Sample Rate....?

Tech talk about audio recording and live stage production.
---Hosted by Andrew MacRae & Malcolm Boyce

What are you tracking at?

44.1K 16Bit
1
6%
48K 16Bit
4
22%
88.2K 16Bit
0
No votes
96K 16Bit
0
No votes
44.1K 24Bit
7
39%
48K 24Bit
4
22%
88.2K 24Bit
2
11%
96K 24Bit
0
No votes
Higher!
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 18

Sample Rate....?

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:31 pm

OK digiheads, here's another lame poll.

What sample rate and bit depth are you all tracking at most times. I know there are exceptions with projects, but when you start out with a clean slate, and no restrictions, what are you doing?

If you mix down to a different format than you track, select what you are multitracking at.

If you track higher than 96K, we'll all just start laughing at you now. :roll:

I'm mostly tracking and mixing at 48K 24Bit. Some 44.1K projects have passed through here, and no 96K projects. Anythng that comes in at 16Bit to be mixed, I convert to a 24Bit project for O/Ds and mixdown.

How 'bout you?
Last edited by Malcolm Boyce on Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby macrae11 » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:02 am

I'm a little bit all over the place.

For music i generally start out at 24/88.2 for post work 24/96, but if i'm doing a location recording, where i only have 10 tracks simultaneous of 24/96, (due to ADAT limitations) i'll work at 24/44.1

Also if i know it's going to be a super dense mix, or really hi track counts, i might start off at 44.1 because i can still max out my G5 with two TDM cards pretty easily at 88.2/96

I know i could probably get away with running 48k/96k all the time, but i got used to running 44.1/88.2 back in the day when Sample rate converters weren't quite as up to snuff as they are today. But still i figure the easier math the SRC has to do the better, and i can almost guarantee that no one can hear the difference between 88.2 and 96.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Postby fish » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:05 am

I generally track at 24/48, but I am reading more and more about rounding errors and am considering moving to 24/88.2.
User avatar
fish
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:33 am
Location: somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert

Postby macrae11 » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:12 am

88.2 is great, but you've really got to have a honkin machine if you're doing anything with any kind of hi track count or lots of plugins. It seems to eat up horsepower 4 times as much as 44.1/48
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Postby oddioguy » Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:45 pm

I feel so lonely.
16/48 typically, but hey, it's just demo stuff for my own consumption.
"Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers"
User avatar
oddioguy
Thom Chandler
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:42 am
Location: Under a black cloud

Postby Alain Benoit » Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:38 am

Awwwhhhhhhh............. :cry:
www.fluidaudiogroup.com

"No one has time to do it right, but we all seem to have time to do it twice."
User avatar
Alain Benoit
Self Biased Resistor
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:21 am
Location: Canada

Postby oddioguy » Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:53 am

U1176 wrote:Awwwhhhhhhh............. :cry:


:lol:
I figure "What the hell". Wasn't that long ago that it was good enough for national releases.
"Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers"
User avatar
oddioguy
Thom Chandler
 
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:42 am
Location: Under a black cloud

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:32 am

The film industry seems to ask for 48K/16bit and since my K2600XS is locked at 48K and doesn't have 24bit-depth, that's usually where I'm at.

When I get the DMTi for my keyboard though I'll probably just do 44.1K for just regular music projects, because I dont' notice the difference.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:42 pm

Drumwaiter wrote:... because I dont' notice the difference.
Which is the correct reason to do that.

There are many recording at 96K or higher, who don't hear a difference, but think they should.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:59 pm

Malcolm Boyce wrote:
Drumwaiter wrote:... because I dont' notice the difference.
Which is the correct reason to do that.

There are many recording at 96K or higher, who don't hear a difference, but think they should.


People like playing the numbers game. I suppose they need something to distract them from their small members. However there are some people that I believe can hear differences, and that's fine. But most can't and figure it's cheaper to record at 192K then to have their dick extended. These people are probably right, although I'm no authority on the price of cosmetic surgery.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby Crimson Chameleon » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:28 am

I suppose I could go searching through the world wide inter-web and find plenty of information, but I trust your guys' opinions and thoughts, so. . .

Can someone explain this to me?

I noticed someone said they track at 16/48 because they are only recording demos. So far I have only recorded demos; should I do the same? Are there general rules for when to use which sample rate?

I have my set-up (naively) at 44.1k and 24Bit. But don't ask me why I set it like that. I might have heard something through a grapevine somewhere.
User avatar
Crimson Chameleon
Bronze Member
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:29 am
Location: Norton

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:04 pm

Nothing wrong with 44.1/24bit. There's a lot of other variables you'll hear long before you here the difference of recording at 48 or even 88.2, honestly like I said in my previous statement.... I'm not going to play the numbers game just for the sake of thinking that bigger numbers mean anything to me.
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby macrae11 » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:11 pm

For straight up demos 16/44.1 is fine. I wouldn't record anything serious at 16 bit anymore just because of the lost dynamic range, and having to be more stringent with setting levels. 16 bit files aren't a whole lot smaller than 24 bit, so if you've got a lot of hard drive space I would just go with 24. I have no problem with doing full quality projects at 24/44.1 or 24/48, but I would never willing do a full project at 16 bit.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:29 pm

You would be amazed at how many people are running substantial recording setups, with big budgets at 44.1/24.

Let your ears tell you if it's working for you. If you up the sample rate on your next project, and don't hear an improvement, don't let the bigger number fool you into using it.

I guarantee you'll hear a difference between 24 bit, and 16bit.

