Recording Bit and Sample Rates

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here in Oregon wrote:

> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.
>
> 24/44, 24/48, 24/96 16/22

15ips for session and final mixdown
16/44 for test mixes
24/96 for digitizing the 2-track tape

--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- jpm@it-he.org
Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 14:37:17 -0700, Here in Oregon wrote:

> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are recording
> with?

Don't know what bravery would have to do with anything...

> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.

44.1/24 If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Here in Oregon" <hereinoregon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126647437.372261.121670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>

24/96 here. Start with as much information as possible before mixdown/edit,
then decimate later, when you are ready for the end delivery format of
44/16.


--
Best Regards,

Mark A. Weiss, P.E.
www.mwcomms.com
-

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Here in Oregon" <hereinoregon@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126647437.372261.121670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.
>
> 24/44, 24/48, 24/96 16/22

24/44.1 almost all the time, except for microphone tests and technical stuff
which I do at 24/96. And occasional remotes still go to DAT at 16/44.1.

Peace,
Paul

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Here in Oregon" <hereinoregon@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:1126647437.372261.121670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate
> you are recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup
> are using with all of these converters coming out coupled
> with the power of the new computers and speed of the new
> hard drives.

16/44 for 24 track 30 minute live recording sessions. The
space requirements got to me, even at the current low cost
of hard drive space. If anything my recordings sound better,
but probably because I cleaned up other parts of the
process.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here in Oregon wrote On 09/13/05 14:37,:
> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.
>
> 24/44, 24/48, 24/96 16/22
>

48/16 tracking 44.1/16 for release to cd

--fletch

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Here in Oregon" <hereinoregon@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1126647437.372261.121670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.
>
> 24/44, 24/48, 24/96 16/22

44.1/16 for tracking on site, converted to 44.1/32 (only option I have
above 16 bits) before editing and mixdown.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here in Oregon wrote:
> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.
>
> 24/44, 24/48, 24/96 16/22
>

24/44.1 for reproduction. 24/48 for test and measurement.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Jonny Durango <jonnydurango1BUSH_FROM_OFFICE@comcast.net> wrote in
news:sNydnX3fUeVY6bXeRVn-3A@comcast.com:

> 24/96 for anything that will see optical media...test and "proof of
> concept" recordings are 16/44.1

Only the third person in this long list working regularly above 48K.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:zumdndJHM_ZLqrXeRVn-
>> the process.
>
> Oh, and I mix at 32/44.


Make up your mnid - 32Khz or 44KHz !!! ;-)

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I've been doing everything at 24/96 lately...but 99% of my work is
mastering, so that little one percent doesn't amount to a whole lot.
The bulk of what I receive for mastering is 24/44 follwed by a close
second place with 24/48...but 96 is slowly becoming more common...I've
only gotten one project at 88.2...which doesn't surprise me.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Geoff@work wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:zumdndJHM_ZLqrXeRVn-
> >> the process.
> >
> > Oh, and I mix at 32/44.
>
>
> Make up your mnid - 32Khz or 44KHz !!! ;-)

OK ... I'll bite.

What IS the correct syntax for expressing
bit depth and sampling rate ?
I would have thought that "kHz/bits" was correct
but I see that most answers in this thread are
in "bits/kHz"

rd

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"RD Jones" <annonn@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1126754284.645368.280080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Geoff@work wrote:
>
>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:zumdndJHM_ZLqrXeRVn-
>> >> the process.
>> >
>> > Oh, and I mix at 32/44.
>>
>>
>> Make up your mnid - 32Khz or 44KHz !!! ;-)
>
> OK ... I'll bite.
>
> What IS the correct syntax for expressing
> bit depth and sampling rate ?
> I would have thought that "kHz/bits" was correct
> but I see that most answers in this thread are
> in "bits/kHz"

There is no standard. Except the 'odd' 32 and 24 KHz sample rates, there
really is not much chance of confusion.

geoff

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Here in Oregon wrote:
> Would anybody be brave enough to reveal what sample rate you are
> recording with?
>
> I'm just real curious what MOST people in this newsgroup are using with
> all of these converters coming out coupled with the power of the new
> computers and speed of the new hard drives.
>
> 24/44, 24/48, 24/96 16/22


Thanks for your input JP, Dave, Agent 86, Geoff, Mark, Scott, Paul,
Mike, Arny, Eric, Chris, RD, Fletch, Carey, David, Bob, Jonny, Danny,
Timo, and Les.

The consensus out of roughly twenty respondents....

11 are using 24/44.1
3 are using 16/44.1
3 are using 24/96
1 is using 24/48
1 is using 16/48
1 is using both 16/44.1 and 24/96


Mike Rivers wrote: >Will you publish the result of this poll?


Only in the "New England Journal of Medicine"


Kidding!

Thanks to all the participants,... I can now sleep at night.