44.1 kHz or 48 kHz?

[sQeetz]

You can hear the process of making the record in the record. It's what makes it sound alive, like a moment in history. Unless you go out of your way to recreate that, modern recordings have none of that. Most are just a lifeless collage of sounds, not a unique moment in time.anyday.

Friend of mine insists on recording his parts in one take. I keep telling him that we could just record multiple times and stitch (comp) the best parts together...
"no! It's not authentic!"
is his answer because he distrusts the technology.

[kritikon]

It costs me nothing to record at 96kHz. I have TBs of SSD space. My audio converters go up to 96k and 192k depending on the device, and Studio One lets me run 96 audio at 48 during playback, so there isn't even a CPU hit. At this point, I would be going out of my way to record at a lower sample rate.

If you're complaining about recording high resolution audio in 2023, either your computer is ancient or your DAW is lacking.

Well lucky you, and that absolutely does not apply to everyone else.
It would cost me quite a lot to work at 192 or even 96. My laptop is 3yrs old and has 250GB drive. At the time OK performance though small SSD but plenty for what I needed then and mostly now. Not going to get a new laptop just to be able to work at unnoticeable SR. AFAIK Cubase doesn't downsample and I'm not going to change a whole DAW just for an unnoticeable SR. That would really be creating hardship for myself. So, actually it would be going considerably out of my way to use high SR, it IS a big CPU hit and it IS a big deal for me and many others. I could afford a brand new laptop but why should I when the one I have works perfectly well for proven recording methods?

[kritikon]

One thing you need to understand about where I'm coming from is that I love the sound of '70s and '80s records. All of it. The noise, the distortion, the compromises, the limitations, and, the techniques that were used to try to get around all of it, too.

You can hear the process of making the record in the record. It's what makes it sound alive, like a moment in history. Unless you go out of your way to recreate that, modern recordings have none of that. Most are just a lifeless collage of sounds, not a unique moment in time.

There is a parallel between this and film effects. There's something tangible and visceral about practical effects compared to CG. Give me a giant puppet over a computer generated cartoon anyday.

Yet the one thing you can't seem to understand is that an awful lot of others don't relate in any way to the 70s/80s. Synths, digital instruments, samples, no need or use for preamps or for distortion.

And there's a strong argument for the magic of those recordings (and newer ones) is nothing to do with analogue at all, but is because they were live recordings of talented composers/players. Which I won't argue with. It's not my style but I can appreciate any band that can play tightly and impart a certain feel and magic to their music. Even Country/Western...maybe at a stretch . Many of those magical players stampeded to digital recording when it developed yet they still made magical recordings.

I'm not going to diss you're love of distorted recording. It's a subjective choice FOR YOU. Dunno why you think everyone else should also want it though...

[jamcat]

AFAIK Cubase doesn't downsample and I'm not going to change a whole DAW just for an unnoticeable SR.

I believe you're correct about that. It was definitely the case last time I used Cubase, when I switched to Studio One 1.x over 10 years ago. Studio One's ability to non-destructively swap sample rates was one of the very top reasons I switched.

I used to have to make a copy of my 96 kHz audio and put it aside before switching Cubase from 96 kHz to 48 kHz, where it would immediately perform a length destructive conversion to 48 without warning. When I was ready to export the mixdown, I would switch back to 96 kHz, sit through another unprompted conversion, and then swap my original untouched 96 kHz audio back in. And if you forget to make a copy before changing to 48 kHz, you were screwed.

I really came to hate Cubase.

[jamcat]

I'm not going to diss you're love of distorted recording. It's a subjective choice FOR YOU. Dunno why you think everyone else should also want it though...

Well, first of all, they're not really "distorted" unless you're talking about some guitar parts. It's more like they're harmonically excited. But anyways, I don't think everyone else should do what I'm doing. If they started, I'd have to find something different...

But my quest for analog side effects (which by nature are aliasing-free), and my efforts to minimize digital side effects are really two separate issues that aren't particularly linked.

I do think everyone who is recording audio (as opposed to only working with VST synths ITB) would benefit by recording at 96 kHz, even if they turn right around and destructively convert it to 48 kHz with r8brain. That's a much cleaner anti-aliasing filter than anything in your ADC.

And everyone would benefit from exporting audio at 96 kHz and converting only once with r8brain at the end, even if they're working with 48 kHz audio and/or mixing at 48 kHz.

[jamcat]

C'mon, now. Everything the BBC produces still looks this bad.

[El°HYM]

Ok, this went bad pretty quick. But now we having it all, analog vs. digital saturation, distortion vs. THD and even IMD's were mentioned, which can occur digital or analog. So at least we have something interesting to talk about now, which is good.

I do think everyone who is recording audio (as opposed to only working with VST synths ITB) would benefit by recording at 96 kHz, even if they turn right around and destructively convert it to 48 kHz with r8brain. That's a much cleaner anti-aliasing filter than anything in your ADC.

