recording @ a rate higher than 44.1kHz(Hip-Hop)?

[phanatik]

is recording at a rate higher than 44.1kHz necessary for Hip-Hop music?

we're using a Digi 002
dual powerMac G4 1.25
PT LE 6.4
Mackie HR824
Yamaha NS-10
Akai MPC's
Korg Triton


wondering if going higher would benifit. Dont know to much about the outcome of using different rates. though i know some about the 0's and 1's/ the squares(steps0 and circular shaping of audio to a degree which is small.

This question is asked about from a mixing point of view with tracking in mind. Would/should i record/track at a rate higher than the standard CD rate and trunc down or should i just stay at 44? doing would my music sound better/clearer, or its not that noticeable to matter and just take up more space as files on the drive?

[tele_player]

Since you have an 002, why not try doing some sessions at 88.2 or 96K, and see if you hear a difference?

[Slim Shady]

did you search the forum? this topic has been covered tons of times in the past.

[bzldzl]

Personally I think recording above 44.1 makes no sense unless your final product is going to be above 44.1, i.e. DVD. Even then I have read articles, never tried it myself, that when you go from 44.1 to 96k the sound is not much different if any than recording at 96k.

[valvebrother]

Personally I think recording above 44.1 makes no sense unless your final product is going to be above 44.1, i.e. DVD. Even then I have read articles, never tried it myself, that when you go from 44.1 to 96k the sound is not much different if any than recording at 96k.



No offense intended, but this is not my experience at all. With nice converters, many projects (it all depends on the genre and arrangement) sound superior when tracked, mixed, and mastered at 96, with the final SRC to 44.1 happening as the last possible step.

For me, when recording classical, jazz or pretty much any acoustic arrangements within a nice space, it's not even worth a second thought: 96 kHz. The only caveat is processing power; it takes a lot to work with 96 if you have to work with a number of tracks and need to do any processing in the box. So, I usually mix 96 projects on the SSL.

For hip-hop? I can't think of a reason why 96 would help with hip-hop; it's not the most "pristine/audiophile" form of recording. I would stick with 44.1 for that kind of work.

D

[staggerlee]

My experience has been that recording at 96k sounds better. Last year I did an album that was tracked at 44.1 for the first half and 96 for the second. Specifically, the increase in the sound quality of the drums was unmistakeable, and to my ears it certainly translated to the final 16/44.1 CD format.

I know zero/zilch/nada about the technical stuff. I just do what sounds/feels good. I'm sure all kinds of people here can explain why I'm wrong...

It's also been my experience that the better something sounds while tracking, the more inspired everyone involved is, whatever the genre.

Give 96 a try - I'd like to hear how your experience is with it.

[mpark9000]

If your mastering "inside the box", and it's going to end up on CD, stick with 44.1. If you record with a higher sampling rate, you'll have to do a sample rate conversion from whatever you recorded at (96k, etc) down to 44.1k. The sonic benefits are negligable, and will be negated by the artifacts from the sample rate conversion. If you just _have_ to record at a higher sampling rate, stick with 88.2k since the SR conversion won't be as messy (44.1 times two equals 88.2).

The only higher sampling rate that makes a difference is in HD territory at 192k. Even then, if your ending up on a 16 bit 44.1k CD, what's the point?

Sample rate conversion is massive data manipulation. OTOH, If your mastering to tape or an external recorder, the choice of a higher sample rate is just a matter of taste.

Good luck

[WestPhillySoulzition]

Thats all only tru if you ar emastering inside the box. If you are mastering a real house the difference is huge. the mastering engineer is going to use outboard so he is gonna send it out of a high end converter (HEDD, lavry) and thru alot of outboard and then back into a differen system running 44.1khz. So it depends on how you work. I personally notice a sleaner high end in 96 or 88.1 recordings. All of the big records are recorded that way. I just had seminar with the producer from hoobastank and he had all of his tracks at 88.2 and said all of his stuff is recorded at that rate. But the trade of with LE systems is that it hinders your plugs. i guess it matter how good of an engineer you are and how much manipulated you leave to do after you record. ie plugs etc. From what I was told he did not use much plugs at all, all the sounds were processed the way that he wanted before conversion. all types of music need quality conversion even if the samples are from 16 or 12 bit samplers. Converters shine when you start summing in the box.

