A record producer of some reputation once told me; " If it doesnt sound good enough at 16 bit, 44.1 k; write a better song." He was exactly right IMO.

@alanjamesh.zamorano1677

3 жыл бұрын

Words to live by

@ecciq

3 жыл бұрын

@@alanjamesh.zamorano1677 Thanks!

@jackspring7709

2 жыл бұрын

Excellent point. Thanks for sharing that.

@BojanBojovic

2 жыл бұрын

This is true really, just in some cases you get some ugly aliasing with lower sample rate and added harmonics. Oversampling the plugins is what we need, 48k is enough if plugins do not create aliasing.

@brucemillar

2 жыл бұрын

Never truer word said.

What these 70 year old ears have learned in the studio and in life: Techno nerds and audiophiles love to talk about sample rates, resolution etc. But the vast majority of music consumers really have no interest in that stuff; they’re mostly interested in the music. I doubt very seriously that a typical music lover listens to a track and thinks “wow, that reverb really sits nicely behind the lead vocalist and the guitars are panned just right”! Hell, they are going to take your perfect mix and trash the hell out of it by cranking the bass up and who knows what. Everyone has their own idea of what the proper eq is and everyone's speakers or headphones (or earbuds) are different. Most people listen to music in their cars and the majority play MP3s which is a lousy format anyway. I have a customer who puts all of his stereo tracks through a THX surround decoder. Obviously not what the mix engineer (nor the artist) had in mind and what comes out bears no resemblance to the original mix. And that’s OK. Once someone buys a track it’s theirs to do whatever they want. And if you want to use the old 20-20,000 standard, well, people don’t hear that range anymore since, in our modern society, most folks ears have been damaged by the ambient noise that surrounds us. Is it important to record at high sample rates just so your mixing gets less destructive? Maybe. But if you submit files that need to be down sampled you have no control over what samples are lost and any time you down convert you introduce noise and distortion. What is most important is what the music says and how you have served it. I have a lot of albums on vinyl from the ‘60’s and you can say a lot of it is poorly mixed (not to mention the severe compression involved just to get it to track correctly) but the music is still enjoyable. Now, I’m not saying that one shouldn’t take care in trying to make the song sound great but that I think (and this is just the opinion of an old man) a lot of mix engineers spend too much time on making the track sonically perfect and not enough on what the song and the artist is trying to get across. Again, just the musings of an old man.

@VicDemise

5 жыл бұрын

I think you nailed it. We stress over things that most listeners will never notice, not even other producers/engineers.

@fredscofield180

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed. Get it to sound good and keep refining your craft and forget about sample rate, bit crushing and delivery medium. spend more time learning mic placement and eq and compression.Learn to understand gain staging, probably the least understood of all processes of amateur mixes.

@OwenModamwen

5 жыл бұрын

Al Dawson I couldn’t have said this any better. Thank you for your wisdom.

@mjgoldcoast7894

5 жыл бұрын

Well said Al

@AudioReplica2023

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly my point. The only ppl worried about sample rates are audio fools. Ive heard mixes done at 44.1khz 16 bits ...and it sounds really good compared with 192khz 30 bit float and sounds like crap. Consumers dont care about sample rates or bits ...they just wanna play it and if they find sounds weird they reach for the equalizers and tone controls ...thats why radio companies put them there from the beginning . On the other hand Ive seen ppl that demand watching a movie at 7.1 on their Bose home cinema systems ....but the speakers are wrong placed or not even connected right. Others just gather all speakers in one corner. They associate higher numbers with quality . Best example....they go crazy about a 55" HDTV ignoring the specs. in the box that reads 720p resolution. Some consumers dont even know whats Bass treble and high frequencies...do you think they know whats a sample rate? or even care about it...? I dont think so.

44.1 khz recording, mixing, exporting

@joeblough3781

3 жыл бұрын

88.2/24 recording and 44.1/16 for delivery

@christopherdunn317

2 жыл бұрын

@@joeblough3781 WRONG !

