Which kHz do you work in?

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

What sampling frequency do you work with in your DAW.
Up till recently I was using 44.1 for my music and 48 for sound design work, but I've gone to 48 on both now.. Ideally I'd like to work at 96 but my machines and disks aren't up to it...

(the bit values are the most likely as I can't be arsed to have 2 polls )

[Whuffle]

I am working at 48, but not really sure why, since I don't yet have the quality of self-made samples that I want, and everything I do ends up as an mp3 or on CD and I have very limited processing power and HD space atm.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

I recommend everyone working in 44 to try working at 48 if you haven't.. it really does make a difference if you use lots of effects. a 44 wav downsampled from 48 sounds better enough to make it worth it.. reverb sounds much nicer.

If you're not totally on the lo-fi, grungey tip that is.. but then analogue grunge sounds better downsampled from 48 too.

[Whuffle]

how high do you think it is worth going to, then? Assuming vorsprung durch technic, that is...

[christtjj]

48khz is a copy protection scheme. it never was an attempt to make a better standard. it just makes it a pain in the ass to go from dat to computer...at least it was back then. personally, i find no reason to ever work in 48k...44k is fine by me. besides, just get up to 24 bit if you want to make a marked improvement. now if i had 96k or whatever...but really i couldn't...

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

@Whuffle. It depends what you want to do. I recorded some sound effects for a videogame at 96kHz this week becuase I knew that I would probably be pitching them down an octave to make them sound 'bigger'. If you do that with a 44 file then you half your 22kHz range down to 11 kHz, whereas the 96 file still contains harmonics at the threshold of hearing once you've taken it down an octave... they are harmonics which were previously out of the hearing range but it just gives things a fuller and smoother sound.

Of course most mics and preamps are only flat to 20kHz, but they are certainly recording frequencies much higher than this.

I always knew about the theoretical benefits of using higher sampling rates but it's only recently i've actually starting using them practically.. my nord G2 outputs at 96kHz too.

[spoon]

oops, i voted for the wrong one. i'm retarded, please look away.

[cut out]

i'm still 44k but am considering going up... i do bounce tracks in 24 bit though.

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

I find that little jump from 44-48 helps most when doing a final mix, everything just has that little bit of extra clarity and is a lot less confusing. I find myself doing that thing less where you 'squint' your ears trying to hear what the fuck is going on

[kams]

44.1 16bit (although I think SX3 is 24bit as a default - not sure)

only because I traditionally always have, and its the default setting! still getting used to much better clarity from my new(ish) soundcard. Which I assume is the AD converters? Not techy enough to research or care. I would be interested to hear the difference higher sampling rates sound though. I shall have a listen although TBH I don't think I have the 'ears' for that level of subtlty... i was also thinking that reading the compression thread. I dont know if i'm that bothered about doing the mix/mastering engineer stuff at the writing/composing stage - which is all I do at home really. I'd rather let people who are really interested and therefore much better than me do it.

[cut out]

Originally Posted by kams

still getting used to much better clarity from my new(ish) soundcard. Which I assume is the AD converters? Not techy enough to research or care.

what d'you go from / to kams? - - - i went from a terratec dmx6fire to an emu 1616m and the difference in sound quality shocked me (pleasently i shoud add)... making music is much more enjoyable when it sounds good and i'm definitely making more 'grown up' stuff as a result - i can't imagine what would happen if i got some decent monitors as well, i'd probably turn into some sort of wanky MOR-glitch musician that gets reviewed in the sunday supplements.

[kams]

Originally Posted by cut out

what d'you go from / to kams? - - - i went from a terratec dmx6fire to an emu 1616m and the difference in sound quality shocked me (pleasently i shoud add)... making music is much more enjoyable when it sounds good and i'm definitely making more 'grown up' stuff as a result - i can't imagine what would happen if i got some decent monitors as well, i'd probably turn into some sort of wanky MOR-glitch musician that gets reviewed in the sunday supplements.

from a DMAN 2044 to an EMU 1212m (which is the same bits as the 1616m I think) - a really noticeable difference in quality though also!

The old midiman thing had a chip in it built by someone who went bust pre-XP so I was stuck in windows 98 until recently. Was a pretty reliable set up though - no net or Office stuff, just audio. Not one crash in 5 or 6 years.

hehe... i'm just become some wanky MOR glitch musician who never finishes a tune anymore!

