• Welcome to the General Discussion forum for UAD users!

    Please note that this forum is user-run, although we're thrilled to have so much contribution from Drew, Will, and other UA folks!

    Feel free to discuss both UAD and non-UAD related subjects!

    1) Please do not post technical issues here. Please use our UAD Support Forums instead.

    2) Please do not post complaints here. Use the Unrest Forum instead. They have no place in the the General Discussion forum.

    Threads posted in the wrong forum will be moved, so if you don't see your thread here anymore, please look in the correct forum.

    Lastly, please be respectful.

Opinion 44.1/48 recording

granted

Active Member
Ok I'm looking for opinions here.
Normally I record audio using my EMU 1820M into my computer.
I record at 48/24bit. I don't really have any reason I do this.
I've just read that perhaps my sound quality would be better at these
rates.
Everything I record is external synths, samplers, DI guitar and
occasionally my own voice (the only mic'ing I do).
Since I'm really just a recording \"hobbyist\" am I wasting resources by using 48/24bit recording?
What would I have to gain by recording at 44.1/24bit?
Will it really free up a significant amount of system resources?
Is it really that big of a difference for an amateur? Are my pals
going to say \"Dude this sounds like it was recorded with a low bit rate, you are a loser.\" instead of what they usually say, \"No one wants to hear your lame electro/techno/synth pop\".
 

Plec

Venerated Member
Ok.. here's the facts laid out..
First of all, it's the samplerate, not the bitrate.

The reason that you percieve higher samplerates as sounding fuller and more analog has NOTHING to do with the fact that you gain audible frequency bandwith. The reason it sounds better is due to the fact that your converters work better at higher SRs, giving you a more true representation of the original waveform. If you're recording at 96K your converters will do a better job representing the audible frequency range. But this is still a minor advantage and it also depends on your converters. In blind tests, even very seasoned engineers can't consistently tell the difference between samplerates. High-End D/A converters usually upsample to 96K before conversion.

The MAAAJOR reason that higher samplerates sound better is when you start processing within the digital domain. Plugins and other digital processors work a lot better at higher samplerates, hence the reason that both the UAD Pultec and Precision EQ upsamples to 192KHz. Then the tricky part is of course that you must get down to 44.1 again for it to fit on a CD and here is the major loss again. There are many engineers that prefer an extra DA/AD stage with a great converter than actually resampling the audio.

So to answer your question... do you gain anything by recording at 48K? Probably no! But then again, it depends on your converters. Do you gain anything by processing at higher samplerates when mixing? YES!! If you find that your SampleRateConversion (in whatever way it may be) sounds better after converting down than actually processing your audio at 44.1 in the first place.
 

Tarekith

Member
Personally, I think it's best to just record at 44.1 and not have to worry about the SR conversion. The convertors in the 1820m are more than good enough for any \"hobbiest\". I would definitely stay at 24bit as well.
 

Big Harpe

Active Member
I've made some really good recordings at 44.1/32 bit Float. I see no reason for me to switch to 48 even though I can. However, I am a musician and I'm recording my own music. I believe the consensus is that you can tell the difference when recording at 96/24 bit. I've heard good things about that, but I don't need it (at least now anyway).

The EMU Cards can record up to 192/24, can't they? I might switch someday, but my Yamaha DSP Factory cards, as old as they are, are very hard to part with.
 
UAD Bundle Month
Top