I was just browsing the forums and couldn't find anything specific about this, so I thought I'd start a new thread about it as I was just thinking about it.

What sample rate do you guys use and why? I'm guessing, as with most things, higher/more is better, but 192kHz is obviously much more demanding on hardware, so I was just wondering what people actually use in the real World (not talking about professional studios here, where I assume racks of gear eat through 192kHz).

Just some questions I was considering....does genre matter? Does live recording (guitars, vocals etc) based music production differ to MIDI/VST based production? Does the industry demand a minimum requirements for professional releases?

Just looking for some views, some realistic advice, and the pros and cons of different sample rates and so on, and it would be interesting to hear different people's views and reasoning

PS not looking for right or wrong type of arguments, just a healthy and constructive discussion about it

 

I work in 48KHz, 24 bit. See no reason to use more.

 

same, 48khz, too small of a difference compared to 96khz to consider twice the cpu bump
44.1 is not much more efficient than 48 but the quality difference is there
also keep in mind plugins sound so different at various sample rates, if you have some finished songs try to alter the sample rate of the whole project to hear weird things :D

 

i really liked this discussion about it, you might too

 

"What sample rate is best for music production and why?"
As this is the title, I will answer this question.

Always the highest as long as it's PCM and as long as your pc can handle it. You can not mix DSD digitally anyways, so it's a very specific recording sr.
The only reason not to choose the highest sr is pc power. There is no other valid argument, if we talk about recording and digital processing at the same sr afterwards.
If you get files to mix from somewhere else just use the same sr. Something else does not make any sense really.

I definetely can advise to be very pragmatic here.
There really is no reason to complicate those things and making big thoughts.

 

Last edited: Jul 28, 2022

When working on my own stuff, 48Khz/24bit. It's light-ish, reliable, easier to transfer around, and there are ways of forcing oversampling on individual plugins if need to so anything higher doesn't really have any game changing advantage that i know of/have had the need of.

Why 48 and not 44.1? for the same reason i can only turn the tv volume up or down by multiples of 5, the number just feels right. There are other reasons but that's just focusing on small details rather than something actually important.

Why 24bit and no 16bit? Don't know, i'm just used to it. I can't really hear or perceive any practical difference (besides size).

When it comes to samplerate, yes...maybe. Samplerate really becomes notoriously important when there's some vst/software/whatever adding harmonics in the digital realm and generating aliasing, hence why anti-aliasing filters and oversampling are a thing. Think about it this way, when you record a live intrument, any digitally generated harmonics and anti-aliasing filters will most likely be added after the recording (except for the AD converter). When it's VST based music, it can and will most likely begin to happen even before the recording, so it begins to stack up from earlier. Of course the consequences will depend on how clean you're keeping things, the register and characteristics on each instrument, but it's possibly a bigger chain on VST based productions so more chances to mess it up.

...Now, is it really that important? I don't think so, unless you can hear it AND it bothers you.

Not other than what any specific media/streaming platform will ask for/allow, most of the time it'll end up as a lossy format that'll obliterate all your precious tiny details anyway, so you'll be fine with any of the usual suspects, unless you're aiming to something specific because your client asked for it or you want to record something like analog gear (probably a master) at higher sample rates so you can then downsample as necessary. If you a want pristine super detailed sound, that's on the production itself, not the samplerate/bit depht (though it might be good for marketing).

Lastly, a little food for thought. When you listen to top notch music from the 90s and all the way to today's music and you notice something sounds bad and distracting, how many times is it the sample rate?

 

I use 96kHz because of the sub 1 ms latency on thunderbolt interfaces.

 

32KHz at 8 bits. I think all music should sound like it was sampled on a Mirage.

 

42

 

48/32f. 48kHz is enough for me. 32 bit float so that I don't have to keep applying dither when bouncing ITB or exporting, until it's time to print the final mixes or subs to 16 or 24 files.

 

- 44/48k is best
- Most plugins are tested & optimized for these SRs
- Higher SRs use more CPU
- You can't hear beyond >20k, so 44k is sufficient
- There is little quality gain beyond 44k
- HQ modern filters are available
- Higher SRs may lead to IMD artefacts/other artefacts/inefficiency due to plugin design & construction
- Most playback scenarios involve 44/48k so it will get downsampled anyway
- Webstores & streaming platforms may reject >48k

 

48k/24bit

no reason to go beyond that if you have a regular pc and are making music in your bedroom.

 

Higher doesn't mean better. 44khz is enough to represent the audible range of human hearing according to the Nyquist sampling theorem. If you're only recording acoustic audio, it's a waste to record at a higher sample rate because the higher frequencies are inaudible. If you're using software instruments or effects, one reason to use a higher sample rate is to mitigate aliasing if the software lacks oversampling.

 

I guess a higher samplerate could be considered better for music production when it comes to pitching down audio and you will have less artifacts in general because the signal will be smoother or more accurate. That said, the question is whether it is worth the overhead in processing power that is needed especially if you reduce the samplerate to 44.1khz in the end anyways.

 

For me it's all weird stuff... I think the important thing is what you are able to create with your music not with hertz.
The Beatles created masterpieces with few tracks available and probably didn't even know what a kHz was.

I still work at 44kHz/16bit and have no problems (at least for now )

Happy holidays and good music to all you audio friends

 

I used to be subscribed to Future Music & Computer Music magazines (I'm not subscribed anymore - no other reason that I need to cut expenses). I remember reading there that bit-depth was a crucial part when processing audio files through your daw, since it is related to the precision of the sampling rate points, and the accuracy of the calculations any VST effects must make to process your digital audio without any artifacts. Of course, 44kHz / 16-bit depth will give you smaller digital audio files in size and quite likely you'll save RAM usage and CPU power, but you'll have to deal with a lower quality. If that is OK with you and your needs - well, go ahead. No problem!

I read there, too that higher sampling rates, of course, will not make a difference in capturing higher frequencies above human hearing range, but I read it made a difference when sampling / generating LOUDER audio. That's why those higher sample rates are used in High Definition Video Systems, where rumbling special FX noises from woofers in a 5.1 or 7.1 audio system need to make you shake in your seat! - If you are just making regular music, then you do not need a higher frequency rate. If you're editing or composing music / soundtracks for films, perhaps you'd be forced to mix, master and render to higher sample rates.

To sum up: Are you making music? Have you got an average computer, relatively powerful? Do you expect your production to have a more-than-acceptable quality? - Then stick either with 44.1kHz or 48 kHz, but ALWAYS use 24-bit depth for your audio recordings / mixing to avoid artifacts. If your computer is a bit dated, then go with 44,1kHz / 16-bit depth. You'll have fewer problems, but bear in mind that your results, while they may seem cool to you and your friends, won't be gladly accepted by professionals if you are planning to get your work published.

 

I'm just wondering, do the accumulated harmonics at higher frequencies have any consequence on lower frequencies? For example, does a higher build up of harmonics, at a higher frequency, have any consequences like impacting or resonating throughout the entire frequency range, and therefore impacting the entire frequency spectrum, so causing things like a possible increase in amplitude at the lower audible frequencies? I'm just trying to think through possibilities, and trying to work it out, e.g. when a guitar feeds back through an amp, I believe the sounds starts at inaudible frequencies and quickly floods the spectrum causing the squealing sound, though admittedly this may be a huge misunderstanding

Also, are these any inaudible consequences to using higher sample rates, such as any subconscious effects trough magnetic field impact on the brain, for example?

 

If you work with audio - 48Khz and 32bit
if you work with virtual synths - 96khz and 24bit

 

I did make the transition from 16 to 24 bit. However, I never 'upgraded' from 44.1 to 48 (or even higher) because I always thought that this would mess up imported samples, audio files and loops (which are mostly 44.1). Now, drum examples for example, I can load with Kontakt. So that shouldn't be a problem I guess. But what about importing audio files and loops? If there's really a (small) difference in quality, maybe it's time to make that transition after all. Although, what about downgrading back to 44.1 after a project is finished, to get a playable wav/mp3? What's the purpose to start with higher settings as it will end up with lower after all? Question, questions ..

 

is this a real question?