44.1kHz vs. 88.2kHz

[thamantra]

I do most of my production in ableton and was wondering if I should run at 88.2kHz or 44.1kHz. Most of my drum samples are 44.1kHz/24-bit WAV files. Some of them I believe are even 44.1kHz/16-bit MP3s. Typically I also move my productions into Pro Tools to do some vocal track and mixing as well. Should I continue running at 88.2kHz or is it not worth it because of the lower sample rates of the samples. I would like to record my vocals at 88.2 if possible, but it if makes no sense then I won't. Also, I know that most of the time my productions are going to end up in MP3 form and therefore would require dithering if I recorded at 88.2. That being said, I would definitely like to have a higher fidelity version of my productions.

Can anyone give me some advice?

[Tone Deft]

a bigger issue is avoiding SRCs (sample rate conversion) as much as possible. use a sampling rate that matches most of your source material.

[ChiefNugget]

I'm sure there will be some disagreement on this topic. I've never been able to hear a difference between 44.1 kHz and 88.2 kHz recordings (my gear or my ears? both? neither?). The more audible difference to me is going from 16-bit to 24-bit, especially if there's a lot of dynamic range in the recorded audio or you need to add gain to a low signal. I prefer to stick with 24/44.1 and save on disc space and sample rate conversions.

I think all the major DAWs can handle mixed sample rate and bit depth audio samples with no problems, but this should in no way be considered a definitive answer.

[thamantra]

Yea I see what you guys are saying. You think tracking vocals at 44.1 will be ok though?

[ChiefNugget]

Theoretically, a 44.1 kHz sample rate should give you frequency response up to 22 kHz which more than covers the audible range for humans and should be suitable for any source material, including vocals.

I think the bigger issue is definitely sample rate conversion. If there is a chance the audio would be used on DVD for example, the final sample rate would be 48 kHz. I've always heard it's better to convert from 88.1 or 96 kHz to 48 kHz than it is to convert from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz. In reality, my opinion is that the audible difference is pretty negligible with modern digital recording technology.

[thamantra]

I see what ur saying. What if I were to go with running at 88.1kHz? Would the Ableton, or Pro Tools session for that matter, act weird if some of the samples were at 44.1kHz?

[ze2be]

On vinyl, or if end product posssibly could be used pitched down by DJs for beatmixing etc, it might be usefull with higher sample rates. Any thoughts about this?

I think the question we have to ask is: Where does it matter for the end user.

[H20nly]

Yea I see what you guys are saying. You think tracking vocals at 44.1 will be ok though?

that's what CDs are pressed at. 16 bit 44.1 kHz.

those settings worked for several generations of artists and people that are regarded as artists despite their obvious lack of talent and the gold records they got anyway.

[H20nly]

I've always heard it's better to convert from 88.1 or 96 kHz to 48 kHz than it is to convert from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz. In reality, my opinion is that the audible difference is pretty negligible with modern digital recording technology.

thats kind of like the .jpeg thing... where you don't increase a file size without artifacts, but you can decrease it and have a perfect, though smaller, copy.

[ChiefNugget]

Looks like your safest bet is to either convert your samples from 44.1 to 88.2 or record at 44.1.

This is straight from the Live User's Reference Manual...

"For users looking to achieve optimal audio quality in Live, we have provided a list of recommended practices and program settings.

+? Decide which sample rate to use for a project prior to beginning work, rather than changing the sample rate while working on the project.

?+ Record audio into Live using high-quality hardware components (audio interface, cables, etc.) and at the highest sample rate and bit depth your interface and computer will support.

+? Avoid using samples that are at different sample rates within the same project. If you want to work with such files, we recommend that you first convert them to the sample rate set for your audio interface in an offline application that is optimized for this task.

+? For all audio clips, disable both the Warp and Fade options in the Clip View.

?+ Do not adjust the Transpose and Detune controls for any clips.

?+ Always render at 32-bit and at the sample rate set for your audio interface. If you need audio files at a different sample rate and/or bit depth, we recommend that you convert your rendered files in an offline application that is optimized for these tasks, rather than in Live."

That said, I've had no trouble using samples recorded at 44.1 alongside stems recorded at 88.1. I suggest you give it a try with a few test tracks before your recording session.

[ChiefNugget]

I've always heard it's better to convert from 88.1 or 96 kHz to 48 kHz than it is to convert from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz. In reality, my opinion is that the audible difference is pretty negligible with modern digital recording technology.

thats kind of like the .jpeg thing... where you don't increase a file size without artifacts, but you can decrease it and have a perfect, though smaller, copy.

Maybe Ableton can hire the CSI Miami guys to overcome this shortcoming of physics!

[ChiefNugget]

On vinyl, or if end product posssibly could be used pitched down by DJs for beatmixing etc, it might be usefull with higher sample rates. Any thoughts about this?

I think the question we have to ask is: Where does it matter for the end user.

Good point, I hadn't considered it. I could see it possibly being an issue in the digital realm.

I don't know much about the process of creating a vinyl plate from digital. How is the digital signal converted to analog for vinyl? It seems that would smooth out the steps from one sample to another in the process and effectively make vinyl closer to a perfect analog copy (sample rate approaching infinity) limited by the size of the needle rather than sample rate. I'd be interested if anyone has some background info on that process.

[thamantra]

I just discovered this batch audio file processor. http://www.audiofile-engineering.com/samplemanager/

It seems like a pretty good option if you need to batch convert a whole sample library, like in my case, from 44.1 to 88.2, or any other conversions for that matter.

By converting 44.1 to 88.2 I know there will be no file enhancement obviously, but will this process cause audio degradation?

[H20nly]

I've always heard it's better to convert from 88.1 or 96 kHz to 48 kHz than it is to convert from 44.1 kHz to 48 kHz. In reality, my opinion is that the audible difference is pretty negligible with modern digital recording technology.

thats kind of like the .jpeg thing... where you don't increase a file size without artifacts, but you can decrease it and have a perfect, though smaller, copy.

Maybe Ableton can hire the CSI Miami guys to overcome this shortcoming of physics!

yeah, then they could hire them to tell us how to make a sandwich bigger after we've had a few bites.

or we could just accept the fact that diminishing file depths, and quality typically leaves better results than trying to increase and insert those settings later. YRMV.

[dysanfel]

By converting 44.1 to 88.2 I know there will be no file enhancement obviously, but will this process cause audio degradation?

No, but your hard drive will have far less empty space. I have never seen the need for higher sample rates unless your doing critical acoustic recordings. 44.1k 24bit is fine for 99% of what music does today.