WHAT is the BEST SAMPLE RATE?

Read more about it here:

Thanks, wayback machine! 🙂

BUY GEAR WITH MY AFFILIATE LINK:

[humanlikeee]

i find 0 Hz produces a really warm tone that you cant replicate with higher sample rates

[trevorclover]

You are a person in the audio world I really respect and also the last one to say that recording at 48 kHz makes sense, I remember your old video where you said that 192 kHz was the best. To be able to rectify your ideas is praiseworthy. Cheers!

[plk]

high sample rate is really useful for resampling in sound design tbh, its nice having that high head room when you pitch stuff down many octaves down or really on weird distortion and other audio mangling

[zonasound]

I've worked over the years at Universal, Enterprise, many big studios and the most common preferred bit and sample rate is 48K 24Bit, so i've always worked at these rates plus the plugins function much better unless you have an HD system

[Little_Internet_Monster]

A very clever idea is that you let the one file run in 192 khz and record this file with 48 khz so there will be no processing of the rate, its more like a recording of the configuration, without changing it on sonical levels. This is one of the best solutions.

[michaelfarrow]

I have had the option of high sample rates for a long time, but the final format for the film scores I worked on was always 48k, 24 bit. My decision was to track at the sample rate of the final (dub stage), so I recorded and mixed everything at 48/24. My experience is that Sample Rate Conversion does much more damage to the sound than any benefit that may be gained using high sample rates. The 3 worst words in digital audio: Sample Rate Conversion.
Your Mileage May Differ :)

[mrbanana]

By far the most insightfull video I have ever watched upon the topic is the one on the FabFilter Youtube channel "Samplerates: the higher the better, right?". Very interesting video, very much een aanrader!

[hoborec]

Nice to see you talk about this too! I made a video about this way back, and made sound examples with some cheaper converters. Some people got pretty upset and claimed that I did something wrong haha.

[poetnprophet]

I went to 48k from 96k about a year ago for your reasons and also to save CPU overhead and drive space. It's been great!!!

[Synth]

I track at 48/24, master is tape and then 96/24. The quality of the converters is more important that the sample rate. Depending on their clock and design, converters can sound better at specific sample rates. Find your sweet spot.

[Rompler_Rocco]

My Tascam maxes out at 48/24, so I'll vote for that... Second place would be a Maxell xll-ii running at double speed 🤷‍♂️ ;)

[insanebiscuit]

I used to run at 48KHz, but recently moved to 96KHz since I now have a much more powerful computer.
Pretty much all plugins support it now and any that do not internally oversample will benefit from 96KHz natively due to the reduced aliasing. Wont make any difference to those that do already oversample though.

[tunemxr]

192k yields some unruly file sizes to catalog, really only noticed a difference with a client playing classical music on a 9’ Grand piano with tremendous dynamic range in the music. Also it greatly reduces your access to how many plug ins can be instantiated. I agree-24bit/48k is the ideal tracking paradigm.

[tomaszmazurek]

Higher sample rates on conversion are useful for creative sampling - if you plan to radically slow down or pitch down your samples, its a good idea to convert at higher rates, so you do not lose all the high frequencies.

[Audio_Simon]

The one big reason to use 192khz is if you want to time stretch audio. More sample points, better result.

[laynehoward]

I run Studio One at 48kHz. The problem is that the rest of the world is typically 44.1kHz. When I leave Studio One and go to say, Soundcloud, I have to remember to change the Apollo to 44.1kHz. Maybe I'm just doing something stupid....it wouldn't be the first time.

[iammodus]

The Resampling feature at 6:00 is basically how accurate you want sample stretching to be. When you stretch a sample to be a different length than the original, you might run into these really digitized, computery artifacts (especially if you make the sample slower). The higher the resampling the better the stretching will be, and the less audible the artifacts.

[RadiAsian]

Been working at 24bit 96k since 2004. I hear a significant difference switching down to 48k, and only a slight difference moving from 96k>192k. 192k may very well kill my ancient rig.

[DMarlow]

Your favorite plugin manufacturer Acustica Audio recommends running their plugins @96k :)

[tmoblak]

what about sound design? aren´t higher sample rates more interesting there? i mean, in the terms of audio-stretching, slowing things down and stuff like that. (i am talking digital games and scifi movies here). in theory, you should be able to slow audio down without hearing too much artifacts when recorded in higher sample rates, right? (and you are golden when you have enough money to buy those sanken mics that go up to 100kHz)