[valvebrother]

If you just _have_ to record at a higher sampling rate, stick with 88.2k since the SR conversion won't be as messy (44.1 times two equals 88.2).



This is incorrect. With most modern SRC things are upsampled to an extremely high sample rate that's commonly divisible by all the supported rates, then downsampled.

Damon

[mpark9000]

If you just _have_ to record at a higher sampling rate, stick with 88.2k since the SR conversion won't be as messy (44.1 times two equals 88.2).



This is incorrect. With most modern SRC things are upsampled to an extremely high sample rate that's commonly divisible by all the supported rates, then downsampled.

Damon



Like I said: massive data manipulation.

[mpark9000]

All of the big records are recorded that way.



Even the thousands (millions?) that were recorded on Mix systems and ADATs? They sounded pretty good at 44.1k or 48k. So-called "big" records have more to do with the human aspect of the recording chain. Good song, good performance, skilled engineers and professional mastering. Sum it all up as "having a budget and knowing where to spend it". The sample rate comes pretty low in that scenario, especially if it ends up on CD.

[valvebrother]

If you just _have_ to record at a higher sampling rate, stick with 88.2k since the SR conversion won't be as messy (44.1 times two equals 88.2).



This is incorrect. With most modern SRC things are upsampled to an extremely high sample rate that's commonly divisible by all the supported rates, then downsampled.

Damon



Like I said: massive data manipulation.



Like I said: Your statement about 88.2 being preferable b/c the math is easier is incorrect. Of course SRC is heavy data manipulation, but it's always that way, no path to 44.1 is easier than any other.

[phanatik]

All of the big records are recorded that way.



Even the thousands (millions?) that were recorded on Mix systems and ADATs? They sounded pretty good at 44.1k or 48k. So-called "big" records have more to do with the human aspect of the recording chain. Good song, good performance, skilled engineers and professional mastering. Sum it all up as "having a budget and knowing where to spend it". The sample rate comes pretty low in that scenario, especially if it ends up on CD.



point taken.

[RadioMoo]

Even the thousands (millions?) that were recorded on Mix systems and ADATs? They sounded pretty good at 44.1k or 48k.

They did not sound good at 44.1. They were thin and harsh sounding, and you had to work like hell to make anything of them.

My vote goes for recording at higher rates if it's practical; the end result (your 16/44.1 mix) always sounds better, e. g., more detail and smoother highs.

P. S. Most of the "big records" are tracked on analogue tape or PTHD.

[phanatik]

ok, i get the point and I did A/B/C, but not yet D... thats 44.1/48/88.2 and the c was smoother and u can hear low end more. yet to do 98 but I dont think i will bcuz it limits track count

[tele_player]

Of course SRC is heavy data manipulation, but it's always that way, no path to 44.1 is easier than any other.



Are you certain of that?

[mpark9000]

Even the thousands (millions?) that were recorded on Mix systems and ADATs? They sounded pretty good at 44.1k or 48k.

They did not sound good at 44.1. They were thin and harsh sounding, and you had to work like hell to make anything of them.

My vote goes for recording at higher rates if it's practical; the end result (your 16/44.1 mix) always sounds better, e. g., more detail and smoother highs.

P. S. Most of the "big records" are tracked on analogue tape or PTHD.



I guess I didn't know they sounded bad when I listened to them. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes, higher end projects are tracked on 2" tape. A lot were bounced to PT for editing. The best way to get more detail and smoother highs is to track properly from the beginning and then have a knowledgeable person mix. Blaming the bitrate for a thin sounding mix is just blaming the tools.

