What sample rate do your run your host at?

[Sascha Franck]

Do you folks using 88.2/96 have like supercomputers or don't use plugins much?
I'm in no way a plugin maniac, but seriously, I couldn't run a single project of mine at such samplerates without major hassles (mostly using Logic on a Macbook, 2.4GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM).

And hackenslash: Why would you run a project with higher track counts at 88.2? I mean, higher samplerates don't improve summing or so. Sure, they could result in less aliasing, but I'm assuming we're talking audio tracks here, right? So aliasing shouldn't be much of an issue.

[keldon85]

I use an infinite sample rate as it allows a much cleaner mix and less attenuation in the higher frequency harmonics

[mike goodwin]

I did run my sessions at 88.2 for a little wile but it was a big pain even with a dual core. Now that computers with two, QuadCore processors are out that could be done with little problem I figure. I did notice that the software compressors that do not internaly upsample worked better overall. The same is true for many VST synths. The high end is nicer sounding in many cases and is also not subtle. The easies way to check this stuff out for your self is with Reaktor because you can just switch through your sampling rates at will. I wish more software worked like this.

[Download SOphist]

44.1 or 48. voted 48. I'll use 192 when i finish my major at being a pretentious twat.

[longbongsilver]

44.1. Because while 96 and above do sound nice, they make running more than one synth virtually impossible -- and that's with a 3GHz Pentium D & 2 gigs of RAM.

Eh, when it comes to the sample-based stuff I'm usually trying to make it sound LESS clean anyway.

[hibidy]

88.2/96k?



I gave up on that a long time ago Seems the newer computers get, the worse they are at running high sample rates I doesn't make sense but somehow that's what seems to happen

[dark_virus]

44.1 / 16

I also use 66.6 as it's warm as hell

[lotus2035]

Interesting thread...My piece of shit PC wouldnt be able to handle anything other than 44.1...
But I'm curious, would it be possible to compose in 44.1 and then export the final mix at a higher sample rate?.. Ive never tried it myself..

[BONES]

That should be possible as rendering is not real-time. Never tired it, though.

Discussions on sample rates are like all the other "best" threads -- the only people who know the differences are those who spend their time worrying about them.

Not really. We use 44.1kHz because we make stuff to release on CD. If we used a higher sample-rate we would eventually have to down-sample, which inevitably alters the sound. Some like the softening effect of dithering but I prefer to keep it all sounding the way we made it, for consistency's sake.

I'm use 44.1 KHz / 16-bit. From what I've read, the expert opinion seems to be that 24-bit is noticeably better for audio, and 96K is noticeably better for soft synths and effects.

Actually, the extra depth of 24bit allows you to be less focussed on getting the maximum level. So you can do stuff with plenty of headroom, so that clipping isn't an issue, normalise it once its rendered and convert it to 16 bit without having to worry about quality loss. We use 44.1/24bit for everything. I might try 96kHz when I get home, just to see how my laptop handles it. We only average around 25% at 44.1 so I imagine it will cope at 96kHz.

[hibidy]

a question........

It seems to me that in the past, certain things sounded AWFUL other than the higher sample rates. What I mean is there was such a huge difference in how bass guitar recorded in older sound cards.

Now, not so much. Sure it's all better and stuff at higher sample rates, but it's not the deal breaking it seems it used to be.

[Sascha Franck]

But I'm curious, would it be possible to compose in 44.1 and then export the final mix at a higher sample rate?.. Ive never tried it myself..

There's some people doing this, but personally, I wouldn't like to work that way. After all, your rendered mix will sound differently than while actually mixing it. And yes, I'm saying "different" not "better".
While, theoretically (ok, practically as well...), many synths (and other plugins) will produce less aliasing at higher sample rates, and while most people consider this to sound better... well, there's still the fact that you mixed things with all the aliasing in place, so you may have "masked" the effect using whatever mixing tactics. In addition, while aliasing usually is considered to be bad, once you're at mixing stage, you should be pretty much used to whatever amount of aliasing there is, so your mix might even sound strange to you without it.
In any case, the mix will sound different than at the time you mixed it.

