I am seeing a lot of talk about bit depth, when the question was about sample rates. Oh, I use both 44,100 and 96,000 sample rates. Depends on the "seriousness" of the project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

 

This is a very interesting topic! After reading these posts I get
the feeling that the music-gear industry is just like the car industry.
They all cheat us with the numbers.

Say, if you are on a 32 bit DAW/PC and work in 24 bit, wouldnt that be
bad numbers for the internal processing? 32 vs 64 can be divided by 2,
isnt that better for sound quality?

 

I believe that the main issue is not how much difference it will make in your studio environment, but rather how much of the SR and bit depth advantage will remain when played back with consumer's equipment.

True, but that also means that recording with higher bit depths and good equipment will give you more available dynamic range while recording (and less chance to have your recorded material either clip or drown in quantization noise), and fewer negative effects from pre-ADC analog filtering.
Also don't forget that each time you process and render back to audio, you lose bit depth and quality, so it's good to have reserves for both mixing and mastering.
So my take on it would be: Yes, record with high bit depths and at high rates, and only downsample afterwards where cpu performance or storage space asks for it, and if you don't have to do too much processing inside the DAW.

 

this is all off topic but: my music tents to have a dynamic range inside the 16 bit spec. we could argue on and on about it.
I don't do classical music but I'll state this:It would've been fine for 99% of the music I've produced to be released in 11 bits,
with cheating: convert it to 16-bit and auto blanking, nobody would have noticed,....

I say fuck them tails, 24 bits isn't worth the bandwidth in any way for the consumer.
I shiver with the idea that 24-bits will be mandatory one day and all the bandwidth which is used for absolutely nothing..!!

could not have said it better, I only want to to add that processing and rendering to audio does not have necessary will make you lose quality and bit depth.
it just has to be done mathematically correct. and this is where our processes to -*smush*- up our signal actually degrades our product.

I would settle with 48kHz/24-bits to be extra sure if you are like that, 44.1 can't be an excuse to not have made the product you wanted.
recording in 16 bits.... well.... can be an recording exercise but it isn't that hard is it?
half of people record way to hot in their sound-card anyway...

 

i can personally not hear a difference between 96khz and 48khz flac, pretty sure some people can

bitrates affects the noisefloor, the higher bit the less noise at the bottom
16 bit would be fine for most intents and purposes

There was good music on tape, even with lots of noise. Nowadays few machines can play back higher then 24 48 since the difference to anything better is so minute to the human ear and foot.

Its a total non issue, but advertising plays with peoples assumptions to create the perception of increased value even if ever so vaguely.

Really similar to how it was with megapixels for cameras

 

I personally can't hear any difference. However as already mentioned it's preferable to record in higher bit rate if you intend to do any in depth audio processing, time stretching, pitch shifting etc.

I find it amusing how so many people get hung up on bit rate and then destroy the mix by compressing the hell out of everything....and then probably ends up being listened to on crappy MP3 format.

 

Last edited: Apr 23, 2016

Sample rates are overrated? - I do not know.

Sample Rate Conversion is the thing people should take care of. It is good to convert sample rates as minimum as possible in a project.
That's why I stick to 44.1

 

For the record.. I use 16-24 bit and 44100-48000. 48K mostly when I put audio in video sw - because of the A/V presets and laziness.

But, I recall that some people raise the sample rate to LOWER the latency. At first it doesn't make any sense - maybe I was dreaming..

e.g.
Buffer (card) - 128
@ 44100 this would give 128/44100 - 2.902.. msec
@ 96000 it would give 128/96000 - 1.3333.. msec

Can someone confirm or dispute

 

Okay. The only thing that higher bit-rates provide = headroom. 24bit more headroom. 32float max-headroom.
44.1 is the industry standard. They chose it with a very specific reason:
https://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html - the Nyquist law.
Yes, you have some extra resource head-space when you process in 48k 32b-float. But anyone over 30yoa,(years of age) will have a hard time telling the difference between a 44.1 16bit signal and a 96k 32bit-float signal. Unless, the original signal was recorded in 96k 32bit float and never left the DD. Psycho acoustics people.
(the digital domain, anyone remember the codes they put on our CD's ? ).
The science of our ears don't lie. We hear up to 16k and above until we go to the club and to loud concerts, after that... rapid decline.
If your above the mentioned age and can still clearly pick out a 16k sine on both ears, you can come and work for me.
I've worked on many systems, and many different bit and samplerates. I've been part of many discussions about this phenomenon on many different forums. I've done the math and the homework, for over 30 years. Science hardly ever lies ...
Stick to 48k 32bit-float for recording, render to 44.1 16bit and you'll be laughin mate!

Luiz.

 

it seems to work, but you can simply have a lower puffer size if you work with a smaller sampling rate..

Music production is about creativity, even if we use math to do it, no need to obsess about such trivial things
whatever works works, whatever does not work, does not work

 

'Music production is about creativity, even if we use math to do it, no need to obsess about such trivial things
whatever works works, whatever does not work, does not work.'
spot on mate!

Luiz

 

Thank you for this.. wasn't sure. Yeah, it's nice to just lower the buffer - but difficult sometimes on not-so-hi-end systems as mine (dropouts). Either way, I don't think much about this.

Agree 100%. It's because of this, that I'd like to have as little latency as possible, when I input the piano parts. I rarely quantize - rather repeat the recording till I get it right.

Also consider statements like - "if I had that gear, if I was working with 192k sample rates or if I had xx version of yy software, I would make a hit!" plain stupid. As somebody once said to me - the music that you listen and admire was made with the previous version of the software that you dream about..

 

Somebody please tell me if I'm wrong, but if 0 dB is the ceiling when we record digitally we shouldn't be talking about gaining headroom but rather footroom. We dig lower as we add dynamic range, the ceiling remains constant and cannot be raised.

 

-40 dB A is regarded as ambient noise, if I am not mistaken. If your instrument goes lower it becomes inaudible. So the floor is kinda nailed. So yes, we talk about headroom as we need to hear all our instruments and yet we need to not overload the audio path.

Edit: this is the reason high dynamic range can be achieved only with high powered amps & speakers (talking over 1000 Watts RMS)

 

you are both, funny, and one hundred percent right jayx.
thats why it is called 'dynamic range' , although some headphones do achieve this spectrum:
cans

 

I wonder which one of these is the weak link in the chain?

Seriously though, this has been an informative thread thanks for the discussion. Now I'm off to sell some sperm to pay for that Class-A Mixing Console and some Earbuds. How many sperms is that, like four or three?

 

Damn, I always thought 99,9987% of ppl listen to my music on Focal Grande Utopia speakers with amps that can keep you warm on that cool winter nights.. ;P

 

If i were rich id buy everyone focal speakers, such purity of sound, speaker fanatics

 

If you are a Focal fan and just a little bit rich, you can buy their studio monitors - the veeery good ones are 4000-6000$ pair - (instead of 180000$ for pair of grande utopia)