what khz and bit rate do you record at and why?

[pattonfreak1]

Just curious

[cereboso]

48k and 24 bit

Plenty good quality for recording rock bands and isn't overly CPU intensive and doesn't take up unnecessary disk space.

[Diego]

48 KHz and 24 too

[planetnine]

24-bit; 44k1 or 48k depending on purpose.


...bagsy get my popcorn stall in while the pitch is still cheap?


>

[LightOfDay]

24bit 44.1kHz. if I would do work for video 24bit 48kHz.

[ivansc]

24 48 or 24 44.1 depending on the project.

[Reno.thestraws]

24 bit, 44,1khz

24 bit, 48khz if the project will be sync with video or is video based

24 bit, 88,2 khz when recording e drums triggering superiror drummer (not for qualitiy but better latency in 88,2)

[LightOfDay]

Originally Posted by bikerider

I use 24 bit, 48KHz.

It's the industry standard for audio.

its not. industry standard is 44.1kHz for audio and 48kHz for DVD.

and the samplerate has nothing to do with surround or not surround.

I know where that thread is heading, so I am out.

but be aware of people telling facts that are not really facts. what makes me think of a lot of people dont really know Google. (nothing personally against you, bikerider, you said yourself, you wouldnt know exactly. on the other hand... why posting something that one doesnt know?)

[grinder]

I record at 96Khz because I can hear the difference!

Grinder

[trevlyns]

24 bit 44.1K.. if it works for Kenny....

[LightOfDay]

Originally Posted by grinder

I record at 96Khz because I can hear the difference!

Grinder

no, you cant.

oh, sorry, I said I am out.

[grinder]

You know it is funny some folk have alway's said "You can't" it is like they are you.
I first heard that phrase in audio when I was at high school when an audiologist tested my ears.
Obviously I can not remember what specific Frequency I said I could hear at first from the test however that said it was very early in the test.
I had no knowlege of frequency at all at that time all I was asked was to comment when I could hear a sound at which time I did so.
I was as truthful then as I am now and if I say I can hear the difference between 44.1 and 96 then that is what I believe is the truth I have no agenda whatsoever in my belief.

Grinder

[Reno.thestraws]

its not. industry standard is 44.1kHz for audio and 48kHz for DVD

In modern pop music, standard is 192khz because it sounds a lot better and transparent when you have to use melodyne or revoice pro to make Rihanna sing correctly. Pitch shift and time stretch can be pushed really hard at this rate :P

[ashcat_lt]

Back in high school it seemed like every year at least once there'd be somebody who brought in a dog whistle and thought it was fun to blow it in the hallway. Of course, since they can't hear it, they just crank on it and it is absurdly loud! Used to piss me right off.

Then we'd go into the computer lab where all the machines were shut down, but all the screens would be left on and my head would just explode. I'd be all disoriented and feeling sick and everybody else would be all like "What?"

But I record at 24 bit/44.1K because for as long as I've been going to digital, and for the foreseeable future, the standard delivery format will eventually want to be at 44.1K in most cases. I might actually miss some of the higher harmonics, and maybe two or three other folks will, too, but it's far more likely that more people will hear the artifacts caused if I was to record at higher rate and downsample at mastering. SRC is better now than every, but it's still not completely transparent.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by ashcat_lt

Then we'd go into the computer lab where all the machines were shut down, but all the screens would be left on and my head would just explode. I'd be all disoriented and feeling sick and everybody else would be all like "What?"

Same here - TVs would make me that way when I fell asleep with them on because I could always hear the CRT. Motion detectors (or similar) in the mall also made me seasick and mom/dad/bro/sis couldn't understand what I was complaining about. However, most of that is only in the 13-17k range IIRC so it just means we hear or notice better than most, doesn't mean we all hear 25kHz and can compete with bats.

[martifingers]

Originally Posted by grinder

You know it is funny some folk have alway's said "You can't" it is like they are you.
I first heard that phrase in audio when I was at high school when an audiologist tested my ears.
Obviously I can not remember what specific Frequency I said I could hear at first from the test however that said it was very early in the test.
I had no knowlege of frequency at all at that time all I was asked was to comment when I could hear a sound at which time I did so.
I was as truthful then as I am now and if I say I can hear the difference between 44.1 and 96 then that is what I believe is the truth I have no agenda whatsoever in my belief.

Grinder

I had a similar experience a long time ago in a BBC studio when only me could hear a test tone. I was able to identify when the tone was on without being able to see the engineer switch it on.
But you can see how people are sceptical. Have you done double blind tests? This:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...-khz-explained

suggests the ability is very rare indeed.

