What Sample Rate? 64-bit Double Precision Engine?

Curious to learn what sample rate you veterans use, and tips you might have in choosing one.
 
I'm mainly producing electronica, with a few recorded but heavily processed tracks.  The balance of the audio tracks are VST Synths and loops. 
 
I've used 44100 Hz for many years now because of restricted hard drive space; storage space is no longer an issue.
 
In addition to sample rate, there is an Audio Driver Setting option for  use "64-bit Double Precision Engine".  the help file doesn't go into much detail on the benefits or for selecting, any insights?

Thanks all
 
Tom
 

samplerate..
most of us believe it's best to choose the samplerate to match the target media..
Audio CD: 44.1 kHz
VideoDVD:48 KHz
DVD Audio: 96 KHz
you can use a samplerate with a multiplier of "2",.. f.e. for a standard audio-cd: 88.2KHz,.. (24bit).. that will give you the highest quality and when you downsample it to 44.1KHz again you don't have to bother with roundingerrors..

I use my AxeFx on the S/PDIF-input of my RME FF800,.. I am forced to use 48KHz in that combination or it will not sync up properly..
so you see,.. there are pretty straight up "rules",.. and sometimes it's just the equipment that limits you in choosing the correct samplerate.

I rarely use the 64-bit double precision engine.. my daw can't handle that too well on heavy projects.. and I haven't seen/heard a difference anyway.

The 64bit engine is a internal  processing engine. You can use it with any sample rate and and any bit rate (16 or 24 bit)
44.1kHz is good enough, as thats CD quality.

I suggest using 24bit and 44.1kHz with the 64bit internal engine on. If your pc gives you problems with the 64bit engine on, just turn it on when bouncing and exporting and you will get 100% of the benefits of it.
Cj

Most studios that I've been in in LA, NYC, and Nashville record at 96k.  With processing power, RAM, HD Space, etc.. all increasing by leaps and bounds, recording at 96k isn't a big deal.  I moved from 48K to 96K last year, and I'll continue to do so.  The lower the sample rate, more more data of your performance that is disappearing forever.  Is there an audible difference?  This is a loaded question.  It depends on many factors.  If you have a low end converter, there probably isn' t much benefit.  Many high end converters DO sound different at different rates.  Not better or worse.. but different.  In fact, one of my fav external reverbs downsamples to 40k for a unique sound. 

Another thing to take into consideration is that everyone's ears (and brains) are different.  Some of the old studio cats in the major cities can hear a recording and actually tell the frequencies that need cuts ot boosts.  They've been doing it so long that they just know.  I have really good ears from 3 years of college level ear training.  I can even hear the tonal differences when my guitar player's battery is going dead in his pedals.  I'll spend hours stressing over whether a chord should be minor or major whereas my non-musician friends and family say it sounds the same.  I can't understand why they can't tell the difference, but they can't :)

My point?  Try different rates.  If it sounds "better" or different, go for it.  If you are happy at 44.1 or 48, then stick with it.  The main goal is that you are happy with the music that comes from your DAW.  My advice to the people who visit my studio who ask this question is don't spend the money on computer hardware, converters, etc. to support higher rates if they are on a budget.  Spend the money on instruments, instrument samplers, synths, or even voice lessons!  haha (some REALLY need voice lessons) I guess what I'm trying to say is that good music willl probably sound good at any sampling rate.  If it sucks, then it's still going to suck at 196k.

wintaper

The lower the sample rate, more more data of your performance that is disappearing forever

Incorrect (here we go again) - please re-read Nyquist Sampling Theory


or (even better) read Dan Lavry's excellent document on sampling ...

Sampling Theory For Digital Audio - Lavry Engineering ...

 
 
Not incorrect... sampling rate is nothing more than taking samples.. thus the name, sampling rate.  The more slices, the more info that is being captured.  The benefits... ie the ability of the human ear to hear a difference is debatable, but to argue it isn't capturing more info is just not intelligent.  Oh wait! I got it! The file size is larger because it captures the same or less information... Yeah, makes sense.... Got it.

Donald Duck,

Kudos to both of your post - Tom use the rate that works for your DAW.  I personally record in 48K and of course you have to bring back down to 44K for CD, etc... 

I am utilizing Sonar Producer 8.5.3 and X1 / V Studio 700 C & IO...

Most of the time my tunes end up as 320 mp3s or occasionaly on CD so for me it makes no sense to go with a high sampling rate.

That, combined with the fact that the theory behind sample rate (the maths), and thus the understanding of the potential benfits goes straight over my head, means i generally stick to 44.1 kHz at 24 bit.

Afaik this is still fairly standard. Any track I've sent to be mastered is a 24 bit wav at 44.1.

Not incorrect... sampling rate is nothing more than taking samples.. thus the name, sampling rate. The more slices, the more info that is being captured. The benefits... ie the ability of the human ear to hear a difference is debatable, but to argue it isn't capturing more info is just not intelligent. Oh wait! I got it! The file size is larger because it captures the same or less information... Yeah, makes sense.... Got it.

Some what true.  What a higher sample rate gives one is a wider bandwidth. It does not give one more precision in the range of frequencies between 20 and 20,000 hz. This is a mistaken belief of those that don't understand how sampling works. 44.1 is all you need to get the 20 to 20 khz range. More then that and you get frequencies that no one can hear or use.

On the other hand, Rupert Neve thought that sampling rates needed to go up - "that is the problem w/ digital."

But Mr. Neve also freely admits he knows nothing about digital design.