Jump to content

What Sample rate/Bit Depth do you work in?

Recommended Posts

"I usually work in my robe. "



bet you don't wear pants either (that's 'english' pants, as in undies)



just like my daddy would have told me (if he ever told me anything)


"the best way to work outside of the box is to work outside of your pants"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why isn't anyone running 96?


I've produced some classical work using 96k, mostly to be compatible with future higher resolution media, but partially because some mastering plug-ins have an edge on fidelity when working at these sampling speeds. But the advantage is marginal at best and only beneficial when grasping for that last .1% to maintain an already good recording.


It would be tough to make any kind of case for it with popular music. It's less about maintaining absolute fidelity and more about good recording practice and good sound design, which is just as achievable at 48kHz as it is at 96.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a lot of work being done at 48k. Just curious, is that all video work, or is that music? If it is music, what's the payoff for working at 48k but then having to do a sample rate conversion down to 44.1k? My understanding is that fidelity gained between 44.1k and 48k is sometimes sacrificed in the SRC. What are you guys using for SRC?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a lot of work being done at 48k. Just curious, is that all video work, or is that music? If it is music, what's the payoff for working at 48k but then having to do a sample rate conversion down to 44.1k? My understanding is that fidelity gained between 44.1k and 48k is sometimes sacrificed in the SRC. What are you guys using for SRC?


I do music, but I never master myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I record at 24/88.2.

But I edit and mix at 24/44.


I downsample the files with the izotope program.


24/44 gives me more horsepower and it is still the rate for cd production.

i record at 88 for better a/d conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24/44, with good converters the difference is minimal with most music. If I was doing a totally acoustic thing ala AK+Union Station or some kind of classical thing I would go to 88.....


There's a WHOLE THING about the math involved in seriously good sounding down-conversion to CD (16/44.1) and the bottom line appears to be you're WAY better off to record at a multiple of what you will be ending up at , and those extra cycles (96 as opposed to 88) won't get you much real difference.


http://www.digido.com/articles/index.php - is a great resource for info about this....I haven't used his mastering service myself, but the amount of background and things to know here is awesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is nobody going to 96 because the sonic difference is almost impssible to tell and because it drains more CPU/space?


I heard that during SRC or something, that a sample rate of 44.1 might get shaved down on the high and low frequency ends of the spectrum and that a sample rate of 48 gives room for this to take place without affecting the audio...


ill find the article.


ok here is a quote I was referencing..

"44.1KHz sampled material can not contain above 22.05KHz of audio."

from http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf


since the human ear is only sensitive directly to 20KHz is the reason we started using 44.1 as the standard sampling rate, but recent discoveries infer that we are sensitive to hypersonic frequencies (ie, frequencies above 20khz)


that said, here is an article saying NOT to go above 44.1khz sampling rate



I am not sure which is the smartest... A higher sampling rate gives us access to hypersonic frequencies (as well as subsonic!) but a lot of us cant hear them well, our monitors may not be able to reproduce them either. So if we cant make decisions about those frequencies due to a lack of ear or monitor ability, and an end listener CAN, then we have thrown in freqnecies that somone is sensitive to, and we have no idea how it sounds!


so I probably would resist going to 88.khz, as that is probably mega overkill (by reproducing hypersonic frequencies that could affect listners in a way that i cant hear or cautiously craft)


Id say stick with 44.1 or 48 if you dare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Since the last post here was 4.5 yrs ago (which is dog years in technology), I'd like to re-ask the question:


What Sample rate/Bit Depth do you work in TODAY?




What sample rate do you recommend for my project? (see below)


Particularly, I'm interested in whether I should transition from 48k to 96k for my next project. Have you moved to 96k since early 2008, or are you still working in 44.1/48k, like the majority were in this original thread?


Here's where I'm coming from...

I have no desire to re-open this awesome, but lengthy and technical discussion about sample rates, (from 5.5 yrs ago), which basically concluded with a consensus of:


If you have the power/storage/equipment to use a higher sample rate go for it.


