What sample rate are you recording at?

[elser]

This has been discussed before but it's been awhile and things are changing so quickly in the audio world I thought I'd ask it again. I'm still recording at 44.1. I started to experiment with 96 but my CPU meters more than doubled so I left it alone. Do you hear a difference between 44.1 and 48? If you're recording above 48 how adversely does it affect your computer and what kind of computer are you using?

Jus wunnerin.

[musicliner]

Things in audio technology are changing in deed, but physics science and human ear much less so.

When it comes to resolution (bit rate), take all you can get, as it gives you more headroom (dynamic range)

Sampling is more "political". If 44.1 kHz (what I currently use) is not good enough for you, it is recomended to go by multiples (e.g. 88.2 kHz) as opposed to 48kHz or 96 kHz, as it reduces potential for errors during downsampling and dithering.

Extensive coverage of the subject, including findings of various blind test can be found here:
http://emusician.com/daw/emusic_bridging_gap/

Cheers,
George Solo
http://musicline.ca
http://georgesolo.com

[cardell]

I generally work at 48Khz/24bits on my computer, but my Zoom H4 can only do 44.1Khz/16bit in multitrack mode (which is how I mostly use it).

Therefore, it ends up being a mixture.

Stuart

[t4mh]

In older analog recording the axiom as I've always known it is to start with something that sounds good and don't wait for mixdown to fix things. In keeping with that strategy I think 48Khz/24bit is the best all around resolution to record at. I can't see doing 96Khz unless your doing surround or DVD authoring. But 48Khz sampled audio is being used in various file formats and is becoming more and more common. You can always dither down to 44.1 but if you recorded at 44.1 your gonna have a problem moving up to 48. The file size change from 44.1 to 48 is not that great. All in all, it just makes sense and sounds good enough IMO.

Keith

[mojobone]

I'm with Keith. I'll still capture at 44.1 kHz if a project is intended for CD delivery, (48kHz for everything else) but 24-bit capture is pretty standard and a good compromise between fidelity and disk space. If I were doing acoustic/classical recording for archival purposes, rather than pop music, I'd probably use 1-bit DSD.

[mazz]

44.1 24 bit. I do a conversion if the client wants 48. I don't have 96 capability so I've never heard it but for the type of things I do, 44.1 24 works fine. I truly doubt going 96 would enhance my chances for placements but it would raise my budget for hard drive space. Not really worth it working with mostly samples, besides when it's playing softly behind dialog, who's going to notice?

If I had a studio for hire or was recording acoustic music, I'd be singing a different tune, probably at 96khz!!

Mazz

[garrettmiller]

48k 24 bit here.

[watksco]

44.1k / 24bit ...

[tinozigzag]

44.1K 24bit here!

T

[matto]

44.1k/24bit

Going to 48 will not give you a sonic advantage and would only make sense if the majority of your end product needs to be at 48.

For what I do, the slight sonic advantage I'd get from going to 96 is not worth the considerable CPU and storage hit...