After reading the Lavry paper on nyquist theorem I decided the case was closed and used 44.1 or 48 for years. Recently for fun I tried 88.2 for having super low latency tracking samples…anyway I can affirm you that on my system I was pleasantly surprise to hear the improvement in the sound quality. Everything reacts better, eq, fx ect just sound better…I give the science a little pause and enjoy better sound quality using 88.2 kHz.
I will always sample at the highest possible rates, you can hear the difference between 44khz and 192khz, also the higher bit rates are better to use! You can always compress a file to a lower rate if needed! Your arguments about disk space and CPU where true 30 years ago, but not today!
Yeah there's no harm in it. Some interfaces will only record in 48k max though. So for those people especially I want to be clear that you don't _need_ to record in those higher sample rates for a professional sound. And wanted to explain the science of the Nyquist Theorem.
great explanation, thanks! I would recommend however ditching the background music. It's too loud hence competing with your voice, and annoying for those who don't like this type of music (I don't).
Higher sample rate is exactly more detail of the original signal. So yes it should be better. But most computers struggle with this so kind of have to leave it to the pros with mega power computers
Hi Rob, I agree, but it's also about who is able to actually hear the difference when it's mostly affecting frequencies above the range of human hearing.
The sample rate of your session and the sample rate that you're recording at should be the same. For recording vocals over a beat, I would suggest sticking with 44.1 kHz. Again, there's no harm in using 48 kHz, it's just not necessary.
Ahh yes. I haven't used it, but normally you would be able to select the sample rate and the bit depth of the session when you start, or in the preferences. 64 and 128 sound more like typical bit _rate_ settings for when you export a track to an MP3. As a rule of thumb, I recommend recording at 24 bit for the bit depth.
@@Sachaan_ The microphone that comes built into some earbuds will record very low quality that would only be suitable for basic calling. A dedicated studio microphone will be of a vastly higher quality. A condenser microphone is one type of microphone that contains a moving membrane that picks up sound. Dynamic is another type of microphone. A dedicated studio mic or a built-in ear-buds mic could be either dynamic or condenser. I hope this clears things up.
@@JoeAtClaricast ya so can I get different sound of my vocals with both of them I mean it's totally different My vocals are totally different from both in basis of what kind of my voice is
@@Sachaan_ I wouldn't recommend recording your vocals using the mic built into your earphones at all unless you have no other option. They're too small and are normally cheaply made. What is the other condenser mic that you have?
I always record and mix in 192khz and force my listeners to hear my music in 192khz or else they're not allowed to listen to my music. If anyone ever downsamples my music to 44.1khz i will sue them.
I wanted to hear what you were saying.... the backing track playing while you were talking was very distracting and annoying... I advise you just talk. The info is good... don't need the backing track to add interest.... thanks...
Hi Joseph, this is really helpful feedback, thanks. Listening back now, I agree that I've mixed it too loud. In more recent videos I've been fading out the music early on or mixing it quieter. It's good to get some real feedback on it though that it's not needed.
I usually use a mixture of sample rates in my mixes. Bass: 11025, most instruments: 22050, drums and instruments with a lot of high frequency content: 44100. It's a good comprimise
![96 kHz vs 48 kHz vs 44 kHz - What's (really) the Best Sample Rate for Audio? [2023]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g0BpVO16dbI/mqdefault.jpg)
After reading the Lavry paper on nyquist theorem I decided the case was closed and used 44.1 or 48 for years. Recently for fun I tried 88.2 for having super low latency tracking samples…anyway I can affirm you that on my system I was pleasantly surprise to hear the improvement in the sound quality. Everything reacts better, eq, fx ect just sound better…I give the science a little pause and enjoy better sound quality using 88.2 kHz.
A simple and easy explanation
48 Is a good ratio of diskspace/CPU load and fidelity. Use plugins that can oversample like fab filter
Thank you for this! 😊
Happy to help!
