Sample/Bit-Rate Questions.......

S

Sinistah

Plutonium Bundle Advocate
ok, ok, it's me again, King Newb of the Lost Nation Of Newbs :confused:

i hate numbers beyond money and statistics, therefore i have been ignoring a few things that seem to be a key part of recording on a DAW, such as sample/bit rates.........

i honestly don't remember which rate i use to record, mix, or nothing.....

so what is a standard setting of rates for recording/mixing in todays world of audio weaponry

is a lower rate better? worse?

is the higher the better? worse?

i need some clarity on this, thanks in advance.
 
The stock answer is "it depends" (etc.).

But you can hardly go wrong recording at the target rate (44.1k for audio, 48k for video delivery) and in 24-bit (bit depth -- not bit-rate -- completely different thing).
 
To expand on this, CD audio is done at 44.1 khz sample rate with a bit depth of 16. DVD audio is done in 48 khz/24 bit rate. The higher the sample rate, the greater the frequency response that can be captured accurately...if you cut the sample rate in half you get roughly the top frequency that can be converted. If you are recording high frequency (cymbals, violin, high guitar notes, etc), a higher sample rate will help some. The bit depth determines the maximum volume vs min volume (dynamic range). If you notice when watching DVD or when you go to the theater there is a much greater range between quiet parts and the loud action scenes, hence greater dynamic range.

CDs seem to be the standard for audio at the present, although there is a demand for the greater quality offered by DVD and SACD with the greater dynamic ranges. I believe the (moving machinery type of audio will go away in the near future due to the lower cost of solid state products. For now, for your standard stereo music production 44.1/16 should suffice.
 
Massive Master said:
The stock answer is "it depends" (etc.).

But you can hardly go wrong recording at the target rate (44.1k for audio, 48k for video delivery) and in 24-bit (bit depth -- not bit-rate -- completely different thing).
Click to expand...
lmaoo, that good ol stock answer, i swear.......

yeah and see the whole bit-rate, bit-depth thing has me confused.....

i've seen the 44.k-24 thing before, but i always ignored these settings, i'll assume most of it is already defaulted for novice use amongst plug-ins and etc... i have an analog strip and converter for it that has the different settings, so i just want to make sure i'm going about this the right way for my next song....

if i start with the 44.1k with the 24bit depth, will it still have to be downsampled to a 16bit depth rate for mixdowns and CD conversion?

can i start off higher than a 44.1k being that my A/D converter allows me to go higher? or is there anywhere that explains the whole sampling process in-depth, google ain't pointin me in the right direction......
 
Sinistah said:
if i start with the 44.1k with the 24bit depth, will it still have to be downsampled to a 16bit depth rate for mixdowns and CD conversion?
Click to expand...

yes. and do a google/forum search on Dither and what it is.

can i start off higher than a 44.1k being that my A/D converter allows me to go higher? or is there anywhere that explains the whole sampling process in-depth, google ain't pointin me in the right direction......
Click to expand...

you can but there are downsides. one of them being it requires more processing power from your computer and more hard drive space to store the extra information. This also leads to plugins needing to do more work. Your computer may start to slow down the more plugins and more tracks you have.
Of course, most agree that just using a 48kHz maximum setting is more than fine for most music. Many argue there is very little difference between it and such an extreme setting such as 192kHz. But there are several discussions about this.
 
Soundmind?? said:
To expand on this, CD audio is done at 44.1 khz sample rate with a bit depth of 16. DVD audio is done in 48 khz/24 bit rate. The higher the sample rate, the greater the frequency response that can be captured accurately...if you cut the sample rate in half you get roughly the top frequency that can be converted. If you are recording high frequency (cymbals, violin, high guitar notes, etc), a higher sample rate will help some. The bit depth determines the maximum volume vs min volume (dynamic range). If you notice when watching DVD or when you go to the theater there is a much greater range between quiet parts and the loud action scenes, hence greater dynamic range.

CDs seem to be the standard for audio at the present, although there is a demand for the greater quality offered by DVD and SACD with the greater dynamic ranges. I believe the (moving machinery type of audio will go away in the near future due to the lower cost of solid state products. For now, for your standard stereo music production 44.1/16 should suffice.
Click to expand...
understandable, enough, so in theory, is it ok to record at a higher rate and then downsample to the 44.1/16 once the file is being saved and get good results?
 
bennychico11 said:
yes. and do a google/forum search on Dither and what it is.



you can but there are downsides. one of them being it requires more processing power from your computer and more hard drive space to store the extra information. This also leads to plugins needing to do more work. Your computer may start to slow down the more plugins and more tracks you have.
Of course, most agree that just using a 48kHz maximum setting is more than fine for most music. Many argue there is very little difference between it and such an extreme setting such as 192kHz. But there are several discussions about this.
Click to expand...
yeah i heard that it's no real major difference either, i just wanted to know a few pro's and con's of it...... but since you mentioned Dithering, when is it generally applied, i see it on alot of my plug-ins, but i was once told that it should only be used after everything is mixed and ready to be saved to PC.......
 
dithering is the last thing you do before the burn... and all bullshit aside there are some reasons to go faster and deeper than 44.1/16....
 