That was CRAZY COOL information. Thank you Graham for making things a little easier for this newbie to recording and mixing. Glad to be in your VIP group, and great reminder to revisit the 6 Steps PDF. You're the (music) man!

THANK YOU for clear talk about these issues! I'm trying to get my own home studio setup going, and your channel has been a MASSIVE HELP with all these confusing topics!

I'm totally new to this and you clarified things so much. Thank you!

Thank you for covering this topic Graham! You explained it very well. Great video!

Thank you Graham! This was a very good and still simple explanation about sample rates. I appreciate it!

Thanks so much, I was going crazy trying to answer this question. This makes total sens. Thanks a lot!

Thanks man, this cleared up a lot of confusion as I'm getting ready to release single #2 today!! Gots a long way to go.... but grateful we have every resource at our fingers.

Graham, you just took me to school, I was mislead into thinking I HAD to mix and record at 192, and my pc choked all the time, to the point in which I thought about giving up on the whole thing because I couldn´t afford a better PC. Thanks a lot, man! Greetings from Argentina!

you are great! Love youre honesty and knowledge put simply and clear! Thanks ! :)

Thank you Graham. This was very useful.

Useful and Helpful information as always. Thank you !

Hey there Graham, you nailed the answer for whoever it was that wanted to know what's the best sample rate to record and mix your music in. I say this because I've tried all sample rates in my little 5 year's of mixing and discovered that it's really not about the sample rate how your music quality is. I found out in my time of recording and mixing that if you want high quality sound, to record it first with the best musicians you can find, or self, then balance everything, EQ, Compression and not a lot of plugins and you got it. Thank you Graham for this video.

I’m a first time viewer, and you handled the topic very nicely - subbed.

Awesome video Graham ! I'm new to mixing and this demystifies such a seemingly complicated yet simple concept of sample rate! Thanks dude! Keep up the great work 👍

This video is so on point, you’re highly talented man!

Exactly the info I needed! Thanks so much for taking the time to help so many of us who've wondered about this bro! I think I'll bounce all my individual instrument tracks at 96 sr x 24 bit, and then on the final create two versions! One for the 96 sr x 24 bit and one for todays standards. That way it's already set to go if we ever get to using and streaming those higher def versions. Thanks man! Liked your comparisons on painting at the end as well!

This is absolutely the BEST explanation that I've been able to find! Thank you for the clarification - while I understood what the technical terms meant, I didn't fully understand the real-world impact/value or how to determine what to choose. Thank you!

You're a great teacher Graham. Thanks.

I have been recording music since the late 70s. I have used every medium and tried every method. Your words are 100% true. BTW, you speak in straight forward vigorous English. You would make a great teacher.

@jinavacana2510

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks you both, agree👍

This video is great vibes and info. Thanks man!

Thanks for your great explanation!!! It really helps! Thanks!

Great! Always on point!

I needed this video! Thanks

This was such a helpful and comprehensive video. Thank you.

Yup...I've been doing recording & mixing for the last 39 years since analog to digital....now I only record & mix @ 44.1Khz, 24 bit......that's good enough. Yes off cause sometimes somebody gives me @48Khz, 24 or even 44.1Khz, 30 bit. I agree 100% on what you have said in this video.....

Love your video man!

Thanks alot Graham!! Finally someone who's on the same page as me.😃😃😃😃

Thank you Graham for this great video from Cali Colombia !.

I prefer recording and mastering at 48K, mainly because every song is ready for a music video at that point (easy to sync). Then when I'm uploading for digital distribution, I'll render down to 44.1.

@fredcaceres2226

3 жыл бұрын

You make more sense than the guy in the video.

@harkmay

3 жыл бұрын

is that still 16bit? or 24

@arnabchatterjee9085

2 жыл бұрын

Sync because 48k?

@CharafB1

2 жыл бұрын

Why can’t you use 44.1k in the video ?

@natancopeincraft

2 жыл бұрын

When uploading for digital distribution, do you also have to render down for 24 bit, at 44.1 khz? Or is it only for 16 or 24 bit at 48 khz? Thanks...SBN RESONATE

Totally agreed, good stuff man.

