• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

44.1, 48, 88.2, 96Khz

F

FF Petro

Feb 16, 2004
180
50
ATL
#1
Who records at what bit rates and do you think there is a significant difference? Especially the difference between 44.1/ 48 and 88.2/ 96.

The way I see it, you have to dither down to 16bit/ 44.1khz to put it on a CD.

I understand that the quality of sound is better even after dithering because it's edited in higher resolution.

So, let's hear your thoughts!
 
#3
For all intents and purposes, 44.1kHz is your best bet in the modern world. It complies to CD standards (though, I would suggest recording at 24-bit and dithering down after mastering) and saves a ton of space vs. 88.2 or 96. You most likely won't hear a difference, except on absolutely pristine monitors in perfect conditions with no hearing loss on your part. Even then, it's subtle.
 
#5
most consumer grade converters (cough m-audio cough cough) will offer not much more than larger file sizes at higher sample rates.

but - if you use lots of tracks, and properly record them to begin with - the higher sample rates of even m-audio type devices will mix better than lower sample rates. more headroom.
 
#6
+1

No gain in going for more than "CD quality". If you will be doing a lot of processing, it helps going 24 bits.

Quality is so much not a big deal now, that MP3s are all over the place. why worry going better than CD? Normal people can't even tell the difference between a CD and 128Mbps Mp3...
 
#7
If you're talking about rough demos for limited (read "private") use, 44.1kHz/24 bit is fine . . . but if you're going to release a CD to the public, for pay, then higher sample rates ARE desirable, especially if you're going to be mixing various tracks together to obtain your "final mix" . . . IME

For those who say "it's only gonna be MP3" I'd say "IF it's worth recording, it's worth recording WELL!"

Nick Kay said:
For all intents and purposes, 44.1kHz is your best bet in the modern world. It complies to CD standards (though, I would suggest recording at 24-bit and dithering down after mastering) and saves a ton of space vs. 88.2 or 96. You most likely won't hear a difference, except on absolutely pristine monitors in perfect conditions with no hearing loss on your part. Even then, it's subtle.
Click to expand...
True, it IS subtle . . . but you can FEEL the difference between a well-recorded multi-track master and a poorly-processed 128 bit MP3 of the same thing . . .

Coelho said:
...No gain in going for more than "CD quality". If you will be doing a lot of processing, it helps going 24 bits.

Quality is so much not a big deal now, that MP3s are all over the place. why worry going better than CD? Normal people can't even tell the difference between a CD and 128Mbps Mp3...
Click to expand...
To ME, audio quality IS a "big deal" . . . YMMV

And FWIW, most musicians AREN'T "normal people" . . .

:cool:

.
 
#8
deaf pea said:
To ME, audio quality IS a "big deal" . . . YMMV

And FWIW, most musicians AREN'T "normal people" . . .

:cool:

.
Click to expand...


Not sure about music, but I can notice when you compress words ;)

Just to give a little more perspective, for me, Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" 128 Mbps MP3 sounds better quality than the latest [put any new band here] SACD. Got my point?

Way more important than 24bits, 196Khz, etc., are MICS, PREAMPS and ROOM.
 
#9
Thanks all.

I'm a bit of a gearhead so if I don't know a difference between options I just default to the 'latest and greatest'. However, in this case, I had done a lot of recording when DAWs were fresh on the market so I knew it all got reduced to 16bit/ 44.1khz.

The reason I was asked about sample rates in the first place is that I am looking to record some ideas as well as sending tracks to friends for their project CD's. And I'd like to record some tracks with my wife. She sings and I play bass, guitar, and drums (and several other instruments).

I was looking at the Lexicon Omega... great connectivity and features. Then I found out it is so inexpensive because they are cheaply made. Anyway, I looking for a USB interface with one or two XLR inputs, outputs for my Tannoy monitors, midi I/O and preferrably records at 24bit/ 48khz. So if you have any suggestions that would work please let me know.


Thanks so much for your advice.
 
#10
How much are you willing to spend?

You got it right: A good interface (good pres, good AD/DA) at 44.1 will sound much better than a bad one at 192K. I've been hearing a lot of good things about the apogee duet, but it is only for Mac and around 500, and Firewire. If you really need USB, I think the option is the Digidesign Mbox.
 
#11
Coelho said:
Not sure about music, but I can notice when you compress words...
Click to expand...
:D

Coelho said:
...Just to give a little more perspective, for me, Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" 128 Mbps MP3 sounds better quality than the latest [put any new band here] SACD. Got my point?...
Click to expand...
yeah . . . I gotta' agree with you on THAT . . .
Coelho said:
...Way more important than 24bits, 196Khz, etc., are MICS, PREAMPS and ROOM.
Click to expand...
I think the MOST important part of recording is . . . THE PEOPLE! The musicians, the producer, the engineer(s) . . . and the end-users, the listening public, too . . .
 
#13
I prefer 16/96. It down converts well and is a fairly small is file size. I do hear a sound differences at lower 88/48/44khz. Try recording the same bass track at different settings and see what you like. If you listen you can hear changes in head room.
 
#14
There is a huge boost in audio quality when recording at 48k versus 44.1k and it's noticeable on even cheap sound systems. I know this to be true from direct experience, having recorded identical tracks at both sample rates and then comparing them side by side. The difference is most obvious at higher frequencies and cymbals recorded at 44.1k sound "whooshy".

I always record at 24 bit, 48k unless I want to go for higher quality and I have the space for it then I record at either 96k or even 192k.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back