44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

[PatchAdamz]

This simplifies the differences in a clear way and goes into how playback differs from production, as relates to the need for higher sampling rates:

[Synthman2000]

A few Quotes by my favorite Mastering Engineer, Stephan Mathieu on this Topic.

Bit Depth and Sample Rate

Ideally, you will work from beginning to finish your project in WAV or AIFF format with a bit depth of 32 or 24-Bit and a fixed sample rate of 96kHz and deliver your mix in this native format.


Please do not up or down-sample your audio; always stick to the native sample rate of your session. Sample Rate Conversion can easily mess things up when not done right.

If your session is 16/44.1k, that’s fine – leave it like that.

https://www.schwebung-mastering.com/mix

You will receive a set of WAV files at the native bandwidth (ie. 24/96k) for digital distribution. My studio is registered with Apple to deliver Apple Digital Masters. Please see below if you need additional formats.

https://www.schwebung-mastering.com/services

Anyone on the planet can parrot. There are many practical reasons people may not use 24/96. Also he suggests :

"If your session is 16/44.1k, that’s fine – leave it like that."

The word expressed is... "fine".

Fine wine, fine dark chocolate, it's fine.

Which could be related to very old Pro Tools systems for info sake, cause otherwise recording 16 bit is a beginners error.

What he does not say is it has nothing to do with sound qualities and that is a glaring omission.

24/96 means precisely NOTHING when it comes to the qualities of your production and will be the least parameters of concern. What it might mean is that anecdotally and statistically your music will probably sound worse than people not using high sample rates. Cause they have spent much more time worrying about technicalities of actual significant sonic consequence.

Use the sample rate you personally wish to, but do not make the mistake that your music will noticeably sound better unless you are producing the audiophile productions of 2023.And by that I mean your music is recorded/produced and mixed at the very highest skill levels. Even then it will be next to impossible to hear and pale into insignificance with even a 2-3pct error in mixing poor choices. (It's great you used 48kHz or 88.2kHz congratulations ! Now go and correct that slight but disturbing vocal sibilance. Or overdub the upright bass again as there is a lack of definition as it was mic'd too far away or at the wrong angle/position on the sound board.It sounds rather muddy and boomy due to where it was positioned in the room.)

That 3 pct alone will determine much more than SR chosen for production.

Also if using high SR's be certain you cannot hear the effect of cumulative broadband IMD noise from excessive bandwidth (from non linear processes). You definitely cannot hear that right ?

For context and professional generosity here are a few things that will make your sound better, assuming you know what you are doing.

A better synthesizer, a better mic, polar response choice, a better mic preamp (and this is debatable), a better room for recording, a better room for mixing, a better set of monitors, quite a few years practicing mixing, a more efficient workflow, a better approach to obtaining sonic objectivity, thinking a good mastering engineer is incapable of adding significant sonic benefit to your music, having some humility and not pretending you know everything when you do not. And in some rare occasions, a better cable !

Then maybe consider changing production sample rate.

Here is a sound engineering conversation that has never happened : "It's a great mix, but would you re record and remix it at 48kHz because I can hear the negative effects of the 44.1kHz anti aliasing filter."

This dead horse is in the casket.

[jamcat]

We’re talking about what is ideal. When you are recording, you have a choice of what samplerate to work with when you start. Since you have a choice, you ought to choose the better one, which is 96 (or 192). There is no practical reason not to. As long as your DAW can change samplerates non-destructively, you can mix at a lower samplerate if you need the processing power. Just be sure to export at the full sampletate.

Better equipment and a better samplerate are not mutually exclusive. Getting the samplerate right is easy, you just select it from a drop-down when you start a new song. If you’re working with better ADCs, they will be able to do 96 or 192kHz. If you have quite a few years practicing mixing, you will already know all of this, and choosing a high samplerate will already be one of your good practices. This is actually the kind of engineer whose music will anecdotally and statistically sound better.

Also, aliasing and phase ripple are both an actual significant sonic consequence of 44.1/48 kHz.

If you’re a mastering engineer and you’re receiving projects to master at 44.1, you are working with unprofessional clients. That’s fine. Not everyone is Howie Weinberg.

Stephan Mathieu is right that ideally you should be working at 24/96, but he is clearly speaking to beginners when he says not to change samplerates if you receive a song at 44.1.

If you know what you’re doing, you can upsample without any issues. Just upsample to a multiple of the base samplerate (44.1 → 88.2 → 176.4 || 48 → 96 → 192) and use a high quality SRC. It makes some sense to do this because you’re avoiding the constant up and down samplerate conversion of plugin internal oversampling, and aliasing from plugins that don’t oversample. I just wouldn’t suggest crossing from base 44.1 to base 48. Again, a mastering engineer with a few years of experience would also already know all of this.

[Synthman2000]

You have one serious problem on the SR shaming, it seems to know know bounds, however grossly ignorant it is of the real world.

Can we hear some this superior jamcat audio that has been recorded at 24/96 please or even 24/48 and at whatever release rate ? Anonymize it 30 seconds will do and upload it in as a wav, I would love to hear this professional sound you have going, and I suspect many others too.

[jamcat]

You’re the one whose “SR shaming […] seems to know no bounds” with claims that a person who clicks 96 instead of 44.1 at their project start couldn’t possibly have also “spent much more time worrying about technicalities of actual significant sonic consequence.”