Accepting that Dan Lavry's suggestion of 60-70kHz is optimal for audio is still considered "state-of-the-art" advice, I'm wondering if improvements in technology/power/storage/equipment warrant working in 96k, more than it did 4-5 yrs ago?


My specific project:

I'm looking to start a new project in Logic 9 using my equipment below, plus a BabyFace + External Pre via ADAT for tracking 6-8 simultaneously tracks of acoustic folk and bluegrass instruments + overdubbing 2-4 tracks of vocals, for a final mix total of 10-12 tracks with compression, eq, and possibly light verb on each track, plus possibly a few special plug-ins (de-esser?, gain?, pitch correction?) - depending on what it needs. With the exception of possibly pitch correction, my hope is to stick with Logic-only stock plug-ins. My final product will be 2000 CDs and mp3 downloads, but higher-quality master files as gifts for the musicians and singers. Of course I want to avoid getting 1/2 way into the project then needing to down-sample to 48k due to processor strain, or HD space issues. But if I can record at 96k without too much worry about the above concerns, why not work in 96k?


Please take your pick of the questions below - I'd really appreciate any help/input:


What Sample rate/Bit Depth do you work in today?


Should I work in 96k or 48k for this project? Why?

Should I worry about processor strain or HD space issues working in 96k with this kind of project? Are there other concerns I should have working in 96k?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48K (sometimes 44.1K) at 24-bit


There are many very practical reasons for not working at any other sampling rates. However, it ALL depends on your circumstances.


Working at higher sampling rates costs you time and money:


• 96K files consume twice as much disk space which directly implies that...

• backing up 96K files takes twice and long and costs you 2x as much in hard drive storage

• working at 96K will slow down your computer and in many cases lower your track count (this can really suck when your creative flow hits the technological wall)


Now to the audio side of things...


• if any of your source files are 48K, working at 96K won't magically give you any "boost" to the sound. "Garbage in, garbage out".

• no one is going to hear the marginally better fidelity of 96K (if there even is any) if your final product is MP3 or even 48 or 44.1 WAV/AIFF

• it might be more fun to listen to slightly high-fidelity audio as you're working (and hey, why not), but if your speakers are crap then you won't hear a difference.


That's not to say that there aren't any reasons to work at higher sampling rates, but IMO it's usually not worth spending the time and money that 96K recording will cost you in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I nearly always work at 24/44.1. Because I, too, believe that the benefit of high sample rates are quite low considering the end product will be downsampled to 44.1 anyway.


That being said, here's a quite useful site that does comparison on popular Sample Rate Converters, and assess their quality:




There are some interesting and useful information there for people working on higher SR and downsample to 44.1.


Softwarewise, Weiss Saracon seems to be the industry agreed best SRC, although Izotope 64bit SRC (which is included in Sound Forge series) seems to perform even better on their tests.


It's also funny seeing how most DAWs (incl. Logic) and other audio software (where SRC isn't their priority) suck hard when it comes to sample rate conversion. Which gives the conclusion that if you want to keep the max fidelity when working at 88.2+ SR, be sure to use a software/hardware specifically designed for this job during downsampling to 44.1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just a quick thank-you to all who have responded here...really helpful to me, including useful links and charts and all.


I've decided to settle on 24 bit/48k for this project due to wanting lower latency while tracking 8+ tracks simultaneously. But it's great to know for my next project (only 1-2 simultaneous tracks), that 96k is viable, and I'll probably give it a whirl.


Thanks again for your input, and for this forum...really invaluable for small project studio folks like me. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting discussion, I've boiled it down to two choices personally: 44.1k for most material, and 88.2k if I've got a lower track count and feel like it will make a difference.


The question I have when it comes to anything above 44.1k is why choose 96k over 88.2k? The argument about downsampling with an easy 1/2 conversion makes a lot of sense to me, and I can't see that the difference between 88.2k and 96k would be worth the possible complication... Then again just because it makes intuitive sense to me doesn't mean it makes any more sense to an algorithm I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...