[serr]

Originally Posted by pattonfreak1

Just curious

24 bit (vs. anything lower) is the most important at any sample rate.

I record at HD sample rates (88.2k or 96k) just because you can. (May as well remove any and all variables in the recording format. Enough to worry about capturing the recording and mixing!)

The machines we build usually have a sweet spot for ideal operation and then fall out right next to the edge of the tolerance. HD sample rates let the audio band go right down the middle and far away from the sampling frequency. That this can also capture frequencies above the range of hearing is an artifact. You'll see people argue against HD formats based on their hearing ability and perception when that actually has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits of the format. Hence the comments about getting out the popcorn and why I should know better at this point about writing in a thread like this.

My Apogee converters sound pretty much identical at 44.1k as 96k. The difference is less than your perception varies from day to day. The MOTU units are obvious. You get what you pay for there.

The modern audio standard is 24 bit 96k. But really 24 bit at any sample rate is supported by all modern media player apps and HD disc formats (DVDA and bluray). You see all 4 sample rates out in the wild now.

Legacy DVD is 24 or 16 bit at 48k.

CD is 16 bit 44.1k only.

If you record/mix/master at full HD quality, you can release in the same as well as master to accommodate all the older formats. Works for me.

Going to 192k sample rate can help with certain heavy duty restoration tools like noise reduction. When you really need to work some historical artifact over and tug and pull at it. But when you're done, the results will fit completely in a 24/96 container.

The biggest challenge by far is still making a recording and mix that sounds good. But we have a really perfect recording/delivery format with 24 bit 96k audio so at least you don't have to be "artistic" when it comes to the capture part.

[planetnine]

Originally Posted by martifingers

I had a similar experience a long time ago in a BBC studio when only me could hear a test tone. I was able to identify when the tone was on without being able to see the engineer switch it on.
But you can see how people are sceptical. Have you done double blind tests? This:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/artic...-khz-explained

suggests the ability is very rare indeed.

My daughter can hear 22-24kHz -I've played sinewave patterns and she can repeat them back to me. I know I could always hear batsqueaks no-one else could when I was younger.



>

[martifingers]

Seems very plausible - but the batsqueak thing may not be as impressive as it sounds!
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/JuanCancel.shtml

[jpanderson80]

48K and 24 bit.

I do it for ease of use in travelling between studios, sharing files, storage space, and it being the industry standard for video. If I need a 44.1k track later in the project, no problem, but I'll track to 48k anyway just in case.

[Hoodee]

24 bit , 44.1 khz.

What's the point anyway, people will listen to it on laptop speakers or phones

[woggle]

24bit, 96KHz for sounds I might want to slow down. Otherwise 44.1Khz, but mostly 96K

[Sebastian Vera]

24 bit 44.1

There is grater diference in the mixer skills than un the sample rate. I récord and mix music for comon people who doesnt know about what sample is and dont even care. And that will listen to my work and everybodies work in youtube in a laptop speaker or a earbud from wallmart.

48+ has no sence unless latency or other kind of comodity but not quallity

[Judders]

Originally Posted by LightOfDay

its not. industry standard is 44.1kHz for audio and 48kHz for DVD.

That's funny, this AES document laying out standards for producers' delivery of masters says 88.2kHz is the absolute minimum: http://www.aes.org/technical/documen....2.15-02_1.pdf

If you look at the names listed on the committees that contributed to that standard, you might just recognise one or two

[Judders]

Originally Posted by grinder

You know it is funny some folk have alway's said "You can't" it is like they are you.
I first heard that phrase in audio when I was at high school when an audiologist tested my ears.
Obviously I can not remember what specific Frequency I said I could hear at first from the test however that said it was very early in the test.
I had no knowlege of frequency at all at that time all I was asked was to comment when I could hear a sound at which time I did so.
I was as truthful then as I am now and if I say I can hear the difference between 44.1 and 96 then that is what I believe is the truth I have no agenda whatsoever in my belief.

Grinder

Also, they believe some experiments from the 1930's as if they were the word of God, immutable and eternal laws.

It's quite easy to perform a null test of, say, some software synths or EQ's, at 44.1kHz and 96kHz and hear the difference for yourself.

That said, I usually go for 48kHz, because I'm usually doing quick n' dirty stuff.