Besides, I'm not sure how hosts deal with this (I actually never tried in the last years). I mean, when you record at 44.1 and play back (or render) at 96, audiofiles will sound quite different, so you'd have to upsample everything first - I'm not sure whether this is the case in all hosts, I seem to remember of Reaper being able to actually play back mixed samplerates fine, and it might again be different while rendering.

However, what some people seem to do is to render out critical tracks at a higher sample rate and reimport them. As an example, you may have a synth that you like but it produces quite some aliasing. You'd then set your sequencer to 96k, render the soloed track out (to a lower sample rate, the aliasing would still be gone) and reimport it.
IMO that's the only valid approach.

But then, I prefer to work with stuff that sounds fine in 44.1 already. Most "good" plugins these days come with proper internal oversampling algorhythms, so aliasing is way less of a deal than it has been some years ago.

And even if there might be small advances in using higher samplerates, I still prefer being able to always work in realtime. In case a certain note on a synth track is annoying me at mixing stage, I want to be able to quickly open my piano roll and delete it. I would hate it having to unfreeze a track or render things out again or whatever.

Finally, and I'm sure this is valid for 95% of all people, IMO there's way more important things to care about before even thinking about higher sample rates. Audio interfaces, choice of plugins, monitoring situation, etc etc. Ah well, and the actual music.
Unless these conditions are all perfect, I think there's very little reason to bother with higher sample rates (the exceptions probably being if you'd have to deliver stuff for video or DVD).
Really, to me this is just the same as the neverending summing debate. There's TONS of other things having way more influence on the quality of your mixes.

[politcat]

33 1/3 for pure analog warmth

[lotus2035]

But I'm curious, would it be possible to compose in 44.1 and then export the final mix at a higher sample rate?.. Ive never tried it myself..

There's some people doing this, but personally, I wouldn't like to work that way. After all, your rendered mix will sound differently than while actually mixing it. And yes, I'm saying "different" not "better".
While, theoretically (ok, practically as well...), many synths (and other plugins) will produce less aliasing at higher sample rates, and while most people consider this to sound better... well, there's still the fact that you mixed things with all the aliasing in place, so you may have "masked" the effect using whatever mixing tactics. In addition, while aliasing usually is considered to be bad, once you're at mixing stage, you should be pretty much used to whatever amount of aliasing there is, so your mix might even sound strange to you without it.
In any case, the mix will sound different than at the time you mixed it.

Besides, I'm not sure how hosts deal with this (I actually never tried in the last years). I mean, when you record at 44.1 and play back (or render) at 96, audiofiles will sound quite different, so you'd have to upsample everything first - I'm not sure whether this is the case in all hosts, I seem to remember of Reaper being able to actually play back mixed samplerates fine, and it might again be different while rendering.

However, what some people seem to do is to render out critical tracks at a higher sample rate and reimport them. As an example, you may have a synth that you like but it produces quite some aliasing. You'd then set your sequencer to 96k, render the soloed track out (to a lower sample rate, the aliasing would still be gone) and reimport it.
IMO that's the only valid approach.

But then, I prefer to work with stuff that sounds fine in 44.1 already. Most "good" plugins these days come with proper internal oversampling algorhythms, so aliasing is way less of a deal than it has been some years ago.

And even if there might be small advances in using higher samplerates, I still prefer being able to always work in realtime. In case a certain note on a synth track is annoying me at mixing stage, I want to be able to quickly open my piano roll and delete it. I would hate it having to unfreeze a track or render things out again or whatever.

Finally, and I'm sure this is valid for 95% of all people, IMO there's way more important things to care about before even thinking about higher sample rates. Audio interfaces, choice of plugins, monitoring situation, etc etc. Ah well, and the actual music.
Unless these conditions are all perfect, I think there's very little reason to bother with higher sample rates (the exceptions probably being if you'd have to deliver stuff for video or DVD).
Really, to me this is just the same as the neverending summing debate. There's TONS of other things having way more influence on the quality of your mixes.

Thanks Sascha!! You went above and beyond on that one..

[Chuck E. Jesus]

44.1 or 48. voted 48. I'll use 192 when i finish my major at being a pretentious twat.

[torhan]

48k here.