# Do you record at high sampling frequencies?



## maikol (Nov 7, 2008)

Just wondering if many people now record at 88.2kHz or 96kHz, 192kHz, DSD,... do you?


----------



## marco_ktl (Sep 6, 2009)

Hi!
I'm going with the "old" 48KHz/24bits... And I believe this is the "standard" for medium sized studios.
But in the end I think it depends on your track count. If you are recording a classical ensamble with -let's say- max 8 microphones in the room, I would go 96KHz.
I guess only at the Abbey Road studios they can afford large (+52ch) multitracking at 192KHz/32bits :huh:


----------



## maikol (Nov 7, 2008)

Yeah that's also what I do (24 bits/48kHz) for large multitrack recordings.

Although quite every single A/D today is capable of 96kHz, I'm not sure a lot of people do record at those frequencies.

Hard drive sizes or computers power are not issues anymore, so I wonder why those HSF are so little used?


----------



## marco_ktl (Sep 6, 2009)

maikol said:


> Hard drive sizes or computers power are not issues anymore, so I wonder why those HSF are so little used?


But the data trasfer rate can be an issue... unless you are going RAID and/or SSD.


----------



## immortalgropher (Feb 16, 2010)

Personally...I _like_ to record at 88.2 or 96/24 bit. That being said though, you oughta be able to work with whatever options are available.


----------



## ngarjuna (Mar 29, 2010)

24bit / 44.1k from recording to mixdown.

BTW no matter how fancy your studio is 192 is never a good choice. There's definitely a case to be made for 88.2/96k (and likewise a case to be made for 44.1 / 48). See Lavry's white paper: http://www.lavryengineering.com/documents/Sampling_Theory.pdf
The crux of the biscuit is that neither 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96 are ideal; the real sweet spot is around 65k.

Contrary to some public opinion sample rate decisions never made a good recording sound bad or a bad recording sound good. It's a pretty minor detail in the end.


----------



## Darnstrat (Jan 9, 2010)

maikol said:


> Just wondering if many people now record at 88.2kHz or 96kHz, 192kHz, DSD,... do you?


16 Bit, 44.1 almost exclusively.

Why? Sure great bandwidth at higher sample rates and more dynamic range at 24 bits, HOWEVER, most of what I produce ends up on a CD.
To down convert, a dithering process must be used. The non-technical term for dither is adding noise.

I've done quite a bit at 88.2/24 bit, and it sounds really, really good... however, once down converted for CD, it's simpler (and cleaner) to just do it at 44.1/16 bit. 

48 kHz is the standard for digital video and I only use that when working in video. When you downconvert the sample rate to 44.1, you can end up with subtle (math) errors.

Your results may vary.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 17, 2007)

I use 24/44.1 all the time.

I did a recording in 24/96 once, but the difference to my ears didn't justify the processing overhead, so I didn't bother doing it again... of course, my monitors aren't the best by any means, and my room isn't great either, so those with a better working enviroment may well disagree 

And I agree with ngarjuna - it's a relatively minor decision in the grand scheme of things


----------



## maikol (Nov 7, 2008)

Interesting comments, thanks to everybody!



Darnstrat said:


> 16 Bit, 44.1 almost exclusively.
> 
> Why? Sure great bandwidth at higher sample rates and more dynamic range at 24 bits, HOWEVER, most of what I produce ends up on a CD.
> To down convert, a dithering process must be used. The non-technical term for dither is adding noise.
> ...


This surprises me a bit more (no offence intended of course!).

Do you mix in the analog domain, with no processing at all in digital?

Because if you do any processing in digital (be it volume or just a cross fade), you're probably applying dithering somewhere, as any digital processing will increase resolution above 16 bits.

So there is, from my point of view, an interest in 24 bits resolution precisely here (the increased dynamic range is of no use appart from recording maybe classical orchestral music), letting you add dithering only at the ebd of the processing chain.

Of course, YMMV! :T


----------



## Darnstrat (Jan 9, 2010)

maikol said:


> Interesting comments, thanks to everybody!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is one of the reasons that stay at 16 bit.... as you say, virtually any processing one does in the digital domain is done in 24 or 32 bit mode (yes, even something as simple as 'normalizing' a track gets dithered). From my standpoint, the few dithering operations a signal goes through, the better. I do a lot of processing in the digital files, I'm just trying to cut down on the last bit of noise being added!

Excellent points you make.


----------



## maikol (Nov 7, 2008)

Darnstrat said:


> This is one of the reasons that stay at 16 bit.... as you say, virtually any processing one does in the digital domain is done in 24 or 32 bit mode (yes, even something as simple as 'normalizing' a track gets dithered). From my standpoint, the few dithering operations a signal goes through, the better. I do a lot of processing in the digital files, I'm just trying to cut down on the last bit of noise being added!
> 
> Excellent points you make.


Yeah I get your point, of course.

So the final question is perhaps: " is it better to stay in 16 bits to avoid the last truncation+dithering needed to go back from 24 to 16 bits, or to be in 24 bits from the begining ?"


As most processing in DAWs is done in 32bits float, I'd guess the answer is not that simple...:nerd:


----------



## Darnstrat (Jan 9, 2010)

maikol said:


> Yeah I get your point, of course.
> 
> So the final question is perhaps: " is it better to stay in 16 bits to avoid the last truncation+dithering needed to go back from 24 to 16 bits, or to be in 24 bits from the begining ?"
> 
> ...


As with all things audio.... try 'em both and go with what your ears tell you!


----------



## DragonMusic (Apr 6, 2009)

I always use 48/24 and sometimes 44.1/24.

And like some of us already mentioned, it's a relatively minor decision in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## 0bazooka_joe0 (Mar 22, 2010)

if its rock you can get away with 44.1/16. i usually just use 48/24 for everything. if you have the space go 96k or higher (if you dare) for something dynamic like jazz or orchestral.


----------



## ejbragg (Dec 13, 2009)

I like to use 24 bit (or 32 bit floating point - same thing, supposedly) 44.1 KHz. I have specific arguments for my decisions...

A few years ago, I studied DSP in college - I don't claim to be a guru on the matter, but I learned a few things, anyway....

1. When it comes to downsampling from a particular sample rate to a rate that is not an even multiple of the original sample rate - for example, 48 KHz to 44.1 KHz, the result is distortion. The problem is, the gaps between the samples vary between narrow and wide, continuously, throughout the song. Your converter has to fill in the gaps by "guessing" what the waveform was doing - and that must be recalculated (interpolated) between every gap, which is first of all, not straightforward (but doable by an application), and second of all allows for some inconsistencies. Your dithering algorithm is what covers this by "guessing" the best that it can, but there will be errors, to some degree, added to the music when sampling in this way. It's possibly better to record in 88.2KHz and down sample to 44.1 AFTER all the processing (of all channels) is complete. Because all audio CDs are in 44.1KHz audio, you must downsample to that rate anyway. If you're doing sound for picture, you're not limited to 44.1, but rather 48 KHz, which makes sense for sound-for-picture.

2. As far as the bit rate, I have a hard time hearing the difference between 16 bits and 24 bits, when listening to merely a stereo channel. But when many channels are involved, during mixdown, the sound can become muddy after massive processing at 16 bits. However, most DAW software has a tendency to upsample, anyway, so much of the smearing is handled well during mixing.... unless you've changed the parameters.


----------



## immortalgropher (Feb 16, 2010)

I like 88.2. I like 24 bit. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Dithers down to 48 or 44.1 no problems and you get all the dynamics your brain can enjoy .

If 88.2 isn't an available option for me, 48k it is. If that's not an option, I'll take 44.1 and show it who's boss!


----------