[drtedtan]

Originally Posted by Judders

That's funny, this AES document laying out standards for producers' delivery of masters says 88.2kHz is the absolute minimum: http://www.aes.org/technical/documen....2.15-02_1.pdf

If you look at the names listed on the committees that contributed to that standard, you might just recognise one or two

That standard is more concerned with archiving projects so they are "future proofed" against new delivery standards that may arise in the future. In actual practice, almost all pros working for record companies, TV production companies and other pro clients are still working at 44.1K or 48K. You may see an increase in the number of pros using higher sample rates in the classical, jazz and bluegrass genres, but still most likely less than half.

Originally Posted by Judders

It's quite easy to perform a null test of, say, some software synths or EQ's, at 44.1kHz and 96kHz and hear the difference for yourself.

It's pretty widely known that certain digital synthesis and digital signal processing (distortions and other gain based processes in particular) will respond differently at higher sample rates than lower sample rates. However, this 1) isn't a difference between the sample rates themselves, but of the VSTs/VSTis themselves, and 2) most modern VSTs and VSTis use oversampling to address this issue.

[jerome_oneil]

Originally Posted by grinder

I record at 96Khz because I can hear the difference!

Grinder

Only if you use the right cables, though.

[Judders]

Originally Posted by drtedtan

That standard is more concerned with archiving projects so they are "future proofed" against new delivery standards that may arise in the future. In actual practice, almost all pros working for record companies, TV production companies and other pro clients are still working at 44.1K or 48K. You may see an increase in the number of pros using higher sample rates in the classical, jazz and bluegrass genres, but still most likely less than half.

All pop and rock guys I know of are using 96kHz, and/or 2" tape. Certainly the big boys in audio engineering all seem to be using at least 96kHz for both tracking and mixing. Where do you get your "almost all" figure from?

Also, just because the above is allegedly all about archiving for future formats (even though 96kHz and beyond has been a consumer format for a number of years), that is what the industry in America has decided producers should hand over, so the reason why is neither here-nor-there really.

If you don't know who is going to be mixing your tracks, or mastering your mix, 96kHz just makes sense to avoid up-sampling downstream.

Originally Posted by drtedtan

It's pretty widely known that certain digital synthesis and digital signal processing (distortions and other gain based processes in particular) will respond differently at higher sample rates than lower sample rates. However, this 1) isn't a difference between the sample rates themselves, but of the VSTs/VSTis themselves, and 2) most modern VSTs and VSTis use oversampling to address this issue.

So? It's still a quantifiable difference. Latency might also be a consideration, too.

[serr]

It's funny...

We have a digital container (24/96) that can hold the highest fidelity audio signal you can throw at it.

So now we have a certain crowd that seems to want to continually evaluate every recording they make to see if they can get away with a lower resolution container.

"Hold on, this master is a little lo-fi... I just did a bunch of A/B/X testing and I can get away with reducing this to 44.1k... or 16 bit..."

Seriously?!

I'm happy to be able to make virtually perfect copies now and to be able to analytically point to the source for anything I hear instead of also dealing with a generation loss variable. Seriously just good f-ing riddance to all that insanity from the past!

The formula is simple now.
- Always use 24 bit. Final master should be 24 bit. No exceptions!
- Use 96k (or 88.2k) when convenient.
- Avoid conversions between the lower resolution sample rates (specifically 44.1k and 48k) whenever possible.
- Deliver your master in ALL portable formats in addition to the full master.

That's it!

PS. Anyone listening to stuff on ratty portable players hears your music as well as anyone elses. Their player sounds 'normal' to them. YOU have no way of knowing what form of cheapness someone is listening to and there's no way to create a master specifically for any particular malfunctioning device that would 'normalize' it.

Garbage in, garbage out. The best mix sounds the best on the worst system.

[LightOfDay]

no, no, no. I said I am out and I will stick to it.

... after thinking of when will this higher-samplerate-nonsense finally stop? I have no hope...

so, now I am out.

[VinodXAgent]

Judders mentioned an AES Paper and he is right. It is recommended to record at higher Samplerates than 48 KHz and to deliver your tracks to the "Tape-owner" at twice the Samplerate you did record.(AESTD1002.2.15-02).
That is a recommendation for discussion. The Standard as of today is AES5-2008 (r2013)
Abstract: A sampling frequency of 48 kHz is recommended for the origination, processing, and interchange of audio programs employing pulse-code modulation. Recognition is also given to the use of a 44.1-kHz sampling frequency related to certain consumer digital applications, the use of a 32-kHz sampling frequency for transmission-related applications, and the use of a 96-kHz sampling frequency for applications requiring a higher bandwidth or more relaxed anti-alias filtering. This revision further quantifies the preferred choices for higher sampling frequencies. (8 pages)

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by serr

- Avoid conversions between the lower resolution sample rates (specifically 44.1k and 48k) whenever possible.