[mpark9000]

If you just _have_ to record at a higher sampling rate, stick with 88.2k since the SR conversion won't be as messy (44.1 times two equals 88.2).



This is incorrect. With most modern SRC things are upsampled to an extremely high sample rate that's commonly divisible by all the supported rates, then downsampled.

Damon



Like I said: massive data manipulation.



Like I said: Your statement about 88.2 being preferable b/c the math is easier is incorrect. Of course SRC is heavy data manipulation, but it's always that way, no path to 44.1 is easier than any other.



How about staying at 44.1 and never leaving it? No sample rate conversion, no massive data manipulation. I believe we are back to where the thread started now.

[Infa]

Phanatic,,,,, just like a few others posted in this thread already said, and I will say again, but make it THE most viable point, because it IS ------ It ALL depends on which medium you are mixing to, and where it will be mastered at.
If you will be doing everything yourself, and mixing in the box, (mastering yourself too) , then it is highly recomended you just stay at 44.1 all the way across the board.....period......(you will lose MORE sound quality in converting back to 44.1 than what you'd temporarally gain from a higher sampling rate)...........

BUT if you are at ANY point in the chain from recording, to final mix, to mastering are going to go to a analog source then recording at the highest rate possible is great, and benificial to do BEFORE the analog source is introduced. Because think about it, once you record it analog "sampling rate" leaves the equation, and it would be best to have Pro Tools just play the best thing it can to the analog source.

But there still is a couple more parts to this,,,,,, AFTER the analog thing,,, then you still come back to the question of where/how you are going to MASTER the album. If you are going to a place that accepts your analog source(via reel to reel tape), then just bring them the Reels, and your all set,, hence the high sampling rate was indeed a good thing... Also if you are going to take them(the mastering place) "Files" (via 24bit .wav, aiff, sdII, etc.) then just record the song back into Pro Tools from the analog source as a 24bit Multi Mono Stereo .wav file at the highest sample rate possible, for you 96k... (again,, their converters are so great, you WILL benifit from the higher sampling rate, and also be catching in more detail that awesome "analog" feel in the mix as well since you will be coming from that analog source.....

Now if you will NOT be taking it to get mastered, but still did the analog thing (tracked at 96k, cause you were going to analog , and conversion wasn't in the equation,, remember??), then when you record BACK into Pro Tools, record it as a 16bit Multi Mono Stereo SDII or .wav file at 44.1 ........ Then do your in house mastering,,, and burn it on a CD, and NO conversion will take place......

Point is,, there is no ONE WAY answer to "which sample rate should I do"?... FOR HIP HOP OR NOT !!!!!!!!! Any music ,,,, o.k. ??
You always have to ask,,,,,, where is this going, and how /where/will it be getting mastered at...........Then come to your conclusions based on the highly tested, and experienced info I gave you above.............

Hope this helps,,,,,,,

[RadioMoo]

Quote:


Quote:

Even the thousands (millions?) that were recorded on Mix systems and ADATs? They sounded pretty good at 44.1k or 48k.

They did not sound good at 44.1. They were thin and harsh sounding, and you had to work like hell to make anything of them.

My vote goes for recording at higher rates if it's practical; the end result (your 16/44.1 mix) always sounds better, e. g., more detail and smoother highs.

P. S. Most of the "big records" are tracked on analogue tape or PTHD.



I guess I didn't know they sounded bad when I listened to them. Thanks for the heads up.

Yes, higher end projects are tracked on 2" tape. A lot were bounced to PT for editing. The best way to get more detail and smoother highs is to track properly from the beginning and then have a knowledgeable person mix. Blaming the bitrate for a thin sounding mix is just blaming the tools.



OK, let's delve into this a little deeper: Stuff made on ADATs with the stock converters sounded thin and harsh - even at 48. When good outboard converters were used, there was a noticeable improvement even at 44.1.

