44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

[El°HYM]

Marinated tofu with crushed corn flakes

So you are a vegetarian Mix & Mastering Engineer, that explains a lot.

[kritikon]

Marinated tofu with crushed corn flakes

Now there's a breakfast made for weight loss. I'll have to try it - I'd never eat breakfast again.

[audiojunkie]

I stopped reading on page 5 and jumped to the end, so apologies if this has already been said:

I'm an old fart, so here's some old fart perspective: Your audio project is only as good as your weakest link or bottleneck. At 24bit/48Khz (which I use), it's likely going to be another piece of your equipment that causes signal degradation or lack of talent (like me) that hurts the song more than these minimal changes at the threshold of hearing. Masterpieces have been made on 4-track recorders and portastudios. Seriously, look at the body of music recorded on minimal/poor quality equipment of lower quality than what you've got.

Sgt Pepper, A Hard Days Night, Help!, Rubber Soul, and Revolver by The Beatles anyone?
Nebraska by Bruce Spreensteen?
Are You Experienced? Jimi Hendrix
ZZ Top
Jethro Tull
Pink Floyd
etc.
etc.

https://www.iconnectivity.com/blog/2017 ... -equipment

https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-A ... e-0097.pdf

I could go on and on about low budget recordings that were recorded on quality less than 24bit/48Khz.

My point is simple. I've already wasted my life on the same crap you guys are going back and forth on, and the end result matters a lot less than most of you realize. It's the song that matters. Work on your writing skills. You could create a masterpiece with 12bit 22050khz mono, and if the song is good, no one would care. You guys are chasing the wrong dog's tail.

[thecontrolcentre]

does it matter when the tracks are already recorded as in turned into sound files?

No

[MidnightRunner]

I stopped reading on page 5 and jumped to the end, so apologies if this has already been said:

I'm an old fart, so here's some old fart perspective: Your audio project is only as good as your weakest link or bottleneck. At 24bit/48Khz (which I use), it's likely going to be another piece of your equipment that causes signal degradation or lack of talent (like me) that hurts the song more than these minimal changes at the threshold of hearing. Masterpieces have been made on 4-track recorders and portastudios. Seriously, look at the body of music recorded on minimal/poor quality equipment of lower quality than what you've got.

Sgt Pepper, A Hard Days Night, Help!, Rubber Soul, and Revolver by The Beatles anyone?
Nebraska by Bruce Spreensteen?
Are You Experienced? Jimi Hendrix
ZZ Top
Jethro Tull
Pink Floyd
etc.
etc.

https://www.iconnectivity.com/blog/2017 ... -equipment

https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-A ... e-0097.pdf

I could go on and on about low budget recordings that were recorded on quality less than 24bit/48Khz.

My point is simple. I've already wasted my life on the same crap you guys are going back and forth on, and the end result matters a lot less than most of you realize. It's the song that matters. Work on your writing skills. You could create a masterpiece with 12bit 22050khz mono, and if the song is good, no one would care. You guys are chasing the wrong dog's tail.

i fart in your general direction. my masterpiece is a sine wave done at 384k 64-bit float. just wait until you hear that sine wave. you will throw out all your beatles records in the river mersey, i tell you.

[audiojunkie]

I stopped reading on page 5 and jumped to the end, so apologies if this has already been said:

I'm an old fart, so here's some old fart perspective: Your audio project is only as good as your weakest link or bottleneck. At 24bit/48Khz (which I use), it's likely going to be another piece of your equipment that causes signal degradation or lack of talent (like me) that hurts the song more than these minimal changes at the threshold of hearing. Masterpieces have been made on 4-track recorders and portastudios. Seriously, look at the body of music recorded on minimal/poor quality equipment of lower quality than what you've got.

Sgt Pepper, A Hard Days Night, Help!, Rubber Soul, and Revolver by The Beatles anyone?
Nebraska by Bruce Spreensteen?
Are You Experienced? Jimi Hendrix
ZZ Top
Jethro Tull
Pink Floyd
etc.
etc.

https://www.iconnectivity.com/blog/2017 ... -equipment

https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-A ... e-0097.pdf

I could go on and on about low budget recordings that were recorded on quality less than 24bit/48Khz.

My point is simple. I've already wasted my life on the same crap you guys are going back and forth on, and the end result matters a lot less than most of you realize. It's the song that matters. Work on your writing skills. You could create a masterpiece with 12bit 22050khz mono, and if the song is good, no one would care. You guys are chasing the wrong dog's tail.

i fart in your general direction. my masterpiece is a sine wave done at 384k 64-bit float. just wait until you hear that sine wave. you will throw out all your beatles records in the river mersey, i tell you.