Why?

I agree with most of what you write. But why would a conversion of 48 KHz to 44.1 be any worse than from 96 to 44.1?

[Neenja]

Originally Posted by LightOfDay

no, you cant.

oh, sorry, I said I am out.

He might be able to hear the difference, but it would mean that something is wrong with his converters.

[Nystagmus]

There have been some technical papers published that identify problems in the implementation of 88.2 kHz and 96 kHz and of course 192 kHz. Apparently, at such high rates, the actual hardware has troubles and the audio suffers.

I would share the links, but I'm not at the same computer where I stored the downloaded PDF files. I will link them later if I can find them. I was directed to them by a tech head at GearSlutz where this type of discussion continues non-stop for literally years! yes YEARS!

Anyways, I read the technical papers and it seemed convincing. I had a digital logic course in my college years and I know from it that digital technology is not perfect. It can't be pushed too far; it has limits.

Until we get a true implementation of 60 kHz seems to be about ideal according to multiple sources, 48 kHz is about the best and it doesn't cost too much disk space and CPU resources.

So I use 48 kHz and I'm happy with it since it translates easily into the consumer formats, and video formats, and pro formats.

For bit resolution, I use 32-bit float for my archives since it doesn't have to clip and because it's practically at the same resolution as the DAW. Reaper's engine is actually better than that, at 64-bit internally, but it's good enough. I have Reaper configured to always use 32-bit float for gluing and rendering. I don't record any audio so it's not too expensive for me and my VST instruments. 32-bit float is the default format for VST's anyhow.

I also use 16-bit FLAC @ 48 kHz since that's the highest resolution that can be played on my portable media player, a Sansa Clip. As it turns out, some RockBoxed media players can do ALL the major audio media formats, including WAVpack, but I'm not currently involved with that.

I used to use 24-bit FLAC's until I realised that they couldn't be played on portable media players. But 48 kHz works if it's 16-bit. And it's nice to have the metadata for pictures and tune infos.

SoundCloud can handle FLAC, so I'm delivering better than CD quality to my fans and if they want to, they can turn the tunes into MP3's or M4A's or OGG's or whatever and the lossiness is theirs, not mine... but at their convenience.

FLAC support is finally getting around a bit more since it just makes sense. I can't figure out why some people are distributing WAV's on SoundCloud; it's 45% wasted space and no metadata tags.

[Dog Boots]

Originally Posted by planetnine

My daughter can hear 22-24kHz -I've played sinewave patterns and she can repeat them back to me. I know I could always hear batsqueaks no-one else could when I was younger.



>

Are you sure it's not distortion artifacts she's hearing?

[Bazzbass]

24bit 44.1kHz

but what's the point?

The usual format our music will be downloaded in will be 128k mp3.

And listened to via earbuds on an iphone or thru mono bluetooth speaker boxes

What is the point,we may as well record in mono and monitor thru AM radios with one 2 inch speaker, sigh.

I go through all this trouble to buy a new laptop,new interface,a decent mic, good monitors,record at CD quality....and the guitarist asks for a 128k mp3 so it doesn't take 5 minutes to download via Dropbox........

[cyrano]

Originally Posted by Bazzbass

but what's the point?

The usual format our music will be downloaded in will be 128k mp3.

It's not mp3 as a format that's the problem. It's over-compressed audio that is converted to mp3 that is the problem. mp3 can sound quite convincing if done right.

[karbomusic]

Originally Posted by Bazzbass

24bit 44.1kHz

but what's the point?

Same reason they used good cameras even though TV resolution was horrible; the final medium should not drive the original capture/format.

[planetnine]

You want to hear how most music was listened to in the 70s -but I'm still glad Fleetwood Mac, Steely Dan, Pink Floyd, etc and their production guys put the effort in to make decent recordings.

If you don't make the effort, you're admitting your music is throwaway crap



>

[grinder]

A couple of years ago our NZ National airwaves turned to digital.
This morning I heard "Come On Eileen" by the English group Dexys Midnight Runners.
Listening to this song, and I am not a pop fiend, used to give me great joy and good feelings.
Hearing it through the airwaves now gives me the chills the sound is just not there!

Grinder

https://soundcloud.com/steve-maitland-1