Early digital recordings made on Sony's now infamous reel-to-reel machines sounded harsh and harmonically "wrong," even in the hands of seasoned engineers. Listen to Steely Dan's 'Gaucho' or Peter Gabriel's album 'Security.' (Search for articles on overshoot and ringing).

Why do audiophiles covet the 20-bit remastered CDs, not to mention vinyl pressings - are they hallucinating?

I can blame the bit rate and the converters, and if the engineer and/or mixer don't good sound from bad, I can blame them, too. I've heard good sounding hip-hop, and I attribute that to "the tools," such as the "channel strips" and good vacuum tube mics that seem to be very prevelant in that genre. I also attribute it to good mastering engineers like Bernie Grundman. I've also heard stuff that's squashed to hell and back in mastering, and what it was originally put together on becomes irrelevant; I'm also hearing other types of music that are given this treatment in mastering, and it makes what otherwize sounds like a good mix unpleasant to listen to.

Whatever - if someone has a good set-up and records at 96 and has artistic control over the final product, it will sound better than doing it at 44.1 all the way through.

Whatever, whatever - the question was is it "necessary" to record hip-hop at 96, and the answer is no.

[phanatik]

Whatever - if someone has a good set-up and records at 96 and has artistic control over the final product, it will sound better than doing it at 44.1 all the way through.

Whatever, whatever - the question was is it "necessary" to record hip-hop at 96, and the answer is no.

[/QUOTE]


thnk u RadioMoo

and every1 else 4 the xtra cirricular xplanitory technical hypothenusous data.

ima just do both and c whats smoother

[SimpleNatureSpirit]

Simple answer? Phanatic... Processing with plugs at 88.2 is like oversampling 44.1. Your final output from the plug-ins will be cleaner. A 'POP' may only sound like a 'pop'

Of course, if you got lucky and don't need processing (Yea right!), 44.1 will do.
...And according to MasterLink, if you have 44.1/16 bit outboard stuff, still use higher rates in your session since it is going through D/A-A/D's anyway.

Also work at 24 bit and dither the final output to 16 bit for CD.

[mpark9000]

OK, let's delve into this a little deeper: Stuff made on ADATs with the stock converters sounded thin and harsh - even at 48. When good outboard converters were used, there was a noticeable improvement even at 44.1.

Early digital recordings made on Sony's now infamous reel-to-reel machines sounded harsh and harmonically "wrong," even in the hands of seasoned engineers. Listen to Steely Dan's 'Gaucho' or Peter Gabriel's album 'Security.' (Search for articles on overshoot and ringing).

Why do audiophiles covet the 20-bit remastered CDs, not to mention vinyl pressings - are they hallucinating?

I can blame the bit rate and the converters, and if the engineer and/or mixer don't good sound from bad, I can blame them, too. I've heard good sounding hip-hop, and I attribute that to "the tools," such as the "channel strips" and good vacuum tube mics that seem to be very prevelant in that genre. I also attribute it to good mastering engineers like Bernie Grundman. I've also heard stuff that's squashed to hell and back in mastering, and what it was originally put together on becomes irrelevant; I'm also hearing other types of music that are given this treatment in mastering, and it makes what otherwize sounds like a good mix unpleasant to listen to.

Whatever - if someone has a good set-up and records at 96 and has artistic control over the final product, it will sound better than doing it at 44.1 all the way through.

Whatever, whatever - the question was is it "necessary" to record hip-hop at 96, and the answer is no.



Interesting points. You realize that they had to do with the quality of the DACs, bit depth or an inept engineer. None of them address the sample rate issue, which is the discussion.

BTW, I used ADATs for years. Unreliable and treacherous, I needed 5 of them just to keep 3 of going. The BF ones could sound thin, but just like anything (including ProTools) you learned to compensate. They improved drastically at the end of their product life, too little, too late. The 20 bit ones weren't nearly as thin.

