Sample Rate for professionals

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by lesbrunn

Why not 32/44.1 all the time? 32 is like 24 on steroids...I use it all the time.

I usually do if I'm setting up a new session myself. But if a session is sent to me a certain way, I tend to just leave it. Most that I get are 24/44.1.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by lesbrunn

Can't say I agree with your friend (considering he's gone to engineering school). I've got to bring out the best I'm capable of, regardless of who else will be listening. For now, 44.1/32 seems to do it for me. If I had more powerful hardware, I'd probably do 96k, even though I cannot say in all truthfulness that I can hear the difference. But the many positive arguments for it would seem to justify doing that.

Seriously. We debated for like 2 days about this.

[lesbrunn]

Originally Posted by DJ Hellfire

Seriously. We debated for like 2 days about this.

I guess it would be a dull, colorless world if we were all the same!

[DJ Hellfire]

This is true. LMAO!!!

[Eric Lambert]

There is without question an audible difference between 44 and 88/96. We did an extensive test at our facility with a few engineers and in *every* case the high sample rate version was identified without any struggle. This was acoustic music, though it was simple to spot it with albums like Thriller, too. Just last week I was popping back and forth between 44 and 88 and my wife, who's no audiophile, had no trouble spotting the differences.

There are amazing recordings at 44, no doubt. But the engineer gets the credit, not the science. That same engineer, with the same material, and a higher sample rate, will get an even BETTER sounding album. We have proof because many albums have been released in multiple sample rates. You can compare for yourself.

[YYR123]

No wonder I’ve avoided this thread for the last week !!!

I will continue to stay away - carry on

[daeron80]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

We did an extensive test at our facility with a few engineers and in *every* case the high sample rate version was identified without any struggle.

What converters? What amps/monitors?

[Stig Eliassen]

I'm actually glad that I suck enough as an engineer that I don't have to worry about these things...

[Basstian]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

though it was simple to spot it with albums like Thriller, too.

How should that be possible. Thriller was recorded analog and the digital master for CD was done in 44,1 kHz and 16 bit. Where did you get hi-res files? Are these really done from the original Master-Tape? Or is this some conversion from the SACD original, which was remastered by Bernie Grundman for SACD. To what did you compare it to then? The Master differs from the Original, which has little to do with the resolution. How can you make sure that the files really only differ in resolution and not in gear used or tweaks made.

[seanmccoy]

Originally Posted by Stig Eliassen

I'm actually glad that I suck enough as an engineer that I don't have to worry about these things...