I totally heard your response in a fake French accent! You silly K' NI' GHT!

[audiojunkie]

[rashidaressy]

Use your original latency instead 48kHz

[Logga]

According to Dan Lavry of Apogee and Lavey Engineering, the theoretical optimal samplerate is around 60KHz, which is greater than 44.1/48KHz. 88.2/96KHz are the closest samplerates available that meet the 60KHz samplerate minimum.

88.2k is the obvious choice then, isn't it.

[Ghostwave]

After watching the Dan Worrall video on samplerates, I settled for 48KHz. And when possible, I also use 2x oversampling on individual plugins at the final rendering stage. While not perfect, it's absolutely fine as a hobbyist.

[MidnightRunner]

According to Dan Lavry of Apogee and Lavey Engineering, the theoretical optimal samplerate is around 60KHz, which is greater than 44.1/48KHz. 88.2/96KHz are the closest samplerates available that meet the 60KHz samplerate minimum.

88.2k is the obvious choice then, isn't it.

Well, it's an old paper and has been misinterpreted many times. My own take on it is, first understand what you are trying to achieve, understand what is available to you to change and adjust, and then adjust your settings accordingly as needed. There is no such thing as the correct magic setting. The correct approach is, It really depends what you are doing and where you are trying to get to. I don't work on IMAX movies or record classical orchestras for Deutsche Grammophon releases. The audio I work in will be mostly listened to by other musicians and songwriters who will take it from there and maybe some of it will end up on Soundcloud or Spotify where it will be delivered to the end listener in an even worse format than what listening to a CD is possible at.

The discussion below is from about a year or two ago.

https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/produc ... mple-rates

[jamcat]

According to Dan Lavry of Apogee and Lavey Engineering, the theoretical optimal samplerate is around 60KHz, which is greater than 44.1/48KHz. 88.2/96KHz are the closest samplerates available that meet the 60KHz samplerate minimum.

88.2k is the obvious choice then, isn't it.

Only if your primary target medium is CD.

[vurt]

I stopped reading on page 5 and jumped to the end, so apologies if this has already been said:

I'm an old fart, so here's some old fart perspective: Your audio project is only as good as your weakest link or bottleneck. At 24bit/48Khz (which I use), it's likely going to be another piece of your equipment that causes signal degradation or lack of talent (like me) that hurts the song more than these minimal changes at the threshold of hearing. Masterpieces have been made on 4-track recorders and portastudios. Seriously, look at the body of music recorded on minimal/poor quality equipment of lower quality than what you've got.

Sgt Pepper, A Hard Days Night, Help!, Rubber Soul, and Revolver by The Beatles anyone?
Nebraska by Bruce Spreensteen?
Are You Experienced? Jimi Hendrix
ZZ Top
Jethro Tull
Pink Floyd
etc.
etc.

https://www.iconnectivity.com/blog/2017 ... -equipment

https://worldradiohistory.com/hd2/IDX-A ... e-0097.pdf

I could go on and on about low budget recordings that were recorded on quality less than 24bit/48Khz.

My point is simple. I've already wasted my life on the same crap you guys are going back and forth on, and the end result matters a lot less than most of you realize. It's the song that matters. Work on your writing skills. You could create a masterpiece with 12bit 22050khz mono, and if the song is good, no one would care. You guys are chasing the wrong dog's tail.

also, the computer you are working on, is more powerful than the one nasa sent men to the moon (allegedly) with!!!
so we should be writing songs on uranus by now!!!

[jamcat]

My point is simple. I've already wasted my life on the same crap you guys are going back and forth on, and the end result matters a lot less than most of you realize. It's the song that matters. Work on your writing skills. You could create a masterpiece with 12bit 22050khz mono, and if the song is good, no one would care. You guys are chasing the wrong dog's tail.

I agree with the sentiment, and often upset the local lemmings with similar arguments. However, in this particular instance, writing good music and also recording it at the optimal samplerate are not mutually exclusive. You have to record at some samplerate, so it might as well be the best one.

[Jac459]

also, the computer you are working on, is more powerful than the one nasa sent men to the moon (allegedly) with!!!
so we should be writing songs on uranus by now!!!

Well.... It is not exactly that. There was a study a few years ago.
In a normal USB-C powerbank, there is a controller, that makes sure to distribute the electricity equally, shows the percentage, etc...
This controller, is more powerful than the one who sent people to the moon (apparently 500 times more powerful).

So to say rhat our computers are more powerfull than the one is apollo is kind of a very very huge understand.

And by the way, the lady who wrote the code of apollo (yes, a lady at this time) is the one who invented the concept of software engineering...