Q: Some friends of mine recorded at a Pro Tools HD studio recently. The studio selected a lower sample rate along w/ using a lot of compression. Why the lower sample rate? Is this common to do?

A: The Short answer is,  to save space and to allow for more DSP processing. The higher sampling rates require twice as much hard drive space, and twice as much CPU processing power.

The Long answer is, it depends.  I’ve run sessions at recording studios  before and I’ve set the Sample Rate to 48k so that when it comes to mixing, I’ll have the ability to apply more plug-in processing. Larger Sample rates may technically sound better, but even with some of today’s best computers, its easy to run out of DSP at the higher sample rates.  Most of the work I do is at 48k.  Deliverables for Television and Motion Picture broadcast are all at 48k. CD’s are all at 44.1k 16 bit.  Mp3s further reduce the amount of info in the audio that is retained.

So the advantages of the higher sample rate for most of today’s work are really limited to the environment its recorded in.  It’s also unclear at this time who can really tell a difference.   There is a much greater jump in quality and dynamics going from 16 bit to 24 bit. That is easy to hear and was a major improvement in digital recording.  But the Jump from 48k to 96k, or even 192k seems to yielded much less of a qualitative improvement.   So to get back to the question, my guess is they felt that 48k or 44.1k would provide them with more DSP for mixing in Pro Tools.  Without talking to the engineer its only a guess.

Another reason is that it takes up half the space on a hard drive. But I do think that for modern rock or electronic music, the lower sampling rate is fine. Just because the rate is lower does not mean quality will suffer. Many many recordings are all done at the lower rates, and the end listener would never know the difference. Good engineering can easily transcend any sample rate.