44.1, 96 hut,hut, HIKE!!!

[tommypenngotti]

Just looking for a current poll on what DP users are recording in : 44.1 or 96k (24 bit)- and where you guys notice the difference? Thanks!

[Dan Worley]

There is no reason on earth for recording at 16-bit. Record in 24-bit always, or 32-bit Float. Okay, I'm exaggerating, but I'm not kidding.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Everything here is 48/24.

[rodger1811]

I tend to record at 44.1/24 always. There's no logical reason to record at 16-Bit other than for scratch tracks. If you can't get a great recording from 44.1, a higher sample rate isn't going to help you. There is reason to go to 48 if your recording may possibly end up on DVD since that's the sample rate for DVD's. Bottom line is, you can't polish a turd!!! Go back and find out what you're doing wrong if you can't get a good result.

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Yes. 48/24 for film but since any piece can end up in a film/video project I just set it and forget it. CD creation will auto downsample in Toast.

Hey, while we're at it, anyone try CD creation in DP8? DP7 wouldn't allow CD creation from a 48k project.

[trock]

I attended gearfest this year where george massenberg gave a lecture on this. he gave very detailed and explicit instruction and examples on why you should record at 96 if possible but over that was not buying you anything.

not only was 96 noticeably better even to me but for historical purposes we owe it to ourselves to leave the best audio we can - his words not mine

before that i was 44.1/24

not anymore

[rodger1811]

Without question a higher sample rate is better than a lower sample rate. The question is how much better and at what cost? I maintain that after the track has been rendered down to the target rate of 44.1/16 for a CD that it's not a big enough difference to justify the additional overhead. Heck, most of us have the ability to go all the way to 192 so why not do it if we can? Again, I maintain that you simply can't polish a TURD.

[trock]

I agree, and actually so does George, he hates the MP3!

i think he was saying as things like lossless come into being and are used we are shorting ourselves by limiting the audio quality at 44.1 when we are perfectly capable now of 96

that someday lossless audio will be the norm and all of our historical 44.1 recordings will be kind of a bummer when we are listening on true lossless quality audio like we use MP3's for now

hope that makes sense. i am no George M and am paraphrasing somewhat but i hear a BIG diff in the quality of 96 vs 44.1 when played at those sample rates.

now if you rock them down to 128k mp3? well then it doesnt matter much what you do originally

[Tesionman]

Bottom line is, you can't polish a turd!!! Go back and find out what you're doing wrong if you can't get a good result.

Haha.. true! You can still make a turd "smell better" with certain "products", but in the end.. its still a turd!! haha

cheers

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Actually, you can polish a dinosaur turd...

[Tesionman]

lolol... Mr. Mortilla, you always find a way to make me laugh!!!

cheers

[HCMarkus]

ABX Testing has shown no one can reliably differentiate between 44.1k and 96k. See the AES for more. I live in a 44k world, unless its audio for video, than 48k. I just have to remember to re-set that word clock... forgetting to do so makes for some strange results which, fortunately, DP can remedy.

[FMiguelez]

TOTALLY agreed

I think most people, including the ones who think 96 or 192 is better, couldn't tell the difference in a BLIND test (as in identifying which is which).
Even if they can hear a difference, it doesn't mean they know which one is A and which one is B every time.

The Placebo Effect is amazingly powerful!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

The higher sample rate is the one on the right...

[apanacci]

I record in 24/48 and then I master in 96k