Should i record at 44.1 or 48

I've read a lot on that topic, and i'm even more confuse. I hope someone here can help me If the final master i must provide is 44,1 24bit does have any sense to make the production, the mixing and the mastering at 48khz then convert to 44,1? I mean quality wise what do you suggest? To work 48khz than convert it or stick at 44,1?

Of course 48kHz is a much better option especially when it comes to anti-aliasing filter. But choosing between My 2 cents anyway. The main argument is that processing at higher sample rates can reduce aliasing.

Some converters may also perform better at higher rates. While this was certainly true in the past, the development and improvement of oversampling in digital processors and also in converter design makes the benefits less clear these days.

It will depend on your particular processors and converters and only a test of your system will reveal whether higher rates yield better results for you.

So in simple terms: 1 Do your particular processors sound better at Processing aside, I think Greg Reierson. Try it. I'll be you can't hear a difference in a blind test. Well, unless your converters perform drastically differently at different rates - which is just a sign of broken equipment, not sampling rate superiority. Somewhere between dither and speaker cables. Hope I don't break the internet I record and mix at 48k, then convert to whatever delivery formats at the very end of mastering.

Keeping the anti-aliasing filter further above the audible band while tracking, mixing, processing gets a slightly smoother, more natural sound.

At least it did the last time I checked. I came to this workflow years ago after some experimentation. It's possible that things may have changed since then but I kind of doubt it because that filter is still there CDs are Thank you very much for the replies.

My doubt is if the downsampling is always preferable instead to have a lower nyquist level. Even the most experienced industry professionals can't really tell the difference.

It's therefore pretty insignificant as to which one you choose, but recording at a higher sampling rate could be more expensive. If you are not sure of other rates, then you may want to try recording your live performances at Through this method, you can choose which among the two would be able to reproduce your music sounds the way you want them to sound.

It's probably just better to use the cheaper option, or the one that you can record in without incurring any further expense. Especially when considering live performances, recording can be pretty expensive so it's best to just do the one that you can do easily, especially if no one can really tell the difference anyway.

If you have plans of converting, you may want to use This is because at The accepted rule of thumb in the recording industry is that you should record at twice the frequency rate of the frequencies that you want to capture. Therefore, if you're recording frequencies of roughly 20 kHz which is the accepted limit of human hearing , then Converting to 8.

Want to become a successful recording-artist? There were a few artists who have recommended recording at And then downsizing using Apparently, the process had successful results for them.

Nevertheless upsizing from The key thing to note here is that the original recording at 88 kHz is likely to be very expensive and require specialist equipment that you wouldn't normally find in an everyday recording studio. If your finished product is going to be at a lower frequency rate anyway then its probably completely unnecessary to incur the expense of recording at a higher frequency rate, especially if the final track won't use this frequency rate anyway.

This is one advantage of 48kHz over the To experts, they can notice the minor degradation of the sound when using However, to ordinary listeners, the difference can be imperceptible.

However, if 48 kHz has a larger file size, this can be to the detriment of some listeners who have limited space on their devices, or people who are streaming and must therefore download more data. Similarly, the slight difference in file size, when added up, for example, over a complete CD, can make a big difference and could be the difference between having an extra track on your CD or not. Of course, these are all experiences of users and there are no extensive studies to prove these claims.

But, you can learn from them anyhow. You can use these experiences as bases for your own experiments. You will have to do your own experiments and observe what works best for you. The best thing to do is to try out both frequencies, record at both You can then add your own opinions to those already talked about here and use them to inform you when you are making your decision of what sampling rate to record in.

Ready to record your song? You have to be bold enough to discover which one would work with your preferences. When doing this, be sure to record your findings for other musicians to refer to later on. When in doubt, use the higher sampling rate to prevent aliasing from occurring.

Aliasing occurs when different signals cannot be distinguished. This is the distortion of the original audio to produce something different. You can avoid this by using anti-aliasing filters. Do you want to be a famous singer? According to the Audio Engineering Society , for transmission-related applications, the 32kHz is recommended for anti-aliasing filtering; for higher bandwidths - 96kHz; its most recommended sampling rates for most applications is 48kHz.

However, it recommends for Compact Discs CDs - At this sampling rate, you could reconstruct frequencies up to 22kHz. Musicians can work with many frames as well, when using 48kHz. The 48kHz is the standard sampling rate used by most equipment. You can record using vision mixers, tape recorders and videos.

For this reason, there is the potential for there to be a slight difference between a recording made at I recommend that you record with a sample rate of 48kHz.

I recommend that you then bounce down to Recording at 48kHz enables you to record everything within the range of human hearing while leaving ample room for the anti-aliasing filter. In fact, there are some that believe that very high sample rates may actually make your music sound worse. Bouncing your final mastered track to release at What sample rates do you like to work with for your recording and bounces?

Leave your feedback in the comments below. We will use the email address you provide to send you free downloadable guides, notifications of our latest blog posts, general updates and offers on our products and services.

If you are happy to receive these types of emails, please confirm here:. We treat your information with respect. You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in the footer of any mailing list email you receive from us, or by contacting alex mixinglessons.

You can find more information on our privacy practices at www. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. Your email address will not be published.