Hi,
first of all a happy new year to all you Ambient Onliners :thumbsup:.
My question(s): I have a mobile field recorder capable of recording up to 192khz/24 bit. So far I've recorded everything at 44.1khz/24bit. But I recently read that if you record at higher sample rate, you'll have better results / less artifacts when you do time stretchs, tempo changes, pitch shifts, etc.
So would I benefit from recording my field recordings at 88,2khz / 176,4 khz (hard disk space is not a problem) ? Did anyone try that ? And what were your results ?
I made a first try and found out that you'll also have to work in a higher sample rate in your DAW (in my case Reaper), otherwise it simply resamples the WAV file when you import it, and I guess that would make you lose all the benefits.
I'd be grateful for your experiences in this domain.
first of all a happy new year to all you Ambient Onliners :thumbsup:.
My question(s): I have a mobile field recorder capable of recording up to 192khz/24 bit. So far I've recorded everything at 44.1khz/24bit. But I recently read that if you record at higher sample rate, you'll have better results / less artifacts when you do time stretchs, tempo changes, pitch shifts, etc.
So would I benefit from recording my field recordings at 88,2khz / 176,4 khz (hard disk space is not a problem) ? Did anyone try that ? And what were your results ?
I made a first try and found out that you'll also have to work in a higher sample rate in your DAW (in my case Reaper), otherwise it simply resamples the WAV file when you import it, and I guess that would make you lose all the benefits.
I'd be grateful for your experiences in this domain.
Comment