Actually people working ITB with VST would extremely benefit running their Synths at 96kHz or even higher. Ableton's Wavetable would be a great example here and also easy to hear what and how it changes the overall audio quality. Its not only about Aliasing but also about Detail and like I said easy to spot even on consumer systems.

Yet the one thing you can't seem to understand is that an awful lot of others don't relate in any way to the 70s/80s. Synths, digital instruments, samples, no need or use for preamps or for distortion.

Did you ever try running your digital synths through a Tegeler Audio Device, a Silver Bullet or something like that? Even running those through a cheap Pedal will open a whole new world of sonic possibilities. Not even going to mention re_amping your synths here. But each to his own, I guess.

It's not actually difficult to understand the concept that someone might want "analogue" distortion but not digital distortion.

I prefer Social Distortion to digital distortion.

but i like distortion.

[donkey tugger]

C'mon, now. Everything the BBC produces still looks this bad.

Better bubble wrap now though.

[jamcat]

I do think everyone who is recording audio (as opposed to only working with VST synths ITB) would benefit by recording at 96 kHz, even if they turn right around and destructively convert it to 48 kHz with r8brain. That's a much cleaner anti-aliasing filter than anything in your ADC.

Actually people working ITB with VST would extremely benefit running their Synths at 96kHz or even higher. Ableton's Wavetable would be a great example here and also easy to hear what and how it changes the overall audio quality. Its not only about Aliasing but also about Detail and like I said easy to spot even on consumer systems.

Just to be clear, I was talking about that when I followed what I said above with "And everyone would benefit from exporting audio at 96 kHz and converting only once with r8brain at the end, even if they're working with 48 kHz audio and/or mixing at 48 kHz."

That everyone includes people who are only working with VST synths ITB. The thing is, though, unlike those of us who are recording audio with mics and DI inputs, they needn't worry about 96 kHz at all on the front end, only on the back end, since synths render out in real-time at the sample rate of your choosing. So it's quite easy to write and arrange and mix your song at 48 kHz, and not even have to think about 96 kHz until it's time to export the mixdown offline.

[jamcat]

Yet the one thing you can't seem to understand is that an awful lot of others don't relate in any way to the 70s/80s. Synths, digital instruments, samples, no need or use for preamps or for distortion.

Did you ever try running your digital synths through a Tegeler Audio Device, a Silver Bullet or something like that? Even running those through a cheap Pedal will open a whole new world of sonic possibilities. Not even going to mention re_amping your synths here. But each to his own, I guess.

Speaking of the '70s and '80s and reamping synths, the likes of Depeche Mode and Gary Numan played their synths by hand, and plugged into amps that were miked live in the room on their early albums.

Jon Lord of Deep Purple and Tony Carey of Dio era Rainbow recorded their Hammond organ and Minimoog, respectively, through cranked Marshall amps.

The whole practice of recording synths straight into the desk seems to have been a product of the MIDI age. Before that, keyboard were treated just like any other instrument in the band, and were often recorded live in one take with the band.

[El°HYM]

Very true... think of Tangerine Dream here, too! And its still working 'even' in 2023.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhREkFDXUdE

[jamcat]

Nice! And don't forget about double tracking synths, because... why not?

[sQeetz]

Wait! There is a plugin for that!
Since I don't have the equipment, I use Celestion Speaker Shaper... sometimes also on drums. It's nice

[unaufadox]

My DAW and external sound card is set at 44.1 kHz, I've used it for a while at that setting and it sounds good to me. I could set it at 96 kHz or even 192 kHz if I wanted to, apparently it doesn't necessarily mean it sounds better though

Anyway, I read that it was recommended to record at 48 kHz instead of 44.1 kHz. Now, I don't mix and master myself, and does it matter when the tracks are already recorded as in turned into sound files?

I just recently started creating some tracks, and recording vocals at 88.2kHz. I feel like they are super duper clear and smooth. Can everybody tell the difference? Probably not. MAYBE some can FEEL the difference because, the sound is being sampled/recorded more times per second so it will sound more like it sounds if I were in the room with someone speaking to them or playing my bass through an amp. It's closer to how we hear natural sound which is not being sampled/recorded at an amount of times per second. It's in the feeling for me....vinyl and tape has the potential of being closer to how we hear sound unless it has gone through a process of digitisation and back to analogue again.

[BertKoor]

You wanna compare it to tape?
Here you go:
https://reeltoreeltech.com/tape-frequen ... pe-brands/

The ATR MasterTape shows a flat frequency response +/- 2db from about 60Hz to 20Khz at 7 ½ IPS, and about 40Hz to 22Khz at 15 IPS. That is pretty typical for an Otari 5050 deck with a high quality tape.

+/- 2dB is pretty bad, compared to +/- 0.1 dB in digital.
In theory (and practice) 44kHz is enough to get far better quality.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist ... ng_theorem