You are right bro . You really hit the nail at the head.

Thanks Graham. You always come in clutch with the truth !

@nahueroldan

5 жыл бұрын

God Bless btw.

Brilliant video... Awesome advice.

super useful and clear explanation! Thanks

Definitely been learning some things here and made my first bulk purchase to start assembling the creative space!👍🏾

Thank you,, I'm a super new GarageBand user, and I just bought a new 2/2 Scarlett 3rd generation so now I completely understand..!! Thanks bro

The analogy with a painter is perfect Graham! I agree with you that the sample rate is not responsible for a good or bad mix. Anyway I record and mix at 48 kHz just to have that placebo effect and because my computer still can process everything at 48 kHz. I tried once to mix at 96 kHz, but it was super CPU demanding.. I really wonder what kind of beast is needed to work at 192 kHz.

Thank you Graham. It helps a lot!

Thank you so much for the information

wow you mastered and covered this keep up the good work.

I am just trying to create my first song so this is where i came to check first thing. Thank you.. :D

Love this Video🎶🎵🎶🎵

Very helpful....guys like you have made KZread such a nice play to get answers to almost anything. My best wishes.....I am Diptiman Chatterjee from India. :-)

Tjank you, that was helpful and clear!

@tanzboden

2 жыл бұрын

Only he flat out wrong, like most people in the audio industry. The benefit of higher sampling rates is exactly zero.

Excellent on point explanation.

I love your reasoning. The same argument can be made for guitar stomps and processors. The player has to know how to play the instrument before they can begin playing with the stomps and processors. To your point, once a songwriter has learned how to craft a good song with a solid arrangement and melody that can cling to the listener's ears, the mixing process faux pas won't be as glaringly obvious. Too often we want to focus on the after thought tools rather than developing the core skills that the sin of neglecting the acquisition of these core skills cannot be covered or compensated by anything in the mixing or mastering stages.

I have a file from an award winning mix engineer. I have the track stems to mix against. I have mixed the song inn 44.1 and with almost all standard/free plugins and my mix sounds just as good and even better to some listeners when they are given the two to compare. I focus on the "big wins" and the tracks were recorded and performed very well.

You're spot-on

Very useful information. Thank you

gr8 vid ..thankx

What you said is truly honest. I strongly agree.

Very informative - thanks!

Great video, Graham! I prefer to record and mix my songs at 48 kHz/24 bit. The only reason for this is that I wanted a higher sample rate than the standard 44.1 kHz assuming this would give me a better sound quality when I started off. And I somehow got used to it and never questioned it again 😅

@mpirgkel4363

Жыл бұрын

me too😅

@ButcherGrindslam

Жыл бұрын

I had to use 24/48 just because 44.1 is not supported by Creative SB Audigy 2ZS ASIO driver. Only 48 and 96 KHz.

Awesome explanation

Great video. TO THE POINT.

Realy Nice Thanks

As a note for sample rate.... The Nyquist shannon sampling therom states that: A bandlimited continuous-time signal can be sampled and perfectly reconstructed from its samples if the waveform is sampled over twice as fast as it's highest frequency component. The highest frequency we record is 20kHz so a sampling rate of 40 Khz is all that is necessary to recreate the original waveform PERFECTLY - that is PERFECTLY. NASA probes - supercomputers - Data Centers - and all other sorts of mission critical data processes rely on the Nyquist therm for their processing. If you think you can hear a difference with your ears and NASA can not detect it then I would wager its all in your head. According the theory, you can sample at 2x recreate the wave - then re sample at 4x and recreate the wave and the results will be exactly the same. Audiophiles have been cheated out of money for decades on things that don't make any difference at all. When Graham is talking about finer steps, he really means bit depth. 16, 24, or 32 bits. (these "steps" are smoothed out any way by a capacitor - resistor circuit when converted back into analog) Standard CD quality is 16 bits and blind sound tests reveal that no one can tell the difference between 16 bits and anything higher. However.... during recording or processing, if you levels are too low, you loose bits. If you record at half volume, you have just lost one bit. Now you have only a 15 bit recording. It gets worse through every plugin you don't set right. If you record at proper levels, then convert to 24 or 32 bits (a lot of daws do this automatically if you choose that feature in options) the processing will have a minimal impact and you will loose almost nothing when converted back to 16 bits. If you record in 24 bits to start with, you don't have to worry about your recording levels much but if you are relatively adept at setting your levels, 16 bit should be fine. One other argument is that some current distributors and more in the future will want files submitted to them at higher sample rates and bit depths. However.... Its really easy to convert up to their standards and the human ear can't tell the difference anyway so it's not a big deal.