Your entire argument relies on a perplexing belief that only careless, unskilled morons select 96kHz as their project samplerate, and they make bad sounding music for entirely different reasons.

Just give it up already.

[vurt]

wasn't his expert.

[Synthman2000]

Your own quoted sources admit that “ideally, you will work from beginning to finish your project in WAV or AIFF format with a bit depth of 32 or 24-Bit and a fixed sample rate of 96kHz and deliver your mix in this native format.
“

You’re the one whose “SR shaming […] seems to know no bounds” with claims that a person who clicks 96 instead of 44.1 at their project start couldn’t possibly have also “spent much more time worrying about technicalities of actual significant sonic consequence.”

Your entire argument relies on a perplexing belief that only careless, unskilled morons select 96kHz as their project samplerate, and they make bad sounding music for entirely different reasons, even as your own expert you cited says that you should in fact work at 24/96.

Just give it up already.

I gave an anecdotal suggestion which is my own actual experience that most 24/96 projects that have been sent to me have been very poorly recorded and mixed.

In fact it is quite rare to even see high SR projects, I reckon on getting 2 or 3 a year and that despite the deep wisdoms that the audio heavyweight jamcat speaks of.

In the fairly distant past I think a few were so bad I refused the jobs. So please do not twist it to present a false position that all 24/96 audio is produced by incompetents.

You own that suggestion.

That 24/96 produced audio that you have that so good, where is it ?

We're waiting

Many of us are very interested to hear that you are not just an armchair academic and that you can in fact put your money where your mouth is with some extremely well recorded and mixed track snippets at nothing less than 24/48 masters from 24/96 work flow.

If not, then please do button it and keep your ignorant and insult attempting commentary to yourself.

[jamcat]

wasn't his expert.

Noted and corrected.

[jamcat]

I’m going to say what I know to be true. Math and industry standards already back it up. It’s up to you whether you take it or leave it. I don’t care.

But, since examples are so important to you, follow your own lead here and list which recording studios, producers, or major labels are sending you tracks to master that were recorded at 44.1.

We're waiting

[Synthman2000]

I see you have presented no audio as yet, why is that ?

I won't be doing that because I don't answer to you and never will. As every other post you have made is about sample rate shaming you had better step up to the mark and absolve yourself from being an arrogant, demeaning and insulting individual.

You are the one with the axe to grind with the 48kHz/96kHz sonic purity.

The superior high SR productions of jamcat that we cannot hear, we see only empty repetitive and I highly suspect, inexperienced words.

[NETAAA]

I use 44.1

[jamcat]

I see you have presented no audio as yet, why is that ?

I won't be doing that because I don't answer to you and never will. As every other post you have made is about sample rate shaming you had better step up to the mark and absolve yourself from being an arrogant, demeaning and insulting individual.

You are the one with the axe to grind with the 48kHz/96kHz sonic purity.

The superior high SR productions of jamcat that we cannot hear, we see only empty repetitive and I highly suspect, inexperienced words.

Oh, but I'm supposed to answer to you?

I'm not making any claims about my own work. You are making claims about yours. But they don't pass the smell test. Up until now I have not been demeaning or insulting, and had withheld my assessment of your credentials.

What is this nonsense about "sample rate shaming?" I'm just stating the fact that higher sample rates have clear mathematical benefits. You are trying in vain to argue against those facts and logic. Probably because it's an act of self-soothing. That's fine. You're right that it's not the end of the world that you work in 44.1kHz. But it is inarguable that 96kHz is better. Now that you and others know better, you can make better choices going forward. Or not. It's not my problem. I'm just among those here providing information if you want it.

Edit: I removed a comment that was probably too harsh and unnecessary. I usually try to avoid responding that way.

[audiojunkie]

I’m going to say what I know to be true. Math and industry standards already back it up. It’s up to you whether you take it or leave it. I don’t care.

But, since examples are so important to you, follow your own lead here and list which recording studios, producers, or major labels are sending you tracks to master that were recorded at 44.1.

We're waiting

Just curious… Did anything other than 44.1 exist for digital back when Steely Dan were recording? How’s their recording quality?

[PatchAdamz]

Just make music.....As good as you can.

[jamcat]

Just curious… Did anything other than 44.1 exist for digital back when Steely Dan were recording? How’s their recording quality?

I believe ADAT was the first affordable digital multi-track recording format. It was 8 channels at 16bit/48 kHz and came out in the early '90s. Sony had a ridiculously expensive DASH digital tape recorder out in 1982 that also recorded at 16bit/48 kHz. Steely Dan didn't release any studio albums between 1980 and 2000, so it's pretty doubtful they did any digital recording before 24/96 hard disk recording became available and standard.

The thing to keep in mind about early digital formats is 16bit/44.1 kHz CD was developed (also in 1982) as a consumer audio delivery format, not for recording and manipulating source audio (that was still analogue), and ADAT and DASH were designed to take the place of analogue tape. While they recorded digitally, mixing still took place in the analogue domain, where plugins and end-to-end ITB digital processing was not an issue creating cumulative digital artifacting through low SR digital processing and constant up and down resampling.

There were some early digital delays that sampled at 44.1kHz or below, and the Fairlight sampler came out in 1979 and sampled at 8bit/16 kHz and 16bit/100 kHz. But these all had very limited memory and were not used for tracking and mixing whole albums by anyone, least of all Steely Dan.