Record in 24 bit with 44.1 OR 88.2 OR 192 ?

PLEASE BAN 42low. Dave.

I have been following this thread for a while now. The biggest thing that may have been overlooked here is how is your audio being consumed. I have listen to some fantastic audio from this community. Some sounded better on headphones and some sounded better on ear buds. 99.9% of consumers do not listen through $20,000 monitors sitting in a blown out treated control room. According to the stats, most music is consumed on smart phones. Regardless of the argument, no member should be subjected to harm or comparisons to death. :(
 
PLEASE BAN 42low.

Dave.

I was quiet already. Said what i had to say.
I think i go make some good music to put it up the forum. :listeningmusic: I won't even log in untill it's finished.
So perhaps wait with that ban for a short while? :o


Now for me it's time to follow up a good advice.

If you don't like the answers then ignore them, ignore the thread, or offer a counter argument.

Have a good day Dave.
 
It's always very amusing watching someone self-combust on an internt forum. hahaha.gif

burningman.jpg


It's funny how the people who DEMAND RESPECT! are the ones who never earn it.


.
 
Last edited:
I have zero idea what was edited at this point, but to refer to clubbing baby seals and to think this adds credence to someone's point of view is a pathetic cry for attention.

It's always amazed me at the bombastic and egotistical rants that someone ensconced in their safe haven thousands of miles from anyone can come up with....! And why? Because of a difference of opinion about the relatively benign subject matter involving CONVERSION RATES in a recording of music????

There's a lot more serious problems in life that deal with situations that threaten peoples abilities to survive in even the most basic ways and THIS becomes a matter of life and death???

Get serious. "Kicking back" is not the solution. Nobody has harmed you in any way. It' a frikin internet discussion forum......!!!!!

If someone disagrees with what you think is right then so be it. Who cares...? Think what you want. Listen to other's opinions. Accept or reject them but do it without rancor or threats and for God's sake stop with the death talk.

It makes you look like the only fool.
 
I have zero idea what was edited at this point, but to refer to clubbing baby seals and to think this adds credence to someone's point of view is a pathetic cry for attention.

I don't think anything was edited by anyone other than the posters themselves.

The "baby seals being beaten to death" stuff was a "low" ;) point stylistically...
...but as a personal attack at me, I found it hilarious, only because it underscores the neurotic mental state of the person making it.
Plus...he just can't get enough of it here, so he's still PMing me! :laughings:

Did you ever watch a spinning top on a table...?...when it starts to run out of rotational momentum, and at first you get the little wobble, then it's like a drunk at 3:00AM and really wobbling...and finally there is that out of control sideways corkscrew wiggle and it flies off the table on its edge and falls to the floor.

Well, there you go.

What's even better is watching it spin, wobble and fly off the table...over and over. :)
 
A "real world" application for recording over 96k is for adjusting tempos to match takes and sampling.

I've been doing this for over 20 years.

There are many better engineers than I who might not record that high and get amazing results. I haven't won a Grammy, but I have recorded Grammy nominated musicians. My clients are mainly classical and jazz and demand the best. There is no way I will record under 96 unless there was no other choice.

Do the best with what you have. If your mics, mic placement, pre's and room aren't "worthy" of 96k... don't worry about it. By the time you have those 4 things under control you'll already be going 94k or above.
 
It's interesting though that most of the iconic Jazz music was recorded to tape and then to vinyl...which doesn't even come close to 48kHz dynamic range or clarity.

As was said a few times earlier...much of it is about client expectations. If they know it can go to "11"...they just want it.
 
This melt-down was amusing, but there was also a lot of solid factual information. I was going to chime in but it appears the debate has died down. I worked for MCI (who manufactured analog tape machines and consoles). Sony bought the company and I was thrusted into the world of digital audio. I was transferred to LA, where I had the opportunity to fixed many "pros" equipment. I worked on the Oxford consoles and countless Sony 48 tracks.

What I learned over the years is there's no correct way to set your sampling rate or bit depth. One of my best clients (and I'm not dropping any names) mixed many Grammy winning recordings in a wide variety of genres. In fact, Waves sells plug ins based on this guy's outboard gear. He has his assistants transfer audio from 24 bit ProTools to a Sony PCM-3348 (16 bit, 48kHz) which he uses for playback when he mixes through a SSL console. The secret sauce is all in the outboard gear he uses, and his ears. The Sony machine had some decent converters but by no means as good as what we have access to today. Personally I use 24bit and just recently started using 48kHz, up from 44.1kHz.
 