The biggest thing that I don't hear mentioned enough is the difference between sample rate and bit depth with respect to how you work with it. Changing sample rates doesn't affect how you record, with the small exception of cutting the latency in half. Changing bit depth affects everything about the process including how your levels affect sonic resolution, and levels between plugins interacting.

Most things just work "better" with the higher bit resolution available to them. The math and my ears just don't support higher sample rates... Yet.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:45 pm

Here's a question. My Kurz will forever be locked at 16bit even with the DMTi. Are there any reasons why I can't have my projects at 24bit? I know that my sample rate has to line up to sync properly, but what about bit depth?
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:51 pm

macrae11 wrote:16 bit files aren't a whole lot smaller than 24 bit,....
24bit files are 50% larger than 16bit.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:53 pm

Drumwaiter wrote:Here's a question. My Kurz will forever be locked at 16bit even with the DMTi. Are there any reasons why I can't have my projects at 24bit? I know that my sample rate has to line up to sync properly, but what about bit depth?
Adding bit "depth" to a file means that anything you do with it further down the line will benefit from the change. Keep working at 24bit.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:07 pm

So even if when if my keyboard outputs only 16 or 20 bit depth, having my DAW set to 24 won't affect anything negatively? I guess I'm just trying to figure out at which part of the conversion the bit depth is chosen. Can someone clarify this?
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:12 pm

Drumwaiter wrote:So even if when if my keyboard outputs only 16 or 20 bit depth, having my DAW set to 24 won't affect anything negatively? I guess I'm just trying to figure out at which part of the conversion the bit depth is chosen. Can someone clarify this?
There is absolutely nothing negative about increasing bit depth. There is no "conversion" it just adds empty bits to the "bottom" of the file. That's why it happens instantly when you do it in your DAW as opposed to other processes which are actually crunching numbers like sample rate conversion or decreasing bit depth.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:14 pm

On a related note, the first thing I will do to anything I import to work on is up the bit depth to 24.

Although I start my own projects at 48K, if a project comes to me at 44.1, it stays there.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:16 pm

This is good to know. In that case I'm going to be at 24 all the time now. Either 44.1 or 48 depending on the meduim in question at the end. That's it, that's all.

Still though, is the DAW adding the depth that it perceives or is it from the converter? Where does it happen?
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby Mathieu Benoit » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:35 pm

This seems to be congruent with what is being said here.

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Tweak wrote:So what's that? You want to hear what _I_ think. Ok, this is the gospel according to Tweak! Use 24 bit for every recording if you have this feature. I was a believer for the past decade that 16 bit was the way to go and I have absolutely changed my mind. No matter of what you are recording this is true. If you have a nice mic, a very good preamp and a clean audio system and are recording highly dynamic instruments such as acoustic guitars, classical orchestras, acapella vocals, the difference will be there.

Regarding the sample rate, unless you have a good reason not to, use a sample rate of 44.1. If you are doing audio for video you might want to use 48 khz as many editors only use that rate. Some kinds of music seem to benefit slightly from the high resolution of 88.2 or 96 khz. Acoustic instruments, like guitars, percussion, and of course vocals, i.e., things with delicate high frequencies seem to benefit but its subtle. Lets say you had a $399 audio interface with onboard preamps. Replacing your preamp and converters with better ones will give you more of a sonic difference at 44.1 that recording at 96khz will.

Once inside the sequencer, audio files may be converted to 32 bit for processing and converted back to 24 or 16 on the way out. So, my advice is to record at 24 bits/44.1 at minimum and go up to a sample rate of 88.2 or 96 if you think your material warrants it (and you have the disk space.)
"Volume automation takes time. You don't got that kinda time. You could be getting naked with somebody somewhere." -Slipperman

Mathieu Benoit - Fluid Productions
www.fluidaudiogroup.com
www.facebook.com/FluidAudioGroup
User avatar
Mathieu Benoit
Drumwaiter
 
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Saint John, New Brunswick

Postby macrae11 » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:36 pm

Malcolm Boyce wrote:
macrae11 wrote:16 bit files aren't a whole lot smaller than 24 bit,....
24bit files are 50% larger than 16bit.


You're right. I was more comparing to the difference between lower sample rates and going up higher where the files are 100% or more bigger.
User avatar
macrae11
Andrew MacRae
 
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 4:12 pm
Location: Oromocto

Postby Malcolm Boyce » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:38 pm

Drumwaiter wrote:Still though, is the DAW adding the depth that it perceives or is it from the converter? Where does it happen?
The DAW is basically adding more numbers for it to work with. Think of it as adding more decimal points when doing any type of math. When you add more bits, you start by just adding 8 more "Zeros" but as soon as you do any work or "calculations" you start using those extra decimal points.
"Once again, it is NEVER the gear that makes a good record.
It just fills Forum pages..." --compasspnt

middleaudio.com
User avatar
Malcolm Boyce
Your Humble Host
 
Posts: 3678
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:07 am
Location: Saint John, NB

Postby Christian LeBlanc » Thu Nov 19, 2009 1:40 pm

For sake of reference, my project this year has all been done at 44.1 and 16. For my remaining tunes, maybe I'll try recording them at 24 bit, just to see how the difference sounds...although, if I'm just converting them to mp3's for the sake of putting them on the web, would that difference still even be audible?

EDIT: just read Malcolm's post. Converting to mp3 would just be reducing it to two decimal points, then, right? :)
User avatar
Christian LeBlanc
Silver Member
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:05 am

Next

Return to Sounds Good...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron