Which setting should i start mixing, mastering and finishing my song plus exporting it? I would like use the best quality possible.

44100 ?
48000 ?
96000 ?

i see that it changes the view of the sample in an eq. but i don't understand what more also.
thanks.

 

Of course, the highest possible resolution is always the best, but practice has shown that if you use 48 kHz sample rate you are always on the safe side and get high-quality sound. Always use 24 bit.

Advantages of 48 kHz sample rate
- Master for iTunes now lossless (Loosles encoding)
- Better anti-aliasin filters
- Reduced load on DACs of end devices
- Plugin calculations become more precise

Disadvantages of 48 kHz sample rate
- More storage space required
- Higher ASIO load

16 bit and 44.1 kHz remain the standard for CD.

Zitat von Bob Katz:

Apple will losslessly stream it at 96k, and they will downsample it to 48k and lossy encode it and stream that at 48k for their lossy service. So Apple’s lossy stream gets a serious upgrade, as AAC at 48k sounds significantly better than at 44.1 k.

 

Unless the plan is to release high resolution music, I wouldn't bother with anything higher than 48kHz. It just doubles your CPU and I/O usage for very little benefit. If there's a process somewhere in your signal path that's alias-happy then use oversampling. And in the end you just end up downsampling to target rate anyway.

I personally record and use 48kHz/24bit, less hassle for me for digital releases, and since I often work with video that's the standard there so way easier for me to deliver.

 

Last edited: Mar 1, 2025 at 1:07 PM

The higher the sample rate, the lower the noise floor.

1-bit equals 6dB of dynamic range. 16-bit equals 96dB of dynamic range.

Here is something to consider: What is the Dynamic Range (DR) of your finished project?

Most people could use 8-bit (DR) / 44.1 kHz (20Hz to 20kHz) for their finished project.

--------

(Hz) is about resolution. 44.1 kHz is perfectly fine. However, if you want a bit more high-end information for some weird reason, then use 48 kHz.

--------

End of story: 16-bit/48 kHz will cover you and your needs 100%!

--------

PS: use dither (adapt) if possible.

 

Last edited: Mar 1, 2025 at 11:49 AM

24bit/48khz until everything is done. if you want to convert it to 42bit 44.1 khz, (or some other delivery format) do it last.

You want a rule of thumb, that is the one I use. Convert once if necessary all the way at the end. Nothing I do needs to be at 96khz, and I do not care about the difference in storage space ever. You aren't storing the amount of finished tracks to even care about that. But if you were, you wouldn't care about buying more storage space. It's too cheap now.

 

Hi clone,

Just out of curiosity, do you ever use 144 dB of dynamic range? Do you work on theatrical scores?

 

what is? a software/plugin or a setting?

 

A setting.

24 minutes of your life. It's worth it https://www.xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Enjoy!

 

I get what you say. But there're there are several good reasons to use 24bits for mixing.
With the final track is true 16 bits are plenty.

 

Personally, I track and mix at 96khz/32bit float. The 96khz sample rate is because the system I run for production can handle it easily, so why not... The 32bit float ensures that I can do pretty much anything to individual tracks in a mix and not incur any loss of data in the process. The final mix will generally be to CD specs unless it's felt that a higher res would be apt.

Mainly it just comes down to what kind of system you have for production, it's capability and capacity, and what you feel is comfortable for your workflow.

 

Last edited: Mar 1, 2025 at 8:35 PM

All of your needs are most certainly covered with those specs! The only thing now is that your poor computer has to store gigabytes of useless information.

 

I'm just dropping a thought here… I'm thinking out loud… This comment is not meaningful in any way at all…

Rupert Neve was interviewed by Dave Pensado on Pensado's Place. Rupert said that 384 kHz was “pretty good.” Dave asked Rupert if he had an issue with the audio being cut-up into pieces compared to a linear analog signal. Rupert essentially said, “yes.”

As I sit here, sobering up, I'm considering the amount of “cuts.” It seems counterintuitive that MORE cuts is better.

One of the things Monty for xiph (dot) org briefly touches on in his video that I've linked above, is “visual representations.” Essentially, he acknowledges that visual representations can be wrong. I wonder how detrimental an incorrect visual representation can be to a person's understanding of a specific concept.

Hmmm.

If I put a sine wave on my chopping board in my kitchen and cut it in half, I believe that I could put it back together pretty easily. If I cut it into 384 thousand pieces and then tried to put it back together, I'm not sure that I could do it without mistakes. Could I ever truly restore the original sine wave? I don't know. How would I even know if I misplaced 1 or 2 Hz? Would it even matter?

 

Last edited: Mar 2, 2025 at 1:28 AM

If it was actually any issue at all I would agree with you...

 

Potentially the most respected man in audio engineering, Dan Worrall - "Samplerates: the higher the better, right?":

 

Are you trying to convince me, yourself, or the thousands of others that track and mix at higher sample rates. It works for me because of the greater clarity achieved at the tracking and mixing stages. No amount of "worralls" in the woodwork need to care about it just as I could care less what all the worralls think.

 

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Do you want me to shut-up? I'm just sharing information in an appropriate thread.

Who the hell knows, maybe you might learn something, disagree with something, reinforce an understanding that you already have, etc. Who knows?

You have an approach that you're content with, and that's great.

I'm not trying to change you.

 

This again. Let's talk about abortion and Jehovah's Witnesses next.
Or maybe aliens.

 

Find the right thread, and I'm right there with you :-P

 

I was a JW for the first 6 years of my life. Many of my family members (who I don't speak to) still are.

 

Well, my only point was that it would likely be a conversation full of strongly held opinions that ultimately accomplishments nothing. I wasn't making any actual value judgements or implying a position of my own- nor was I actually trying to invite anybody else to.