Sample rate is dependent on the medium of distribution. If you are recording for music cd, do it at 44.1, if you are recording for video, do it at 48khz. The less conversion your audio has to go through the better. Always record at the highest bit rate.
 
I got three cheap, new digital i/o boxes coming in, and I will have to revisit movin' up from 16/44 for everyday SOP when using a DAW
 
It's interesting though that most of the iconic Jazz music was recorded to tape and then to vinyl...which doesn't even come close to 48kHz dynamic range or clarity.

As was said a few times earlier...much of it is about client expectations. If they know it can go to "11"...they just want it.

Well, the dynamic range you don't need, and to a point, it gets in the way. Bandwidth and harmonic responses is the reason the pros record 96K-192K. Its quite the difference in sound going to 96K. To compare this to tape world, its like going from 1/4 track to full track recording fidelity wise.
 
Bandwidth and harmonic responses is the reason the pros record 96K-192K. Its quite the difference in sound going to 96K.

How...how is it "quite the difference"...?

What harmonic response is needed that only 96k-192k Hz can provide...that you will actually hear?
That greater bandwidth needs to make an obvious difference.


48k Hz provides both the dynamic range, bandwidth and harmonic response that is well beyond the hearing of most people.
Unless you want to talk about some psycho-acoustic "feeling" that is provided by the higher stuff...I'm not seeing much of an argument for it.

Like I said...pros do it because it's expected, that is the limit/state of the art, and the higher numbers are available to them, so clients just want it...and in some ways the pros may even be thinking it's an insurance policy for the future, when some new discovery or invention makes obvious use of all that stuff above 48k Hz.
It's possible...science is always finding new stuff...but for the most part, here we are talking about Rock/Pop music, and the heart of it, IMO, doesn't come anywhere near 96k or above.
The real point is about the obviously discernible net value of the formats used...not some theoretical "what if" and "maybe". :)

So to get back to your tape analogy...some of the most iconic Rock/Pop/Country/Jazz/Rap/etc music was/is made on a medium that falls way short of the dynamic range/response of even 48k digital. Why is it now that we have the higher numbers available to us, suddenly they are *needed* for music to be recorded well and sound well? ;)

I think if they up the numbers 2x, 3x and even 4x higher...people will always chase after them, but to what real benefit?
 
How...how is it "quite the difference"...?

What harmonic response is needed that only 96k-192k Hz can provide...that you will actually hear?
That greater bandwidth needs to make an obvious difference.

Well I hear a major differences when I mix at 96K regardless if I record at my studio, or when I get to mix at a real studio (like Boulevard Recording) for a signed band. Its like a blanket is lifted.

Another thing is (which you home recording guys don't run into) is when I get a 44.1 multi to mix by someone else who tracked it, some converters have a type of pre-emphasis that I have to compensate for compared to a 96K tracks that have been recorded on the same equipment.
So to get back to your tape analogy...some of the most iconic Rock/Pop/Country/Jazz/Rap/etc music was/is made on a medium that falls way short of the dynamic range/response of even 48k digital. Why is it now that we have the higher numbers available to us, suddenly they are *needed* for music to be recorded well and sound well?


Well Digital A/D conversion is still not correct. Because you still have to throw away 50% of the dynamic range just to be at the same level as the rest of us. Think about all this extra processing that has to be done compared to just hitting the tape hot and let the medium reduce the dynamic range.
 
Last edited:
If you actually hear content above 48k...then you're one of the few people that do.

As you brought up...it may be a converter thing, some sound better at certain sampling rates.
I also think that when people speak about mixing...there are way to many factors that can come into play that will affect what we hear and how we hear it.

The simple way to compare is to record the exact same source at 44.1 or 48 and then at 96 or above...and compare them for audible differences doing blind A/B. I don't think you will notice any difference other than what the converter may or may not be adding. I tried it, and there's nothing noticeable between them to make the higher rates worthwhile.

Now when you get to actual mixing, and the adding of plugs and all that, or maybe even outboard processing...the lines become blurry. You're no longer comparing the pure sampling rates.
Just the addition of the plugs can throw all kinds of variables into it...depending on how they were coded and all that.

So with that in mind, anything is possible...but I doubt one can duplicate the same identical mix, once at 44.1/48 and again at 96...and then do a blind A/B to see which is better sounding.
I actually doubt few people have ever done that...rather it's about making assumptions or fueling expectations.
If you believe 96k will sound better....it will.
 
