At which sampling rate are you recording?

[SoundReplay]

Say you have a PT HD system with a 192i/o.

How have you configured your session for your next live recording? The end product will be for CD media (44.1 kHz 16bit)

1) Are you using the stereo mixer (default) or the dithered stereo mixer?
2) Recording at 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96 kHz?

I am recording at 88.2 kHz with the stereo dithered mixer plugin.

And you?

Thanks!

[JFreak]

I track at 44.1 kHz and 24 bits, mix using dithered surround mixer

[Extreme Mixing]

44.1/24 bit for me. If it's for video, it's usually at 48. I think it's best to stay with the sample rate that it will be in the end.

Steve

[Rubicon]

Hi!

48kHz 24 bit. I think it sounds a little better and gives the plugs a little more to work with. If I work at a higher rate VI's become impossible. I am concerned that my 44k bounces sound a little different than the 48k sessions however. I also BTD, which is seriously old school.

Rubicon

[AchimHamburg]

24/44.1 here. Sonic quality is fine for commercials, any vo stuff, pop/rock music.

It seems to me that not having to convert from 48 to 44.1 sounds better than having to deal with the conversion process. Barbabatch does a great job here though. Might be some esotheric experience

When producing very subtle stuff (classical music etc) I track at 96. Just to have the quality for future use.

[Extreme Mixing]

Exactly. Converting sounds worse that just working at 44.1 the whole time. Plus, you have to convert every rough mix along the way.

[O.G. Killa]

the conversion from any sampling rate to any other sampling rate is not an issue. What is an issue is the FIR filter different programs use when doing conversion. The more precise the filter, the better the conversion sounds, but the longer it takes to process and to some extent, the more complex it is to code/write.

Here' a very interesting comparison if you haven't seen it already,

http://src.infinitewave.ca/

Just because one program sounds like crap when converting, has nothing to do with the conversion itself, and everything to do with the design of the filter they used. As you can see some programs have TONS of aliasing while others have none.

But... plugins and any other digital processing you use on your audio WILL sound better at a higher sampling rate. But it usually requires twice the processing power... so that is the trade off.

I use the analogy of recording video. In some ways it parallels audio in that, if you start with a higher resolution picture, your final low res output will look better than if you video-taped the whole thing in low res to begin with. If you don't believe me, watch a home movie you record...then watch something like Star Wars Episode 1 on VHS or on a non-HD TV channel. Star Wars looks better, doesn't it? Why is that? All the processing, visual effects and color correction done to the High resolution version makes for a better output to lower resolutions. Most recently Digital Video has started being shot at 4K and is converted down to 1080p/i after color correction.

While the process is totally different, the same basic concept holds true for audio. The higher the sampling rate and bit depth, the better all the processing will sound. So when you finally do SRC and dither down to 44.1/16, the fidelity is higher than if you recorded at 44.1/16 throughout the whole process.

[DrFord]

Plus, as taught to me by Bob Ohlsson, most all professional converters are built optimized at 48k multiples. He then said that you will hear a more measurable difference in sound recording from 44.1 to 48 then you will going from 48 to 96.

The proof is in the recording though, as all of these factors are dependant on the quality of your converters in the recording process.

Crap in = Crap Out.

[SoundReplay]

Originally Posted by O.G. Killa

But... plugins and any other digital processing you use on your audio WILL sound better at a higher sampling rate. But it usually requires twice the processing power... so that is the trade off.

I agree! The question remains if 88.2kHz would be your choice if your final product will be CD (44.1kHz), just because of the easy re-conversion (dividing by 2, rather than 2.1768... if you use 96 kHz)

I can clearly hear the difference between 44.1 and 88.2, but I can't hear any difference between 88.2 and 96.
Also, I believe that when tracking a big project, the summing of all your tracks might be better in 88.2 than 44.1.
These days, processing power or diskstorage should not be an issue, right?

[SoundReplay]

Originally Posted by DrFord

Plus, as taught to me by Bob Ohlsson, most all professional converters are built optimized at 48k multiples.

So what you are saying is that fe. a 192i/o might produce better sound quality at 96 kHz than 88.2 kHz. But what about the re-conversion than to 44.1kHz. Will this sampling rate conversion not alter your sound more than tracking on 88.2kHz?
Actually, besides the number of available voices and track count, Digidesign is not suggesting anything in their manuals on this topic.

If convertors are capable of capturing audio at very high sampling levels, why not using them?