|
|
Post by Duke on Jun 15, 2020 19:58:29 GMT -5
What are you guys using for a sampling rate in your interfaces these days?
I'm using 24 bit/96kHz but seeing good prices on 24/192kHz.
|
|
|
|
Post by LesTele on Jun 15, 2020 20:08:50 GMT -5
I use a Focusrite interface. Apparently supported up to 192kHz.
It just works. Until your post, I hadn’t bothered to look up the specs.
It works very well and after dealing with the shortcomings of interfaces I have used over the last 10 years or so, it’s great not to have to bother about the box and just record.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peegoo 🏁 on Jun 16, 2020 6:53:52 GMT -5
44.1 or 48 kHZ is plenty good for most recording. Higher sample rates will only eat up your storage capacity really fast. The only time to bump up to 96 kHz is if you have a lot of high frequency content like lots of cymbals, ocean sounds, birds chirping, etc., and you hear aliasing artifacts. More on aliasing: www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-aliasing-and-what-causes-it |
|
|
|
Post by insanecooker on Jun 16, 2020 6:56:29 GMT -5
24/192. It's there, storage is cheap these days, and I find it helps after processing files a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duke on Jun 16, 2020 10:03:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by insanecooker on Jun 16, 2020 16:10:40 GMT -5
Even Lavry has started supporting 192kHz since that article was published 8 years ago... though it could be purely due to market demands.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninworks on Jun 16, 2020 20:43:54 GMT -5
Bit depth (Word Length) is more important than sample rate IMO. 24 bit or 32 bit floating point are the ones to use.
I have done numerous multi-track recordings at 24 bit 44.1kHz, 24 bit 88.2kHz, 24 bit 96kHz, and 24 bit 192khz. I can't hear any difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz but, take those same sampling rates and record something at 16 bit and there is a noticeable difference.
With modern converters aliasing only becomes a problem if the upper frequencies are recorded too hot and clip. That usually sounds bad even before it hits the converters. Good recording practices keep that to a minimum. Keep the recorded signal in the -10 to -18dBFS range and it won't be an issue. If you want the final mix to be loud you can do that in the mastering stage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Duke on Jun 17, 2020 9:11:21 GMT -5
Bit depth (Word Length) is more important than sample rate IMO. 24 bit or 32 bit floating point are the ones to use. I have done numerous multi-track recordings at 24 bit 44.1kHz, 24 bit 88.2kHz, 24 bit 96kHz, and 24 bit 192khz. I can't hear any difference between 44.1kHz and 192kHz but, take those same sampling rates and record something at 16 bit and there is a noticeable difference. With modern converters aliasing only becomes a problem if the upper frequencies are recorded too hot and clip. That usually sounds bad even before it hits the converters. Good recording practices keep that to a minimum. Keep the recorded signal in the -10 to -18dBFS range and it won't be an issue. If you want the final mix to be loud you can do that in the mastering stage. Excellent advice and thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by roly on Jun 17, 2020 23:56:59 GMT -5
32 bit floating point 48k here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2020 15:09:01 GMT -5
48K seems to do what I need. Most of the source material is distorted anyway hahaha. But if the need arose to have pristine quality for higher frequencies then 96K would be something I'd experiment with. It's interesting how the numbers game works. Higher isn't always "better". Technically more accurate yes, at least on paper or an oscilloscope. But sound wise there are people with better ears than mine who debate the topic with conflicting opinions.
|
|