@atli2721

2 жыл бұрын

@Joel Schlecht Thank you sir/mam.This helped a lot.🙌🙏

Thanks , great explanation...!!!

I found more benefit in tracking individual tracks at 24 as opposed to 16 bit in my early digital days 20+ years ago. It's noticed mostly when sent to effects or if you have to mix the track at lower than optimal levels to fit correctly in the mix. There is still enough detail to avoid getting that "grainy" low bit count sound. Once the tracks are mixed and mastered in the 24 bit (or greater now) realm, dithering down to a final 16 bit product is virtually indistinguishable from the original....especially for streaming and casual purposes. I have also found no substantial benefit to higher sample rate recording. Better recording techniques, better recording space, better instruments, quality mics and pres, better musicians, a better arrangement and a better song make ALL the difference.

Now I know. Thank you. Very informative

i can hear it!! very easy to hear the difference

It's like tetris... When you double the height of the screen, you'll have a better view of where to place your blocks. Then, when you are done placing your blocks, you return to the standard screen size and distribute your product. Same for increasing sample rates in audio. Say you mix at 44.1, stretch or pitch your audio, master, and release it as 44.1. Your DAW has only one reference point per half-cycle of each frequency to bring about stretching and pitch change. So your results will remain the same. But if you "double" your sample rate to 96, your DAW now has two reference points per half-cycle of each frequency when stretching or pitching audio, resulting in a cleaner stretch or pitch. Now, when converting down from 96 to 44.1, you are removing that second point (or deconstructing the audio) on a cleaner pitch or stretch change. This will leave a scar, but a good one!

480p video in focus looks way better than 1080p out of focus :D ;)

Im new to mixing and this video is so helpful im going for 44.1, thanks again bro

Thank bro for this info 👍👍

Very good video. Right to the point. Honest.

@LexGear

3 жыл бұрын

Though I was hoping you would touch on the 16/24bit rates.

Big help for us to have good sound. ❤

Salute Bro!!!!

Nice video very impormative 😀

Thank you Mr!

Hey Graham! How are u? Very good video! Very well explained. I would like to ask a question: It would be interesting to record, mix and master the song at 48Khz and use this file in the music video, as this sample rate is better for videos, and then make the conversion to 44.1 Khz to distribute the music. for digital platforms, for example? Or that's wrong? And does this conversion from 48 to 44.1 spoil the audio because it's not multiple numbers? Thank you very much!

ive been mixing for over ten years ,you are absolutely right !I always argue that mixing at 44,1 is best.

@dillontaylor8035

4 жыл бұрын

Shayzar1 then maybe you should check out how plugins work and learn what aliasing is.

Tell it how it is Gram! lol Love the transparency

Hello bro. How about for KZread videos? Do youtube reads 96k sample rate?

great video

I used to record at 96. But, I’ve bought a UAD interface and 96 uses a lot more processing from UAD, what means that I can load fewer YAD plugins in my session. So, instead of buying more UAD processors, I’ve chosen to record at 44

My boy. 🔥

Subscribed! bro i've watched a lot of your videos and they are really helpfull without talking a lot of extra stuff. Concrete, like we millenials want haha! Hey i've got trouble trying to record at 96Khz in my Macbook Pro 2013. When I had the previous version of Logic Pro X it didn't have that problem but now it does. I record Drum covers but i wana push my gear to the max is not the most fancy but i get quite a Great sound of it) Also if i Import a 96Khz WAV my Logic tends to freeze, like if it was thinking but it doesn't. I've got 16 RAM too. Do u think i should just keep doing it on 44Khz?

