What Sample Rate are You?

// July 8th, 2009 // General

SampleRateI just finished reading this months article in Wired Magazine about Neil Young’s new release on Blu-ray. The first thing I noticed was the sample rate. 24 bit 192 Khz!. I thought to myself “This guy gets it”. Somebody is finally using the technology available to us.

For those of you that don’t know how sampling rates work I’ll do a quick run down. Basically every second a piece of the audio is sampled a set amount of times. If you are at 44.1 Khz you will have 44,100 samples of the audio signal during that 1 second. If you you are at 192 Khz you will have 192,000 samples during that one second. The 192 is obviously going to be closer to the original analog wave form.

I’m still amazed at how many projects I get in to either mix or continue recording that are tracked at 24 bit 44.1 Khz. I’ve been on a few sessions with recording artists working on records for a major release and I check to see what sample rate the session was started at only to find it at 44.1 Khz. Why? The artist doesn’t have a clue. They are trusting the engineer to do their job. If you are an artist you should make it a point to ask the engineer what sample rate the session is being recorded at. Isn’t it our job as the engineer to capture the audio at the best quality available to us? It’s going to be interesting when these artists go back to rerelease the record at a higher sampling rate only to find out they can’t.

I was recording at 44.1 Khz on a Sony 3324 DASH machine in 1997. I understand that CD’s and MP3′s won’t be over 44.1 Khz, but we need to think about what will happen in the future. When we are listening to music on our iPods or computers at 192 Khz in a few years. Don’t you think the artist is going to want to release a Blue-ray or some other format at a higher sample rate so the general public can experience the record at an acceptable quality level? At a minimum all my sessions are recorded at 88.2 Khz. Can you hear a difference? Absolutely. If you are in the studio listening to what we are listening to, then here what the final C.D. the general public gets, you will be amazed at the difference. It was the same when I was recording to 2″ analog. The band would ask “Why don’t we record to Pro-Tools? I would say “sure we can record to Pro-Tools”. Then I would record to both at the same time and do a listening test. Half the console would be 2″ analog the other half Pro-Tools. Then I would flip back and forth between the two formats and let the band decide. Not once did the band choose Pro-Tools. This of course was back when we were on the black 888 I/O’s. Pro-Tools has come along way and I’ve done some great recordings now on Pro-Tools. I’m not going to get into the whole analog/digital argument.

Since the time we have all switched over to digital we have been struggling to get the quality back to where it was on analog. We now finally have technology to record projects and archive them at a reasonable sample rate that doesn’t sound like it’s destroying the audio. One of my favorite bad techniques engineers are using is this. Record to Pro-Tools at 44.1 Khz then transfer it to 2″ analog and back again. So let me get this straight. You are going to destroy the audio, copy the destroyed audio to 2″ analog, then destroy it a second time on the way back into the computer. And then possibly mix it through an analog desk recording it back to a digital format for a third time. Not only did you just waste a $215 reel of tape, you just made the artist pay for it, and resampled it 3 times at 44.1 khz. If you want the tape sound you have to record to the tape first. Sure you can get some tape compression sound from the tape by transfering, but is it worth it? It’s strange how we forget and just settle. You listen to 44.1 Khz and think it sounds good until you a/b it with a higher sample rate.

I really think the manufacturers should set 88.2 Khz or 96 Khz as the default sample rate when you open up a session for the first time. This will make it a habit for everyone to move to a sample rate that can be archived for a future release. I have even been going as far as running a 5.1 mix down after I mix the stereo mix and giving it to the artist to do what they wish. It might never get heard or the artist can use it in a few years for a future release and not have the expense of going back and doing recalls and remixing the record. I hope in the near future everybody jumps on the bandwagon and starts using the technology we have available to us.

8 Responses to “What Sample Rate are You?”

  1. Kim Brown Cain says:
    January 20, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Great advice, Chris! I did a lot of voice-over recording for a particular company I won’t name here. When I began working with them, they were recording everything at 8k!!!!!!!! I told them they couldn’t use my voice for any of their spots unless they bumped it up to at least 44k. The engineer thought I was the devil for disrupting his “studio”. We finally agreed that every spot recorded by me would be at 44k, while all the rest of their spots remained at 8k.

    Their argument was that much of it would be played back through an on-hold message system for phones (which is at 8k). I argued your same point above with them to no avail. What if those customers wanted to use the spots for broadcast? What if phone systems upgraded in the future? Etc. Blank stares. Alas, neither they nor their customers could actually hear the difference. I had to part ways with them!

    One of the ways the voice-recording business has changed is that there are many, many people who come from a computer tech background & have only enough audio skills to turn the machine on & hit record. They don’t have much respect for those of us who come from a music recording background & understand your points.

    I come across many people who take the same view with their music – that they’re listening to it through tiny earbuds, so they can’t hear the difference anyway. Argh! Across the “recording board”, we’re losing some great stuff due to short-sightedness & lack of training in the ways of quality recording.

    Keep preachin, Chris!

  2. Joe Kenner says:
    January 25, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    I am a new musician in the area and I want to begin the new year out right. I would like to discuss the DFW area and possibly establish some musical contacts. I also would like to get some recording advice from you as I have a home recording system that I would like to fully utilize with a few pointers. Thank You

  3. Julian says:
    June 3, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Interesting post, as a musician/songwriter starting up some home recording, I’ve been strictly tracking @ 24bit/44khz, my audio can go up to 96k but I just haven’t heard anything massively different on various monitors at that rate, for my needs anyway. Since tracks bounce down to a 16-bit/44khz dither for CD/Flac/MP3 eventually, I just don’t see the point in having tracks take up twice the storage space at 96+. Thoughts?

