What sample rate you're running your DAW(s) on?

[antic604]

Simple question, really.

Also, if you're above 48k, I'd appreciate few words why you need this?

I'm on 24bit/48kHz.

[LeVzi]

44.1 due to a weak PC, but as from tomorrow I will be on 48. Should be able to lower my buffer size too. (new pc coming)

[antic604]

44.1 due to a weak PC, but as from tomorrow I will be on 48. Should be able to lower my buffer size too. (new pc coming)

Congrats! Fingers crossed you're not gonna end up like those many people complaining they've upgraded to new hardware and now have (sometimes much) worse performance

[LeVzi]

44.1 due to a weak PC, but as from tomorrow I will be on 48. Should be able to lower my buffer size too. (new pc coming)

Congrats! Fingers crossed you're not gonna end up like those many people complaining they've upgraded to new hardware and now have (sometimes much) worse performance

I hope not, but tbh the new build makes this look like a calculator tbh lol

[FapFilter]

44.1 due to a weak PC, but as from tomorrow I will be on 48. Should be able to lower my buffer size too. (new pc coming)

I'm not sure it will bring much of quality improvements. 48k just happens to be a standard for TV and cinema, as far as i'm concerned.
88k and up should bring you the benefits you are getting from oversampled plugins without their drawbacks of additional sample rate conversions.
With the big drawback of course that you will use a lot more CPU and HDD space

[LeVzi]

44.1 due to a weak PC, but as from tomorrow I will be on 48. Should be able to lower my buffer size too. (new pc coming)

I'm not sure it will bring much of quality improvements. 48k just happens to be a standard for TV and cinema, as far as i'm concerned.
88k and up should bring you the benefits you are getting from oversampled plugins without their drawbacks of additional sample rate conversions.
With the big drawback of course that you will use a lot more CPU and HDD space

Yeah the improvements are tiny but any are good right ?

[crickey13]

Slightly better handling of the oversampling.

[DJ Warmonger]

88.2 KHz. Which is double oversampling of standard frequency.
There are many benefits of it, especially reduced aliasing but not only.

Using Ryzen 3900 for the task, but older 1700 also handled it nicely.

[FapFilter]

44.1 due to a weak PC, but as from tomorrow I will be on 48. Should be able to lower my buffer size too. (new pc coming)

I'm not sure it will bring much of quality improvements. 48k just happens to be a standard for TV and cinema, as far as i'm concerned.
88k and up should bring you the benefits you are getting from oversampled plugins without their drawbacks of additional sample rate conversions.
With the big drawback of course that you will use a lot more CPU and HDD space

Yeah the improvements are tiny but any are good right ?

Thing is 44.1 is already pretty much perfect for playback purposes. Of course 48k will shift Nyquist a tiny bit further, but the “biggest“ advantages are gained at heavier processing like heavier saturation / distortion, analog filtering, etc. that's why such plugins usually offer anything from 2x, 4x, 8x up to 128x sometimes and even then the differences can still be relatively subtle.
Of course 48k will give you a 2kHz “advantage“ over 44k on paper, but i personally think only the most golden of golden ears should be able to tell the difference between these two, if anyone at all.
Might of course be wrong though, as i've never actually worked with 48k

[jamesheaney]

"

[FabBad]

88.2 is like running a 2x oversample over all, then, downsample to half is mathematically accurate.
But, there's a cost on CPU and the samples packs must be well oversampled or in native. So, i stick on 44.1K and apply a proper oversampling when need it.

[Bulbizarre]

Anything above 44100 is for dogs and bats.

[jonljacobi]

I ran higher rates for a while, but it simply didn't seem to make much of a difference other than slightly tighter latency when recording. The hassle and requirements of higher rates simply wasn't producing anything worthwhile as far as I could tell so I just rolled back to 44.1kHz and 24-bit. That's what it winds up as in the end anyway.

[chk071]

Anything above 44100 is for dogs and bats.

So, i stick on 44.1K and apply a proper oversampling when need it.

[EdgarRothermich]

44.1 is the old standard (CD and streaming). The new standard is 48kHz, in multimedia always been, but streaming services now slowly shifting to 48K and even accept higher sample rates for their Hi-Res content. Dolby Atmos is also 48kHz. It is always better to convert down than to convert up, so at some point it is a matter of future proofing you mixes. Don't assume that technology/standards/requirement doesn't move forward.

Another aspect that the "only for dogs and bats" people often overlook is that fact that any Software Synth or Amp simulation Plugin profits from higher sampling rate based on the underlying math. Often, they use oversampling internally and don't care if you are stuck in the ancient 44.1kHz world.