Oh....I'm not debating whether or not you're actually hearing something that makes you react one way or another.
I'm just saying, that when it comes to mixing and mixes, there are way to many variables to say it's all about the higher sampling rate.

Do you often do a mix once at 44.1 or 48...and then repeat the process identically, but with a higher rate...and then compare the two?
 
Man this discussion has been going on a while,

I can understand classical music being recorded at 24bit 96K, as it is usually only a few channels / microphones, and classical music seems to have more air (for want of a better word) to it. However it then is usually mixed down to a CD at 16bit 44.1 anyway. Rock, pop, folk, hip hop etc is well served by 44.1 24 bit, and I don't think that you will hear any difference really. Don't forget that it usually ends up as an mp3 these days. There would be an argument for 24bit 48K for film soundtrack as DVD's play back at this format.

I will say this I did notice when I went form 16 bit to 24bit in the studio more so than worrying about 44.1, 48, 88.2 or 96. I actually have a CD player in the studio that has a 24bit converter, and even though the CD plays from 16 bit there still seems to be a better quality play back with the 24 bit converter?

You know what, all the recordings I mixed to 16bit DAT when it was the best we had sounds fine today. I wonder how much of the 96K and even 192K talk is wank factor.

Alan.
 
I dont mind the ability to technically go beyond the human hearing range in a gearhead way but comparing it and blind shoots is another thing.

As stated above, theres been a lot of classic albums done on stuff far below the technically perfect, which means 16/44.1 is probably not the reason something sounds bad. The other interesting comment made is the reference to Classical and a fewer mics maybe using higher rates(and memory) and air!......... and then the comparison of Classical to compressed, squashed, "dirt" Pop/Rock/ Metal/Country/R&B not having the same "air" as Classical but not mud either..

Today, Im thinking the players make a larger difference, mp3, FLAC, wave, WindowsMediaPlayer vs GooglePlayer vs SoundCloudPlayer.....the biggest noticeable downgrade I hear these days are different players. In some ways I wish everything would just stay in Waves and skip the MP3 thing just avoid the conversion or whatever its called. But it is kind of tied to the "WHY" record in 24/96k? if MP3 is the end product?
 
If you can't make one of the greatest, most celebrated by the audiophile community, best-sounding, most natural, most awe-inspiring and life-changing recordings of all time at 44.1kHz, raising the sample rate isn't really going to change that.

I pretty much agree.

Recipe for a Platinum selling recording

1. Content...The song, the melody , the lyrics
2. capturing as flawless as possible performances of all parts.
3. Decent quality Microphones
4. A Decent entry level interface
5. A brilliant mixing and mastering of the recorded content

It's absolutely a good question to ask when your learning how to record tunes but in the big picture, the level of priority of things to be worried about ...if you're at 24 bit and 44.1 or 48K or more you have much more important fish to fry..

Content and then the performance thereof are the foundation upon which a great recording have a rats ass of a chance of being successful...all the rest is fluff and starch.
 
In Formula 1 racing, huge amounts are invested in research, design and testing to make cars go a few tenths of a second faster. That's not much of an improvement, but in F1 racing it is worth it because there is so much at stake.

But that advantage can only be realised if the driver (and the team) is capable of making use of it. All the refinement in the world will not help if everything else is not geared towards it. One fluffed pit-stop trashes the benefit.

So, as TAE above and others have said, unless you have optimised every other part of your system, then any notional advantage that 96 or higher might give is purely academic. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that any home recorder has as much at stake as an F1 driver.

Furthermore, when an F1 team introduces an improvement, they go through a huge amount of testing to make sure it is an improvement. They don't assume it will be an improvement, and they don't base their assessment on personal opinion, anecdotes or subjective feelings.

I'm quite happy for someone to say they can hear a difference (or whatever other benefit they describe), but I'm not going to take that as advice or give it any credence unless it has the backing of a body of credible evidence.
 
The other point with the F1 analogy is that there is a clear winner at the end of each race, and all kinds of active measurements during the race to demonstrate what the new design changes/improvements were doing.
The results are the hard evidence.

With recording and sampling rates...it always comes down to someone's personal impression based on what/how they hear something, often from a biased (even if usually unintentional) perspective....which then leaves a lot of room for subjective speculation about what exactly sounded "better".
 
Back
Top