Sample Rate for professionals

[Bob Olhsson]

I don't think any professional has chosen to use high sample rates without first doing extensive testing to determine what sounds best after mixing, mastering and conversion to 44.1x16.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by 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.

How does any of this matter to the actual listener who is listening to the final product outside of your facility though? That's the point here. You're enjoying all of this goodness at your facility only to bounce it down to a consumable quality in the end.

Maybe if there was more mainstream support for higher fidelity audio, people would no doubt use the highest possible quality. But all of these data providers are bandwidth hogs and just want to maximize content through the use of compression.

Maybe if consumers actually bought music instead of stealing it and were willing to pay the higher costs that would come with the extra bandwidth required to offer higher fidelity audio. I doubt the average person would be willing to pay more as most consumers are perfectly happy with 96 and 128 kbps audio and could care less about even a 320 version. Most would not value the perceived difference enough to pay extra for it.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by DJ Hellfire

How does any of this matter to the actual listener who is listening to the final product outside of your facility though? That's the point here. You're enjoying all of this goodness at your facility only to bounce it down to a consumable quality in the end.

Asking if the end user listening to file compressed to say 128 MP3 would be able to tell the difference between an initial 96k file and say a 48k file , while certainly a valid question, but the question is......is it the really right question to be asking ?

I think Obviously it matters how good the initial file format sounds , because I think the right question is ..If the initial recorded, mixed, and mastered file coming out of the studio sounds better,,,,,, will the compressed versions sound better ?
And if it does , and if working a higher format rates does not somehow degrade more in down conversion/compression then why not use higher resolution (if the computer can handle it) ??? I think that is the right, or certainly just as valid a question .





Also while The problems with delivery systems to the end user, is also a valid point I think it is actually a different subject, and not really the point of the OP, which was asking ..What are the pros doing in their studios and why?.... Which Mr. Lambert's post directly addresses

[daeron80]

Again, Ian Shepherd has demonstrated that ultrasonic frequencies can cause audio-band artifacts due to the inability of many amps and speakers to handle them well. A given sound may well be perceivably different when recorded at a high sample rate and a sufficient one. But perhaps the difference is actually a problem, and people are assuming that the difference they hear must be an improvement because higher=better. It ain't necessarily so.

[DJ Hellfire]

Originally Posted by K Roche

Also while The problems with delivery systems to the end user, is also a valid point I think it is actually a different subject, and not really the point of the OP, which was asking ..What are the pros doing in their studios and why?.... Which Mr. Lambert's post directly addresses

It's all relative. The OP is asking for advice on what the "right" settings are for his songs. What's right for him in the end is something he will have to decide based on all of the information provided.

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by DJ Hellfire

It's all relative. The OP is asking for advice on what the "right" settings are for his songs. What's right for him in the end is something he will have to decide based on all of the information provided.

Agreed , and Einstein thought so too , it is all relative and I guess I was focusing relatively on
Title : "Sample Rate for professionals"

"Can you tell me, what the professional studios make?" now admittedly I am assuming, he means sample/bit rate and not income

[arche3]

44.1/24bit. Been that way for years in nyc, LA.
I work on all the records from all the labels.

[YYR123]

Originally Posted by arche3

44.1/24bit. Been that way for years in nyc, LA.
I work on all the records from all the labels.

Yep and most don’t really care. Does the music move you? Does it speak to you? Sample rate talk doesn’t move anyone. It’s a drab conversation.

For the record I deleted about half of this post

[K Roche]

Originally Posted by YYR123

Yep and most don’t really care. Does the music move you? Does it speak to you? Sample rate talk doesn’t move anyone. It’s a drab conversation.

For the record I deleted about half of this post

Sorta like compressing the post to 128 MP3

[YYR123]

Yep....