it will ultimately end up on someone's shelf in long-term life as an audio CD, so we stick to 44k.

What they do with it afterwards - MP3s, etc., I can't be overly concerned with, as long as I've done all I can on the front end.

Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:26 pm

Interesting. Thanks for the reply!
Does anyone use 96k regularly?

I have read many articles on the 96k versus 192k debate with hardware designers, but I guess I should have asked this basic question a long time ago.

http://www.lavryengineering.com/white_papers/sample.pdf

This article talks about the slowest sampling rate being around 44k for 22kHz frequenices (Nyquist). I read as well that NASA at one time beleived that 60kHz would be enough, based on Nyquist ideas and real world conversion issues.

Anyway very interesting responses. Thanks very much!

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:06 pm

The original 3M 32 track digital machine on 1 inch tape was 16 bit at 50kHz sampling. Said to have been the best sounding digital machine for that reason alone. And I think, we had to use a 12 bit and a 4 bit analog to digital and digital to analog converters because there were no 16-bit converters at that point in time.

Don't see those floating around much any more. Impossible to maintain.
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:59 pm

I cant hear the difference between 44.1 and 48 but I can hear the difference between 44.1 and 192. can anyone say whats wrong with recording at the highest quality possible. I may be naive but I would like to see new high quality consumer audio products start poping up the way it is with video.

Go ahead and cut me down if you must, I wan't to be set straight.

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:31 pm

Grizzly,

I think the most damning evidence against recording at the highest rate possible is the HD space. Even at 48k it doesn't take very long for a large HD to fill up. If we (my studio) recorded at 192 we'd be screwed in a matter of days.

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:36 pm

88.2 if possible. Downsamples better to 44.1!

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:59 pm

Anything special considerations for down sampling?

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:22 pm

If i'm recording concerts I always record at 48k 24bit, as I know it will most likely end up with a video track on a DVD. Otherwise I stay at 44.1k 24bit.

HD space is getting really cheap, and I've got all the processing power to work at even 192k 32bit 100+ tracks, so maybe I'll be trying that out for some sessions shortly.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:36 pm

∞khz

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:59 pm

Since you'r running 24 tracks you should choose between 44.1KHz/24bit and 44.1KHz/16bit. Both are accepted standards.

I use 44.1KHz/24bit for most projects. I'm a two bit engineer Wink

24 bit gives you a higher dynamic range so it is easier to avoid overs. If you are confident it won't happen, you can use 16 bit.
44.1KHz is all you need for CD and any lossy format (wma, mp3 etc). To save a bit of harddisk space and processing power I wouldn't go any higher.

48KHz or multiples thereof are nice with 24fps video. If you don't sync with video there is no compelling reason to use 48KHz.

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:38 pm

I'm on 44.1

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:42 pm

Thanks Guys! I think I can hear a difference between 96kHz and 44.1kHz. But Maybe I am fooling myself.

This topic sponsored by: