Preferred Sample Rate for recording.

[EMRR]

88K2 for a decade+ now. With the older PCIe converters it sounds significantly better in the highs than 48K/44K1. Not as much different with the AVB stuff, but still better at higher rates. Cymbals, acoustic stringed instruments. It really depends on the implementation of the AD converter in question.

Apple now wants 96K/24 submissions for MFIT, as do all of the 'hi-res' purchase and stream providers. I agree with their position that there are benefits that survive sample rate conversion which you don't get recording at 44K1. Many plug-ins are reported to sound better at higher rates, as does any internal mixing.

Classical recordists are virtually all working at 96K and higher, and phase linearity is part of that, which affects the way upper harmonics stack and present. Higher rates move the junk further from the audio band, and the noise shape of dither can be maximized in the inaudible ranges.

If you solely work with VI's, you may not notice much difference.....no AD conversion in your chain. Everything I do is microphones on live sources, with analog mixing, and it's a much bigger issue with the round trip back to analog for mixing.

[Gravity Jim]

I'm with Doug. I track at 96K and mix down to 48 for video game projects, down to CD rates for TV and radio. I can definitely hear the difference through my 896mk3.

Hell, ask my wife. 96K tracking opened up my mixes in a way she can hear, and she's not any kind of audiophile.

[FMiguelez]

I will be convinced about 96 and 192 KHz when someone, anyone, demonstrates there's an audible difference between normal SRs and ultra high ones in a proper blind test.
In the mean time, I will keep regarding it as "magic" and placebo.

Don't forget how those "expert audiophiles" got fooled and embarrassed when it was discovered that those "pristine and amazing-sounding tracks" in their special format they all cheered like sheep, turned out to be IDENTICAL to normal CDs... It was the same file in different media! Tome, cabrón!
(I could look for the test upon request if you're interested... and if I can find it! It was a while ago...)

I keep reading about this stuff, and the only proper tests I've come across show how nobody can tell them apart.

As for "hi-rez" streaming services requiring higher rates, that doesn't mean they do it for us because it's a superior product. They only ASSERT it is without evidence, of course. I think it's more likely, based on the evidence, that at least for delivery, high SRs make no sense, and they just want to secure additional income by praying on the gullible.

Of course they don't mind reselling entire catalogs with these new special "remasters". Ideally, we would also have to buy new equipment and be locked in some kind of "deal" that only empowers big corporations at our expense. MQA anyone?

So, no ABX tests we can all see?

[HCMarkus]

44.1k vs 96k? Maybe when I was 16 years old... but that ship (and those youthful ears) sailed many moons ago. That said, I have to hang around in the area of FM's corner on this one. Perception of sound is always influenced by emotion. So how do we test perception without triggering emotional responses? ABX.

ABX is not a panacea either. Ear fatigue and test subject response error make it almost impossible to get a true read on what people are hearing. The only objective test where one can listen to the difference is the null test, as mentioned earlier in this thread.

But the only truly important test is whether people enjoy listening to the music embodied in the recording, no matter the sample rate!

[mhschmieder]

I'm completely with Doug on this one, and for all the reasons he mentioned. We did exhaustive testing in my company on this before deciding whether to bother going from 48k to 96k on our DSP gear, and pulled in dozens of people from all walks of life (along with doing null tests).

It was a double-blind that lasted for days in a special chamber we built. Everyone was called in twice, at different times of day, and with different play orders (along with some live playing going through converters as well), with only the test management software (vs. the person pushing the buttons) knowing the resulting rates from the randomizer.

Not everyone could say "why", but the rate of conformance of answers was well over 90%, and seemed focused far more on the relaxation and peacefulness at 96k vs. the specifics of frequency range anomalies etc. After careful analysis, the conclusion reached was that people are more sensitive to phase issues than anything else, and problems with phase make us less relaxed (and sound less organic).

Having more samples leads to more continuous vs. more discrete "chunks" of audio -- I've never understood why this is never brought up. I liken it to how much more relaxed we were with old CRT monitors when the refresh rate was higher. But I don't really know where the cutoff is (and whether it would likely be different for each person) for perceiving (at the body level as well) continuity.

I have always been super-sensitive to phase, as a bassist, which is why I could never stomach MP3's (they literally make me nauseous -- well, not always, but certainly poorly converted ones, and I can usually identify telltale artifacts that are fairly specific to MP3's). And as the importance of phase is why I got hired to write a from-scratch software visualization application for the company in the first place, I now have 19 years of reinforcement on that principle, and get won back over every time I have doubt.

Interestingly, our Acoustical Physics specialist (PhD and all that) was the one arguing until he was blue in the face that we never need more than 44.1k and probably even less. Not sure if he still feels that way, but the ivory tower can be a funny place, if not accompanied by real world experience (since remedied, but I'm afraid to ask as it could open a can of worms yet again ).

None of this is particularly important to the OP, and EMRR's post does a better job of summarizing the key points that do matter. This issue is far from settled, regardless of how much people may think otherwise. As a member of AES and someone who used to attend those shows regularly, I can attest to how contentious and polarizing this issue remains amongst equally-qualified trained professionals.

