ORIGINAL: mtl777

ORIGINAL: SteveD

...(snip)...

I'm also convinced that quality ADC and high-end plugins sound excellent at 44.1k, and that in that scenerio, the improvement realized at 96/88.2k is very hard to hear on a 44.1/16 CD, and isn't worth the loss in track count, plugin count, and the time it takes for bounces and exports.

As this relates to the posters original topic... (44.1k vs 48k... remember?) 48k doesn't satisfy Dan's 60K threshold for optimum sound and performance, but your converters may sound better with that little extra headroom because the aliasing artifacts will be above 22k and out of the audible range. But then you'd have to be sure you're using excellent SRC when downsampling to a 44.1/16 CD if you want to be sure you're not doing more harm than good. If your target is DVD... then the reverse is true and 48k is the way to go.

I do drum tracks for clients at 44/48/88/96 sample rates. I hear absolutely no difference between 44.1k and 48k projects when recording in my studio.

YMMV.

After reading this entire thread I have come to the conclusion that from now on I will be recording my projects at 48K. 88.2K and higher are out of the question because of the severe hit on disk and CPU resources, track count, plugin count, etc.

I am using a Mytek Stereo96 ADC and maybe the conversion will not be much better at 48K than 44.1K considering the quality of my converter, but I think the additional headroom will be of significant benefit and yet the penalty on resources isn't that much. Current SRC's are already very good (e.g., r8brain pro) and they will only get better in the future, so I'm not worried about downsampling the final mix to 44.1K for CD. For me and my needs, 48K represents the best balance considering the current available technology.

Can't say I blame you. I made the same decision for a while. But like I said, clients force me to record at all sample rates, and with my gear, I just didn't hear the advantage of tracking at 48k. And I was using R8Brain Pro too.

If you hear the difference and don't mind the extra step running your mixdowns through R8Brain pro, then by all means... you've made the right choice.

But it seems like you're making your decision upon what might sound best. Based upon my experience with Apogees, I doubt 44.1k sounds much different than 48k through your Mytek converters. Your plugins won't sound much different at 48k. Again... If you HEAR a difference, you've made the right choice. If you don't hear any difference, and your target is audio CD, then NO src is better than the best SRC on the planet, and less time consuming too.

I used to get nothin' but 48k projects from commercial Pro Tools studios to work on. More and more I'm getting 44.1k projects from these same studios. Wonder why.

What do your ears tell you?

If there is any difference at all, it is so very subtle, like 48K is a tiny bit smoother than 44.1K. But this isn't a blind test, and I'm not really sure if I'm just imagining it maybe because of the notion that "higher rate should be better". Also, my monitoring is a humble setup and not that accurate to reveal a convincing difference.

Nevertheless, if Dan Lavry says that the optimum sample rate is 60K (i.e., for current converter technology), then there must be an improvement in going higher than 44.1K. Even though my current monitoring setup may not allow me to hear the improvement, it doesn't mean that there is none. What if I later get my hands on some really world class monitoring and hear a significant difference? Should that time come, I would hate to be kicking myself for not having recorded at 48K when the penalty for doing so wasn't that much.

In summary then, given my uncertainties, choosing the higher rate of 48K is like some sort of insurance for me.

can I breathe now? :D

I read almost every single post. Interesting thread.
Not having the best A/D converters in the world (firepod), but not the worst, I am leaning toward recording at 88k because my target is going to be cds anyway. I don't care about taxing my hardware, that's what built for, being used. now, I read about this r8brain, but I am not sure that we came to a final conclusion whether when downsampling to 44 it is better to start from 88 or it just doesn't make any difference b/t 88/96. I think also the answer depends on the hardware someone has. what do you guys suggest/think?

edit===

I just read this interview

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/93177-daniel-weiss-interview-weiss-07-11-2006-a.html

he's saying that downsampling from 96 or 88 to 44 it's only a matter of using more hardware, but what hardware is he talking about? I am just doing this via software so I am not sure if we are on the same page.

he's saying that downsampling from 96 or 88 to 44 it's only a matter of using more hardware, but what hardware is he talking about? I am just doing this via software so I am not sure if we are on the same page.

He's talking about harware converters that plugins like R8Brain immitate (like this one: http://www.weiss.ch/sfc2/sfc2.html which you can also see in the pictures of the interview).