Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Post-Processing, Computer / Streaming / Internet Devices & Related Activity => Topic started by: obaaron on April 21, 2019, 07:07:59 PM

Title: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: obaaron on April 21, 2019, 07:07:59 PM
https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2019/4/14/only-1-in-5-of-those-recording-and-mixing-audio-bother-with-high-sample-rates-are-you-one-of-the-few-who-cares (https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/production-expert-1/2019/4/14/only-1-in-5-of-those-recording-and-mixing-audio-bother-with-high-sample-rates-are-you-one-of-the-few-who-cares)


I always run 24/48 have only recorded at 96 a few times don’t think it’s worth the extra space. But 16/44?


Discuss...
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: Ben Turnbull on May 02, 2019, 12:46:46 AM
Discussed many times.

I used to roll 24/48 but now only 24/44.  I learned that 48 was for some reason hooked to vid production. My stuff never gets linked to vids and if need be... they can convert.
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: perks on May 02, 2019, 12:54:30 PM
I think it depends on how you listen as well. I listen to DVD-A format at home and 24/44.1 isn't going to work. For anything I record running analog line in to a handheld recorder I record at 24/48. If I'm going to lug around a stand alone ADC > Bit bucket then I'm inclined to go 24/96 - again just so I can listen to 24/48 or 24/96 with DVD-A format.
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: u2_fly_2 on May 02, 2019, 04:05:50 PM
Great article, thanks.

Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: wforwumbo on May 07, 2019, 03:48:26 PM
Discussed many times.

I used to roll 24/48 but now only 24/44.  I learned that 48 was for some reason hooked to vid production. My stuff never gets linked to vids and if need be... they can convert.

It has to do with video capture. Back in the beginning of digital video, 24 frames per second became a standard. 48k syncs much easier than 44.1k to 24 FPS.

This is discussed many times, but I’ll *always* be a proponent of over sampling past what we need. Storage is cheap and easily available today, and YOU may not hve a need for more than 16-bit/44.1k, but in the future someone doing post will thank you. Digital filters and compression/saturation plugins benefit MASSIVELY from increased bit depth and sample rate as this results in less error, which is noticeable and appreciable even to non-audiophiles in my experience.

EDIT: also, up-sampling is bad for many reasons. Much better to down sample and throw out info, than try and reconstruct it into higher sample rates.

Personally, for the record, I run at 24/96 and am considering upping to 24/192.
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: jerryfreak on May 07, 2019, 08:13:17 PM
i used to run 24/44.1 but dont release anythign i do in 16-bit anymore, so 24/48 now
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: heathen on May 08, 2019, 11:10:57 AM
i used to run 24/44.1 but dont release anythign i do in 16-bit anymore, so 24/48 now

I'm just curious about your reason for this.  I'm not implying anything, just genuinely curious.
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: noahbickart on May 08, 2019, 12:26:17 PM
I just want to state a concurrence with Dr. wforwumbo here:

I can't hear the difference between raw 44.1 and 96khz files. However, I find that certain high end eq, dynamics, and, especially, "saturation" plugins sound significantly better when applied to files of greater bit depth and sample rates. So I download the 24/96 versions of other people's "tapes" in order to use plugins during playback. So even if you, liken me, can't hear the difference in a raw file, there may still be sonic benefits, for some people, to higher sample rates.

I used to record at 24/48, but have now switched to 24/96, having implemented plugins on playback in my listening room.

 
Discussed many times.

I used to roll 24/48 but now only 24/44.  I learned that 48 was for some reason hooked to vid production. My stuff never gets linked to vids and if need be... they can convert.

It has to do with video capture. Back in the beginning of digital video, 24 frames per second became a standard. 48k syncs much easier than 44.1k to 24 FPS.

This is discussed many times, but I’ll *always* be a proponent of over sampling past what we need. Storage is cheap and easily available today, and YOU may not hve a need for more than 16-bit/44.1k, but in the future someone doing post will thank you. Digital filters and compression/saturation plugins benefit MASSIVELY from increased bit depth and sample rate as this results in less error, which is noticeable and appreciable even to non-audiophiles in my experience.

EDIT: also, up-sampling is bad for many reasons. Much better to down sample and throw out info, than try and reconstruct it into higher sample rates.

Personally, for the record, I run at 24/96 and am considering upping to 24/192.
Title: Re: article - sample rates/recording and mixing
Post by: jerryfreak on May 09, 2019, 02:02:34 AM
i used to run 24/44.1 but dont release anythign i do in 16-bit anymore, so 24/48 now

I'm just curious about your reason for this.  I'm not implying anything, just genuinely curious.

nobody uses cds anymore. ill do the 24bit at whatever bitrate and usually create a V0