[HCMarkus]

This issue is far from settled, regardless of how much people may think otherwise. As a member of AES and someone who used to attend those shows regularly, I can attest to how contentious and polarizing this issue remains amongst equally-qualified trained professionals.

And there we are. Thanks for your insights MH; much appreciated.

[monkey man]

All this without the aid of the...

MonkeyLabs HairSplitter Pro™

Read about it in the MLI 2018 Q1 Update:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28594&start=2925#p551812

My take:
Some freaks can hear up to and a little beyond 20kHz even as adults. Mark can hear up to 22kHz if memory serves.

The thing is, close to 100% of the population can't.

Call me a fuddy-duddy luddite, but it'll be 44.1/24 for me.

EDIT:
Mark added a post while I was typing. Sorry if mine's redundant.

[EMRR]

The #1 piece of misunderstanding / misinformation is that it's all about dog whistle frequencies older people can't hear.

I'm not gonna bother to go find it, but I have a post here that shows relative frequency and phase response measurements of the older PCIe series along with the AVB 16A at all sample rates. Anyone is free to interpret it however they like!

[eyeteeth]

Don't hate me, but as a fella who's been absent for a long time... and has a slew of 1224s that he's replacing... I'd like to see the post. Sounds like useful info to me that would make me feel better about finally spending a little $$$.

[HCMarkus]

Don't hate me, but as a fella who's been absent for a long time... and has a slew of 1224s that he's replacing... I'd like to see the post. Sounds like useful info to me that would make me feel better about finally spending a little $$$.

Found it:

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=61435&p=522420&hil ... se#p522420

[eyeteeth]

Thanks for looking that up. I did a search on the forum before posing my question to see if it had been discussed previously. I think I saw the WAV vs AIF thread, but didn't read through it not realizing it would cross over into sample rates.

[toddbooster]

I can't believe I'm even wading in on this; I generally try to steer clear of these kinds of discussions. Anyway, I always record at 24/96, and have for a log time as I believed for may years that it was required for the best sound. Now, it appears more and more as that is not the case, yet I persist regardless. Why? Well, it makes me feel good about what I'm doing for one thing. Also, in this day and age of commonly available and obscenely fast 6 and 8 core (and more) CPUs as well as affordable SSDs measured in terabytes, there's so much power and space at my disposal I figure why not?

Of course, I only make music for myself, and my projects don't normally have such high track counts that I'm running up against the limits of performance, so take that with a grain of salt.

[bayswater]

All this without the aid of the...

MonkeyLabs HairSplitter Pro™

Read about it in the MLI 2018 Q1 Update:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=28594&start=2925#p551812

My take:
Some freaks can hear up to and a little beyond 20kHz even as adults. Mark can hear up to 22kHz if memory serves.

The thing is, close to 100% of the population can't.

Call me a fuddy-duddy luddite, but it'll be 44.1/24 for me.

EDIT:
Mark added a post while I was typing. Sorry if mine's redundant.

I tried 384Khz, but people started complaining they could hear it on their AM radios.

[mhschmieder]

I might have mentioned this in another thread way back, but it's not too well-known that as we age, it isn't so much that our upper frequencies roll off as that we lose specific frequencies or ranges.

Each specialized "hair" that is "tuned" to certain frequency ranges and delivers sound to our inner ear, is quite delicate, and they don't all die (or get damaged) at the same time or the same rate (plus some can be damaged early in life, or interact in still-unknown ways with the widespread condition known as tinnitus).

In truth, our hearing has not been studied as deeply as our vision, as it's less "obvious" how it affects our daily living. And as with vision, our left and right ears aren't 100% symmetrical in their reception, as well as shoulder height (and weight, which also affects the former) come into it.

The most research being done in this area, is very recent (since 2000) and mostly spurred by the gaming industry wanting more realism, which has helped fund the field of psychoacoustics.

Anyway, back to the point about frequency sensitivity, my former bandleader (the one who died last year) took some tests and found that he had specific frequencies in the 4k and 8k range that he had permanently lost, but could still hear above 10k and 12k. That was an "ear-opener" for me.

I'm getting close to an age where I'm not sure I should trust my hearing anymore, for professional level mixing and mastering, even though I have no reason to believe my hearing has degraded. But I also haven't taken a test in a couple of years now (it used to be mandated by law, due to my industry).

I can still hear a bit above 20k though. But don't forget, 22k isn't very much above 20k, as it takes a whole 20k more to get an octave above that. People often forget that, even when they are cognizant that it is a logarithmic scale.

[monkey man]

Good points, Mark.

The #1 piece of misunderstanding / misinformation is that it's all about dog whistle frequencies older people can't hear.

I'm not gonna bother to go find it, but I have a post here that shows relative frequency and phase response measurements of the older PCIe series along with the AVB 16A at all sample rates. Anyone is free to interpret it however they like!

I totally hear you(!) Doug.

I'm super-sensitive to phase issues, and I'm guilty of overlooking this when it comes to interface<->SR combinations. I can't hear much above 12kHz anymore so it's easy for me to fall into this trap.