Sample Rate for professionals

[JCBigler]

24/48k for everything I do also, which is mostly classical symphonies and operas and jazz recorded live in less than stellar rooms.

The noise that I get from the HVAC and mediocre acoustics would more than defeat any hypothetical or theoretical improvement in sound quality by moving to 96k and eat up twice as much hard drive space.

Also, I don't record at 96k because the consoles that I record from, only operate at 44.1k or 48k.

[Eric Lambert]

48KHz, because we do film and TV and that's the standard. For records, 96KHz.

"Best" sample rate... yeah, that's a conversation that never goes well. It's a topic that drenched online forums 5-10 years ago. These days, convertors are so good (and CDs are so rare, so it's about Apple Music and streaming) that even 44.1 competes with higher rates. I just don't hear people talk about it much anymore, so don't worry too much about the math.

[Popmeise]

Ah, thanks,

Eric, do I understand you right, if you told: 48kHz for film and TV sounds, 96kHz for "only music"?
I am only interested in songs without TV or film.

[feliponk]

For CD 44.1 is the standard, exact HiRes should be 88.2

For Video 48 is the standard, exact HiRes should be 96

For high end classical music or similiar, 176.4 or DSD/DXD


The ADAT ran at 48 KHz because was based on a video device, S-VHS, the same applies for most of the digital audio consoles since they can be used for video as well.

On my experience, there's no audible difference between 44.1 and 48 but I stick to 44.1 when doing normal recordings and use 48 only if video is related to it, also I do prefer to use exact numbers when going to higher sample rates because when doing the sample rate conversion to something lower, it make it simpler and more precise.

[Stig Eliassen]

Originally Posted by Drew Mazurek

Same answer I always give.......

make records @ 16/44.1 that compete the "big boys", then worry about this.

Words of wisdom. 44.1 for me.

[EGS]

Originally Posted by JCBigler

...The noise that I get from the HVAC ...

24/48 for me. When necessary, I zap the HVAC with noise reduction plugs.

[simonchase]

If the end product is going to be 44.1 then is there any wisdom in working to 88.2kHz rather than 96kHz?

[john1192]

Originally Posted by simonchase

If the end product is going to be 44.1 then is there any wisdom in working to 88.2kHz rather than 96kHz?

NO !!!!

[daeron80]

48 if there's a reasonable chance it will wind up in a video or film. 96 if it's purist classical or jazz that will receive little or no EQ. 44.1 for everything else.

99.9% of records would come out sounding identical regardless of sample rate, due to all the mangling and dynamic torture they go through. Seriously, you're going to add 9 dB at 1.5 kHz with some digital EQ plugin, and you're worried about the phase shift of your converters?

[chrismeraz]

At Capitol Records, Al Schmitt uses 24/96 for recording and 24/192 for mixing. He did tell me he's starting to record everything in 192 now - I didn't argue, but it sounds like overkill to me.

I don't have the resources, so I use 24/96 for recording and mixing.