Sample Rates

[horacejesse]

An elementary question here inspired by reading a neighboring thread.When recording onto my Alesis HD-24 with the intention of later mixing to CD, should I be using 44.1 or 48? Will it make a difference in the CD if I record at a higher rate?

[zircon]

It doesn't hurt to record at a higher sample rate, so you can downsample later. Even though you're going to end up at 44.1khz in the end, it will still sound sharper. Same goes for bitrate. In my opinion, 24 bit and 48khz is the sweet spot... I haven't heard (in the literal sense) convincing evidence that recording at anything higher than that impacts the final 16/44.1 mix.

[ernstinen]

I've done a lot of experiments with this, and to my ear going up to 24 bit makes a big difference, while going up in sample rate makes a little difference with each jump. I record at 24/96. Some people prefer 24/88.2 because it makes the conversion a bit easier going down to "CD quality ."I've got reel-to-reel analoge mixes that sound way better than CDs, and as for mp3s -- fuggetabout it! I actually feel sorry for kids brought up on mp3s --- they have no idea what they're missing. Ern

[matto]

Quote:An elementary question here inspired by reading a neighboring thread.When recording onto my Alesis HD-24 with the intention of later mixing to CD, should I be using 44.1 or 48? Will it make a difference in the CD if I record at a higher rate? My advice is to use 44.1. 48 makes no audible difference IMHO; the dual standards were established to make digital copying of CD's to DAT more difficult, not for fidelity purposes.A difference of almost 2k at the top end of the audio spectrum might seem like a big deal, but remember we're talking about extremely high harmonics here and, in musical terms, perhaps a whole step or so...

[andreh]

I'd have to go with matto's suggestion; 48k will sound better, but by the time you convert back down to 44.1 for the CD master you're probably worse off than if you'd just recored at 44.1 from the get-go.Zircon's stuff sound amazing, though, so his 48k method is obviously working as well! Ern does orchestral stuff (and his work also sounds great), which I'm sure benefits from higher smaple rates more than pop stuff would.Andre

[horacejesse]

Thanks, folks, for those responses. Are there any technical hurdles to making a CD your final product when one does record at a higher rate? Don't you just mix it down the way you normally would, without having to do anything extra?It seems from some of the responses that my classical and jazz stuff would sound a nubbin better if I recoded at a higher rate, even after it is mixed down to 16/44.1. Yes?

[horacejesse]

What format does Harpo productions want the music delivered to them in, wave, CD, etc.?

[matto]

Quote:It seems from some of the responses that my classical and jazz stuff would sound a nubbin better if I recoded at a higher rate, even after it is mixed down to 16/44.1. Yes?No. I know some people will argue against this but...unless I see somebody reliably tell 44.1 from 48 in a blind listening test, I say stick with 44.1, if those are your two choices. (You can always try it yourself and see if YOU can tell the difference. ) You now have a digital file at 44.1 which you can directly burn to CD, without going thru rate conversion or another DA/AD stage, which tend to mess up your sound...

[aubreyz]

Quote:Quote:It seems from some of the responses that my classical and jazz stuff would sound a nubbin better if I recoded at a higher rate, even after it is mixed down to 16/44.1. Yes?No. I know some people will argue against this but...unless I see somebody reliably tell 44.1 from 48 in a blind listening test, I say stick with 44.1, if those are your two choices. (You can always try it yourself and see if YOU can tell the difference. ) You now have a digital file at 44.1 which you can directly burn to CD, without going thru rate conversion or another DA/AD stage, which tend to mess up your sound...The difference between 44.1 and 48k is so minor that there is little if any advantage to recording @ 48k if 44.1 is your end destination. For most of the broadcast stuff I do, 48k is the standard thus I live there a lot. I've done blind AB tests between the two, and couldn't consistently pick one over the other. However, I can easily tell the difference between a 48k and 96k recording - even when down converted.Aub

[edteja]

Aub,Where do the differences between 48 and 96 show up? I assume you are taking sound coloration as much as anything else? And if they are there even when down converted, is there a reason (disk space?) that you work at lower rates?