I come to know about sample rate after watching this ! Thanks Man ! :)

I typically record at 48; but I also never know when something is going to be used for video. It never taxes my system with the minor bump up and the mix doesn't sound distinguishable when converted to 44.1.

Hi Graham, most of what you have said is incorrect with regard to sample rates (there are no stair steps). As long as the sample rate is above Nyquist, the input is the only possible output. When converted back to analogue (DAC), the waveform is continuous (smooth), like it was when going in.

Great explanation in this video. What is your thoughts on the sample rate if mixing on a large formatted analogue console using a full Pro Tools rig. Any benefit from 44.1k to 192k. Thanks

Actually in Nyquist theory, if you sample at double of the highest frequency you want to record, you obtain the EXACT thing you had before. Now that might not be quite perfect in the real world when actually doing it... Also, the digital waveform isn't made of steps...there are many interpollation algorithms that predicts where the next sample will be and "smooths" the staircase. I am not saying we should record at 44.1 KHz, I just say that is more complex than what many think, and some people will tell you oversampling is pointless and others that 44.1 is killing the audio. Wether sampling rate is noticeable or not, it depends on who you ask.

@bonchbonch

4 жыл бұрын

Marcos Brian Klatt A digital waveform is made of steps--that's what the sample rate is. An interpolation algorithm is a layer of processing, but the original steps are still there.

@GINKREUZOfficial

4 жыл бұрын

Just making sure, have you ever run a sine wave through an analog plug-in at 44.1 kHz project sample rate and then at 96 and listened to the difference? At the lower rate, they'll introduce foldback frequencies - and not just in the highs, also in the mids and lows. While silent (starting at -80 dBFS) on their own, if you have multiple emulations running, the foldback harmonics may become something noticeable. A staggering number of gear will avoid foldback, but gear emulation plug-ins often come without oversampling. In my experience: *Just* recording at 44.1 kHz? No problem. Do it. Running recorded data through analog plug-ins at 44.1 kHz? Not without an oversampling function. Even if you export at 96 and let's say for argument's sake you *must* resample to 44.1 kHz. This doesn't mean that your work at 96 kHz was futile. On the contrary, while the high frequencies will be cut off according to Nyquist, but what about the foldback harmonics that may or may not be sullying your mix? Say you have a 10 kHz sine. Then the foldback will be at ~14 kHz, 4 kHz, ~2 kHz, 500 Hz, 100 Hz. Every analog harmonic modelling plugin without oversampling *will* introduce aliasing, i.e. foldback. If you know all this and are still content with all your analog work at 44.1 kHz, I won't stop you and more power to you.

@mankepoot9440

4 жыл бұрын

@@bonchbonch A digital waveform is not a staircase. It is a collection of points from wich a "line" can be mathematically constructed, also between the points but without the details over the Nyquist frequency.

@bonchbonch

4 жыл бұрын

@@mankepoot9440 Those points are obviously the steps I was referring to. I didn't use the term "staircase." I don't know what you think you're correcting.

@bonchbonch

4 жыл бұрын

@ No, I wasn't describing sample and hold. I was describing the discrete values or steps of a digital waveform which differ from a continuous signal.

I’ve been working at the digital domain since 2000, and I have always recorded at 44.1. We have great converters now so things just sound better these days. I use an Apollo system and I have no complaints. Well done.

@lucasjuniorproducer

5 жыл бұрын

Apollo Range should be the Standard All time to home studios....They are amazing....But very expensive for a little home studio, thats why focusrite win with those cute red soundcards...:)...Anyway, i own MADI Interfaces Rednet and ANtelope, but i love my Apollo quad Firewire with my Sonnet Firewire card...:)..Cheers..