Which is less destructive. Upsampling or downsampling. Just. curious.
i just hate how daws constantly try to change the sample rate under your nose without you noticing, happens with my apollo twin duo
thanks.
I will always sample at the highest possible rates, you can hear the difference between 44khz and 192khz, also the higher bit rates are better to use! You can always compress a file to a lower rate if needed! Your arguments about disk space and CPU where true 30 years ago, but not today!
Yeah there's no harm in it. Some interfaces will only record in 48k max though. So for those people especially I want to be clear that you don't _need_ to record in those higher sample rates for a professional sound. And wanted to explain the science of the Nyquist Theorem.
Thank you 🙏
Great
2:51 Lmao
I hear they make the best engineers.
great explanation, thanks! I would recommend however ditching the background music. It's too loud hence competing with your voice, and annoying for those who don't like this type of music (I don't).
Thanks, had a few comments on this and have toned down the music usage for more recent vids 🙂
Aliasing!
Higher sample rate is exactly more detail of the original signal. So yes it should be better. But most computers struggle with this so kind of have to leave it to the pros with mega power computers
Hi Rob, I agree, but it's also about who is able to actually hear the difference when it's mostly affecting frequencies above the range of human hearing.
should i create a adobe audition session for recording my vocals over a beat in 44,1khz or 48khz? (session samplerate, not my microphone samplerate)
The sample rate of your session and the sample rate that you're recording at should be the same. For recording vocals over a beat, I would suggest sticking with 44.1 kHz. Again, there's no harm in using 48 kHz, it's just not necessary.
@@JoeAtClaricast why some people said aliasing occurs when 44.1khz?
I record at 64 or 128. How do I master at 1024?
Hi Bret, this sounds like bit rate, rather than sample rate. What software are you recording with?
@@JoeAtClaricast mixbus by harrison
Ahh yes. I haven't used it, but normally you would be able to select the sample rate and the bit depth of the session when you start, or in the preferences. 64 and 128 sound more like typical bit _rate_ settings for when you export a track to an MP3. As a rule of thumb, I recommend recording at 24 bit for the bit depth.
@@JoeAtClaricast Thank you very much I will give it a shot
Man tell what is exact difference between the condenser microphone and earphones mic in basis of vocals
Hi! Do you mean comparing a dedicated condenser microphone to a microphone that's built into an earbuds wire?
@@JoeAtClaricast ya ofcourse
@@Sachaan_ The microphone that comes built into some earbuds will record very low quality that would only be suitable for basic calling. A dedicated studio microphone will be of a vastly higher quality.
A condenser microphone is one type of microphone that contains a moving membrane that picks up sound. Dynamic is another type of microphone.
A dedicated studio mic or a built-in ear-buds mic could be either dynamic or condenser.
I hope this clears things up.
@@JoeAtClaricast ya so can I get different sound of my vocals with both of them I mean it's totally different
My vocals are totally different from both in basis of what kind of my voice is
@@Sachaan_ I wouldn't recommend recording your vocals using the mic built into your earphones at all unless you have no other option. They're too small and are normally cheaply made. What is the other condenser mic that you have?
I always record and mix in 192khz and force my listeners to hear my music in 192khz or else they're not allowed to listen to my music. If anyone ever downsamples my music to 44.1khz i will sue them.
I wanted to hear what you were saying.... the backing track playing while you were talking was very distracting and annoying... I advise you just talk. The info is good... don't need the backing track to add interest.... thanks...
Hi Joseph, this is really helpful feedback, thanks. Listening back now, I agree that I've mixed it too loud. In more recent videos I've been fading out the music early on or mixing it quieter. It's good to get some real feedback on it though that it's not needed.
mans attention span is at an all time low
I usually use a mixture of sample rates in my mixes. Bass: 11025, most instruments: 22050, drums and instruments with a lot of high frequency content: 44100. It's a good comprimise
I would stick with 44.1kHz as a minimum for anything. It's what's needed to pick up the entire audible frequency spectrum.
48 are record in Japan