This is just the analog vs digital argument in a different form. There's a lot of folks out there that would scoff "All digital audio is thin and harsh sounding. There's nothing you can do to improve it". Samplerates and bit depths are all just smoke and mirrors to these people.

I still have my old Teac 80-8 1/2" tape deck and a Teac 35-2b mastering 1/4" half track, so I have a few years experience with all the formats discussed.

[RadioMoo]

None of them address the sample rate issue, which is the discussion.


No, the discussion is about whether it is necessary to record hip-hop at 96.


The 20 bit ones weren't nearly as thin.


Well, was it bit rate or wasn't it? And for that matter, why do you use a 24/96 set-up in your business when it's going to end up at 16/44.1 anyway?

[phanatik]

ok, no more pleaz. I'll figure it by recording at different rates.

I did not want a George Bush thing goin on here. I'll find the weapons myself.

thnx every1. Good Night!


Hip-Hop

[Infa]

ok, no more pleaz. I'll figure it by recording at different rates.

I did not want a George Bush thing goin on here. I'll find the weapons myself.

thnx every1.



But hey,,,, Phanatic,,,, PLEASE remember, that as you run this "which one sounds better" test,,, that it IS NOT that simple. Because trust me, if you just make a song at 44.1, and another at 96,, and just sit down and listen to them both playing ,,, the 96 one WILL sound better no matter what... But it all depends on the destination routes of each one.

See unfortunately I spent about 8 years, ALOT of equiptment, ALOT of what I thought was cool sounding mixes at that time, and ALOT of money to learn this costly mis-judgement... Only also to find the mixes didn't sound as good as they could have, if I only knew the stuff I was telling you now....

So please try to understand how and what would be some good TRUE , FAIR tests proceedures on this matter...Or just go to my earlier post, and just trust that, and roll with it ..........

If you have some more intense detailed questions,,, then ask me back on this thread for my email,, then email me, and then I will email you my phone number,, and we can really get some good comunications goin' on that way.......

Peace, and blessings,,,,,,,,

[phanatik]

If you have some more intense detailed questions,,, then ask me back on this thread for my email,, then email me, and then I will email you my phone number,, and we can really get some good comunications goin' on that way.......

Peace, and blessings,,,,,,,,

[/QUOTE]


Infa

lets get it crackin. lemme get that e-mail.

[Infa]

Infa
lets get it crackin. lemme get that e-mail.



O.k.,,, hit me at : [email protected]
Lookin' foward ta hearin' from ya.....

1,

[phanatik]

Infa

u got mail

[mpark9000]

None of them address the sample rate issue, which is the discussion.


No, the discussion is about whether it is necessary to record hip-hop at 96.


The 20 bit ones weren't nearly as thin.


Well, was it bit rate or wasn't it? And for that matter, why do you use a 24/96 set-up in your business when it's going to end up at 16/44.1 anyway?



Nope, you have it wrong. Thats bit depth, not sample rate. I think I've already given my opinion here about whether it's necessary to record at 96k. Can you guess which side I'm on?

And finally, who ever said I use a 96k setup in my business? You may have me confused with someone else. I use a MixPlus TDM system for my business, and have an 002 & MBox at home. I will sometimes record at 192k on a MOTU/Logic system, but won't waste the time or resources on 96k.

[Chandler Bridges]

Even the thousands (millions?) that were recorded on Mix systems and ADATs? They sounded pretty good at 44.1k or 48k.

They did not sound good at 44.1. They were thin and harsh sounding, and you had to work like hell to make anything of them.

My vote goes for recording at higher rates if it's practical; the end result (your 16/44.1 mix) always sounds better, e. g., more detail and smoother highs.

P. S. Most of the "big records" are tracked on analogue tape or PTHD.




Wow, most big records I have worked on , were tracked on regular old TDM. Really just in the last year , have the studio/rental companies have really started to use HD. What big records are you talking about using PTHD?