Because we're recording audio and video at the same time, choosing between 44.1 and 48 has been a tough decision to make. It seems to be worth switching back and forth, if only to avoid odd problems when media and medium are mismatched.

Yup, good advice.

Helló Graham 😊 greatings from the Faroe Islands. Thank you for sharing your knowledge 👍 Questions: Can I switch back to 44.1khz from 48khz in mid project in Ableton Live? Do I just switch, or must I first convert the wave files? Hope you can help 🙏

I like to record higher than my target. I have the computer and I have the storage, and I do not record that much. My target is DVD, but every now and then I to need a CD, so I record 96k. An interesting side note, is I record video w/ stereo and off camera audio in stereo. The files created for each are about the same size.

My problem with mixing in 44.1 or 48 is the foldback distortion from my favorite analog-modeled plugins and saturation plugins that have no anti-aliasing or oversampling built into it (i.e. Waves, Brainworx, Soundtoys, etc.). I often find that my mixes sound pretty good, but really lack clarity in the upper-mid and high frequencies due to the foldback at Nyquist of all the harmonics of the higher frequencies I boost on vocals, cymbals, etc. What I've done lately is take my recordings in 48/24, mix at 48/24, upconvert my Cubase session to 96 once the mix is approved by the client (if my computer can handle the CPU load from the plugins), and bounce back to 44/24 and 44/16. It works pretty well, clears the nastiness right up. Cubase, like pretty much all DAWs, has a great anti-aliasing filter in their export algorithm, so any random harmonics above 22k get filtered out perfectly. It also automatically resamples the individual audio files in the session when you change the project sample rate, which is a huge time saver.

@youspoontube

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing your expert opinions!

@teamultimateballsofsteel110

2 жыл бұрын

That is very true. And it's pretty much the only problem people will have when mixing at lower sample rates. One thing Graham says in this video is a common misunderstanding of the way conversion works and is very false. That is, if you record with a higher sample rate, you have a higher quality sound because you have more samples and the digital steps are smaller. This is very very wrong !

Coming at this as a words editor, I do know you can kill the original spirit and concept of a piece by over-editing or focusing too much on editing. Editing is essential, but how much to obsess depends a lot on the original. No substitute for having an amazing original piece and keeping the intention of it as intact as you can. The sample rate seems to be a smaller factor in the whole audio process, so I'll take your suggestion, as a beginner (with a good ear), and go with 44.1 to start with. Thanks for the in-depth info, which I found really helpful. Also important to be aware that everything is hidebound by our own ears in the end (and same for every listener).

I TOTALLY AGREE!

Fantastic🤘😝🤘

I'm new to recording digital audio but I come to it with experience in digital photography where higher resolution and color depth are important if you're going to manipulate the image. Stretching the final gradation in a photo introduces color banding, and enlarging the photo excessively reduces image clarity. No one argues against that. When we apply equalization, compression and other filters to an audio file the digital info gets stretched to the point that artifacts are introduced. If we start with at least double the sample rate that we need in the finished product it can tolerate some stretching. If we start with even more than we need it can tolerate when more manipulation. Weather we have higher than necessary bit depth or sample rates there will be fewer artifacts introduced with filters and affects since we have more data to take samples from instead of relying solely on interpolation to make up for missing data. I think it would make sense to record at the highest depth and rate your hardware can handle, run your filters and affects, and then sample down the file to what you need for distribution.

9:04 damn reality hit me hard

For a while I've been happily settled at 44.1khz with 24-bit. Senseless to go beyond 44.1 in 95% situations. Especially for rock, pop etc. etc. But if I some day have a project that requires the absolute lowest latency possible and/or highest detail (say jazz, classical or field recording), I might go 192khz on that.

When it comes to synthesizer design I start and 3/2 ratio or preferably 88200SR. The quality is sooooo much better but more cpu stringent. A lot of people don't realise even though their DAW is running at 44.1 a lot of their tools are not.

The part you're missing is what you just explained is that recording are captured more accurate at higher rates. You don't lose that when downsampling from 88.2 to 44.1 if using a conversion tool like Ozone.