88000 sample rate is it good for mixing

[simonhans73]

Does anybody high samplerates when mixing projects.?

Also when you only use soft synth ...will it improve the sound?

I gues the internal precission is double so I gues its better.

Does it mean you can only use half the plugins you are used to?

[mauseoleum]

i'd use 44 for mix/editing and only use 88 at export, then downsample in editor. from what i did this way, things sound a bit more liquid, then i guess it's up to you to decide if that's *it* or not.

[kritikon]

personally, I only ever use 44.1KHz. On the odd occasion, I might use 48K when I'm using old stuff I stored on my DAT, but other than that, I've never really heard any difference that made me want to use higher sample rates. It all goes down to 44.1 at CD burn, so I figure why waste extra effort in the process, and spend the extra cash on a decent sample rate converter that I know I'd want, when I can simply stick with 44.1. If I was burning to DVD....but I'm not.

I do use 24bit nowadays for mixing....mainly because of the improvement I hear on reverb impulses.

I'd better add that I use all electronic stuff and samples...no real instrument recordings, so that might have a bearing on 44.1 or 88.2...dunno.

EDIT....I can actually hear a difference between 44.1 and higher sampling rates, but not after I've downsampled back to 44.1 is what I mean.

[butter]

I tend to mix in 44 but a higher sample rate will give you more digital headroom. The problem with taking samples rates up and down repeatedly will show itself when you go to dither the track as it affects the amount of noise in the track.

[rawcan]

Hi,

I use 88kHz in most cases. The cd I'm doing right now is a mix of guitars , vocals, soft synth and samplers. The difference is between very small and quite big. Some synths do sound VERY different at 88 kHz e.g. PolyIblit or FM/RM stuff. For FX it's the same. EQ's and filters sound smoother. Etc, etc. Check it out.

[vtx]

I use 24\88.2 mainly because of kritikon's statement about reverbs and such.
Also 88.2 downmixes better than 96 because it doesn't leave those last few bits of noise when goin back to 44.1.
But I'd like to hear opinions on that theory...

[Mighty_Hero]

44.1 here

[pitchdrifter]

depends what you do.

if you record from analogue/natural sources (i.e. mics) record at high sampling rates (e.g. 88 or 96), then mix in the same sampling rate you recorded at.

if you have softsynths, some do profit from higher sampling rates, like e.g. SE synths do (not if they use samples!). render these at 88khz, then bounce down to 44, and mix with the rest of your project (which most likely is at 44khz).

if you have samples or audio recorded at 44khz, mixing at any other sampling rate will degrade the signal and have no advantages.
Up-sampling is only good for software synthesizers that have no built in oversampling feature. For everything else you gotta stay in the sampling rate of the source material.

Bit depth of 24 or 32 bits is handy in projects because you have more headroom as well as higher quality for program material that has any dynamics going on. So record at least to 24bits, and also mix with that, only go back down to 16 in the very end after mastering of the 2 track basically, because any processing you apply is better in quality when applied to bitrates higher than 16.

[useruseruser]

Does anybody high samplerates when mixing projects.?

For sure. Even the difference between 44.100 and 48.000 Hz sampling frequency is significant.

Also when you only use soft synth ...will it improve the sound?

Not necessairly. But mostly.
Cleaner sound (Is cleaner sound always better? ). Especially filters will mostly sound different. Sometimes distortion and Overdrives and nearly all other too. Oscillators may sound clearer and with at least less aliasing in most cases. Some instruments seem to work not right (or anyhow strange) with different sampling rates.

I gues the internal precission is double so I gues its better.

It's *float* (32bit) per definition at the mixing stage of the VST hosts. But many developers implement internally a *double* (64bit) precision for better resolution and float stability (sometimes necessary).
btw: The FPU of the processor generally has 80bit internal precision (but not the SSE or 3DNow! Professional instruction sets).

Does it mean you can only use half the plugins you are used to?

Well, the VST effects have to render the double amount of samples then, which not necessarily results in double performance eating. At least you will not be able to use more effects in realtime at higher rates.

[jones-y]

The biggest difference is at the soundcard.

At higher sample rates, many soundcards sound better (my old Delta66 was a prime example). ADC and DAC sounds more clear. So the main difference you'll hear in VSTi's will be due to the DAC leading to your monitors, not the calculation of the VSTi's themselves.

And when recording real instruments, vocals, or external synths, the ADC may sound better because of the high sample rate, and it will capture more information (though the eternal debate is whether or not this additional data does diddly squat....)

[PsychoBob]

If you will make a mixdowm at 44.1kHz in the end, there is no point in recording at 88kHz or more.

Recording at 24 bits or more will improve quality in the end at a 16 bit mixdown with appliance of dithering. You can compare it with format conversion of pictures, it's basically the same process.

[pitchdrifter]

This thread is hilarious.
Every poster tells the guy something completely different than everyone else, and that with full conviction.

[PsychoBob]

It's like this and like that...

[useruseruser]

If you will make a mixdowm at 44.1kHz in the end, there is no point in recording at 88kHz or more...

Nonsense
Please tell me, from where *did you get* this vague thesis

[useruseruser]

The biggest difference is at the soundcard.

At higher sample rates, many soundcards sound better (my old Delta66 was a prime example). ADC and DAC sounds more clear. So the main difference you'll hear in VSTi's will be due to the DAC leading to your monitors, not the calculation of the VSTi's themselves.

Sorry, but the auditioning equipment has nothing to do with the internal rendering quality of audio effects and instruments.

And a pure digital production including mastering on a final digital media has also nothing to do with a soundcard (as long not used for recordings)...