  4. Chris Bell says:
    June 4, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    Hi Julian,

    Thanks for reading the blog post. I have done several tests at different sample rates as well as compared 2″ analog to digital on side by side comparisons. The thing is, you usually don’t notice the difference unless you can compare side by side to hear what you are missing. The point of my post is in the future we will most likely be producing everything at 88.2K or 96K anyway, so why not start now. Hard drives or other media will be dirt cheap if they aren’t already cheap enough. A large recording project with numerous tracks is only about 50 to 100 gigs at most at 96K. Every project I’ve been recording in the last 6 years will be able to be re-released at the higher sample rate in the future. Whether if be Blu-Ray hi resolution audio with the 5.1 mixes I also print at the time of mixing or some other format that we cling to in 10 years. All the projects being recorded at 44.1 will only be at 44.1 for their existence because the damage is already done. I still have projects I have mixed to 1/2″ analog that I can use as examples. If you play the 1/2″ next to the C.D. from Best Buy the 1/2″ is far superior, as well as the 88.2Khz mix files. Everybody’s hearing is becoming so accustomed to poor audio that we are just settling for it. I work very hard on the projects I record and I don’t want to look back in 10 years and wish I would of just clicked on 88.2Khz instead of 44.1 Khz. There’s a reason vinyl is making a resurgence. I think there are still some people who care about audio quality.
    As an engineer my job is to get the most out of the technology available to me and have quality control over what I create. I haven’t even put another thought into recording at 44.1 since the first session I recorded at 96K. To me it’s the closest I can get to recording on tape again, along with word clocks and other toys.
    Let me know how I can help with your setup.

    -Chris

  5. Anel says:
    June 18, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Hi Mr. Chris

    Yesterday, a saw in One of the best studios on my country that even they using Pro tools HD 2 Accel and having Apogee 16x AD DA Converters, they record all projects at 44khz 16bits because Cd’s standard and you don´t note the difference unless you recording a Symphony Orchestra, they said. I know they are wrong.

    I´m a man who always wants answers for all. But nobody their can answer my questions with a really good excuse. I’m a Audio Post Producer for TV using Sony Vegas for years, and always record at 48k 24 bits until acquire a Mackie onyx i that support 96k. The only problem for me is the Hard Drive space, and that we using Avid for Video and can’t support more than 48k at 16bits.

    But as my friends hear said that is like record video on HD and then convert at the end to Standard Definition, it´s always look better than a Standard Definition video Record.

    The point here for me is that no difference between an audio bit and a video bit. With higher samples you have more info to work and process. Even at the end the Final Product has a lower sample rate.

  6. Chris Bell says:
    June 18, 2010 at 10:49 am

    Hi Anel,

    That is a good example you stated comparing it to shooting video in HD. The studio recording at 16bit 44.1 obviously hasn’t compared the difference with much critical listening. You should tell the studio that MP3′s are a standard also, but you don’t want to commit a master recording to such a low resolution format.

  7. Roddrick king says:
    August 1, 2010 at 12:02 am

    Hey Chris..

    Im running Mac os 10.5.8 on a Dual 2 GHz power p.c. G5 with 6 gb DDR. Using the Project mix as a mixer & sound card. Using pro tools 7.3 m-power & logic 8 studio.

    I track some vocals at another studio using pro tools 8.3 recording bit rate at 96/24, At home I’m running pro tools 7.3 m-power but recently started using logic 8 studio. I want to mix session in logic 8 studio. Ive open session up in pro tools 7.3. Now im ready to exported each track separate. About 18 mono tracks and 3 stereo tracks, Clean with no plug in’s or automation added yet.
    I know my computer could handle all 21 tracks imported into logic 8 studio at 24/96 but when i start to add plug in’s my computer gets a little stressed (CPU). My questions is can i export tracks from pro tools 7.3 at maybe 24/48 instead of 24/96 and still come out with a good mix when i import into Logic 8 studio.

    2nd Question is for the future if I know I can’t mix at 24/96(until I get a better mac) but i can record in 24/96, is it better to maybe go to a lower bit rate when tracking vocals maybe like 24/88 or 24/48 and doing mix at that bit rate or can I benefit from tracking vocals at 24/96 then for the mix convert to a low bit rate to relieve CPU stress.

    Personally I like to track my Vocals in pro tools, been using pro tools since 6.1 but logic 8 seems to be able to work a little bit better for mixing vs. pro tools from my experience so far.

    Definitely open to any suggestions

  8. Chris Bell says:
    August 1, 2010 at 12:44 pm

    Hi Roddrick,

    To answer your first question. Yes, I believe you could still get a good sounding mix converting the files to 24/48. To answer the second quiestion. If I were you I would still track everything at 24/96. Then maybe in the future you can do a mix at 24/96. At least the music will be documented at 24/96. When I first started recording at 24/96 or 24/88.2 I had to run 2 drives because the drives we were using wouldn’t support the high sample rate when you started getting above 20 tracks or so. I would use the round robin feature to split the audio between the 2 drives. This worked great and I never had the drives stalling trying to keep up. In your case I guess it’s the plug in processing power that’s the issue. I haven’t done much mixing other than in the Pro Tools TDM systems. Sounds like a more powerful computer would help. The prices are coming down now.

Leave a Reply