[christtjj]

what about 24bit/44Khz?

that's been the big standard for years.

[cut out]

yer, until i get round to getting my ears syringed i don't see too much point in moving up :p

I actually find having duff, waxy hearing quite a bonus as i always used to leave out top end in my stuff and nowadays i put more in to compensate.

[TEC-HO]

I was going to ask the very same question. I've always worked at 44.1, with 16 bits. But because the studios had a few major upgrades i was wondering if it was worth working with higher samples/bits. I know what the benefits are on paper, but never been too sure about worthwhile audible differences...

[Whuffle]

@ Numbnuts,

Cheers for that, cos taking a sample and pitching it sometimes WAY down, is a standard method for me. I do it loads.

[dainhumain]

I work at 192000khz 32bit float and then convert to 24-96 for big arrangment's
as you need a dual core processer really.

Its allways better to have an higher sample rate and more bits per sample as you will allways get better results if your system can handle it.

[dainhumain]

i also record short sample loops at 384kHz 64bit float and it does sound really really nice then convert to 24-96 to work with.I can just get away with short loops at 384kHz but nothing more.

[love_tempo]

I work at 96khz. I started using that rate as soon as I got my yamaha i88x interface as it sounded much better than 48khz on the previous m-audio.

But then when I use 48khz on the yamaha that also sounds much better that 48khz on the m-audio. So I think the main thing is the quality of the interface rather than the actual rate. Although it does happen that designs that go upto 96khz tend to be better.

[JE:5]

I use 44.1 since my soundcard is built onto my motheboard It can do 48 depending how many VSTi's i'm using.

[dainhumain]

Originally Posted by JE:5

I use 44.1 since my soundcard is built onto my motheboard It can do 48 depending how many VSTi's i'm using.

Ive had to use my onboard soundcard while my emu is broke but this is not no crap onboard sound it as 7.1 surround sound and handles 24-96 no problem..

The best board at the best price look:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWN%3AIT&rd=1

i could not belive how cheap this board was,PCI Express,The best onboard sound device and video,The onboard sound goes up to 192khz its crazy.people spend 80quid on a video card to play the best game's but this onboard video device can play any of today's games.

recommend this board to everyone.

[Barry Manifold]

I currently work in 44.1, is it worth the switch to 48?

I've tried working in 96, but my pc really takes a pounding when I do.

[nikrem]

22hz brown noise style

[love_tempo]

From reading bob katz mastering handbook it sounds like it's definitely worth using 24 bit wordlength especially if doing lots of DSP operations. BTW you can find PDFs of that book floating around the net if you look. Worth buying though.

From reading articles by people like Rupert Neve it seems like the main thing with sample rates is that high sample rate capable devices, whether you use the extra bandwidth or not, benefit because the filters are easier to design and implement. They don't have to use such aggressive processes. People like Dan Lavry seem to disagree but I think that with the high-end stuff they don't compromise the designs on principle. The argument seems to be that for cheaper devices the higher the maximum sample rate the better.

[love_tempo]

Also, I should mention that chapter seemed to strongly suggest that 16-bit as an end product can be very high quality. But you have to do your DSP in 24 bits, or better and be very careful to use a high quality dither algorithm at the very end (after mastering).

[Spandex]

I'm ripping some vinyl for a friend and decided to do it as fast as my deck will go.. then slow it down again after. So I recorded at 96KHz/24bit ... the 10 minutes I saved have been eaten up twice over in the increased time it's taking to normalise it, pitch it and resample it

[emef]

i suppose it depends what sort of music you make
i tend to load lots of my sounds with 8 bit efx and distortion
so cant see the point in recording higher than 44khz

[ckpqerjwrpwp]

Originally Posted by emef

i suppose it depends what sort of music you make
i tend to load lots of my sounds with 8 bit efx and distortion
so cant see the point in recording higher than 44khz

I used to think the same, but even when using really lo-fi FX, it still sounds the same at higher sampling rates, it's just a lot easier to mix.

[Whuffle]

yeah, like Boards of Canada (predictably, one of my fave bands) their stuff is notoriously lo-fi, but there is no doubting the high quality of the recording.

[FiST]

300dpi.