Sinistah said:
understandable, enough, so in theory, is it ok to record at a higher rate and then downsample to the 44.1/16 once the file is being saved and get good results?
Click to expand...


yes, you'll be fine.


just don't worry too much about it. Pick a sample rate and bit depth that you think would be good for you to work at and that your computer can handle if you ended up with 32+ tracks and several plugins. Then just forget about it after you set it. The sample rate and bit depth that you set it at is not going to all of a sudden make your recordings a better quality. As long as your minimum is set to the CD standard of 44.1/16 bit everything else in your recording process (mics, converters, plugins, mic placement, speakers, room treatment, YOUR ears) matters a hundred times more.
 
Sample rate and bit depth capability keep improving as technology advances, obviously. The question is whether it will be of any benefit. I have read that even multiples of 44.1 is best if you plan on burning a CD, that it would downconvert better, but with the dithering offered today, I'm not sure there would be any noticeable difference to the average audio listener, if at all. Sampling simply slices pieces of the audio signal, thus the higher the rate, the thinner the slices. The thinner the slices make the digital reproduction of the audio wave more accurate. As I said earlier, the bit depth rate determines the dynamic range, the greater the depth, the greater the range. Since humans can only hear from about 20 Hz to 17-18000 Hz, there is little benefit in recording at rates well beyond the hearing range. One argument is that since harmonics affect the sound, the ability to capture them will improve the quality. It is doubtful that there is enough benefit in using the higher rates to justify the cost of storage and computers that can handle the processing, especially if you will be burning a CD.

Bit depth is another thing, the greater the bit depth, the less likely clipping (that horrible crackling sound when you have the gain too high and you peg the meters) will occur when tracking, adding effects, etc. Most good software allows 32 bit internal processing to give more of this "headroom".
There again, dithering will be needed to reduce it back to 16 bit for CD.

If storage capacity and processing ability is not limited, use the highest rates available for whatever technology lies ahead. For symphony, accoustic guitars, pianos, etc, I would think that 48/24 would be a good idea with the added dynamic range. You will better able to hear the difference in quiet passages and loud ones if nothing else.
 
Soundmind?? said:
Sample rate and bit depth capability keep improving as technology advances, obviously. The question is whether it will be of any benefit. I have read that even multiples of 44.1 is best if you plan on burning a CD, that it would downconvert better, but with the dithering offered today, I'm not sure there would be any noticeable difference to the average audio listener, if at all. Sampling simply slices pieces of the audio signal, thus the higher the rate, the thinner the slices. The thinner the slices make the digital reproduction of the audio wave more accurate. As I said earlier, the bit depth rate determines the dynamic range, the greater the depth, the greater the range. Since humans can only hear from about 20 Hz to 17-18000 Hz, there is little benefit in recording at rates well beyond the hearing range. One argument is that since harmonics affect the sound, the ability to capture them will improve the quality. It is doubtful that there is enough benefit in using the higher rates to justify the cost of storage and computers that can handle the processing, especially if you will be burning a CD.

Bit depth is another thing, the greater the bit depth, the less likely clipping (that horrible crackling sound when you have the gain too high and you peg the meters) will occur when tracking, adding effects, etc. Most good software allows 32 bit internal processing to give more of this "headroom".
There again, dithering will be needed to reduce it back to 16 bit for CD.

If storage capacity and processing ability is not limited, use the highest rates available for whatever technology lies ahead. For symphony, accoustic guitars, pianos, etc, I would think that 48/24 would be a good idea with the added dynamic range. You will better able to hear the difference in quiet passages and loud ones if nothing else.
Click to expand...

hmm interesting, i dithered down to the 44.1/16 and saved it to an MP3 format and it almost sounds identical to the wave file i have saved of the same track except you can hear the loss in some of the high-end frequencies more notably.

and i say that because the only thing apparent to me is that the "crispness" took a slight downside, now keep in mind i don't have any pro-monitoring, just the default Harmon/Kardon speakers this damn Dell came with and a few reference tracks.....

is that a good thing?
 
Sinistah said:
hmm interesting, i dithered down to the 44.1/16 and saved it to an MP3 format and it almost sounds identical to the wave file i have saved of the same track except you can hear the loss in some of the high-end frequencies more notably.
Click to expand...

I think the noteable loss of high frequencies is due to the MP3 compression, I can hear the difference when ripping CDs to 128k but at about 256k my ears are not sensitive enough to hear the difference.

I would dither down to 44.1/16 and save it as a .wav, then compare it to the original .wav for a more accurate representation. I think music recorded at any setting is destroyed by 128k MP3, and some would argue there's no good MP3 sample rate.

:)
 
fatstrat said:
I think the noteable loss of high frequencies is due to the MP3 compression, I can hear the difference when ripping CDs to 128k but at about 256k my ears are not sensitive enough to hear the difference.

I would dither down to 44.1/16 and save it as a .wav, then compare it to the original .wav for a more accurate representation. I think music recorded at any setting is destroyed by 128k MP3, and some would argue there's no good MP3 sample rate.

:)
Click to expand...
thats what i'll try when i get home, i never thought to compare the wave file pre and post dither, i can say that the dithered MP3 sounds identical to the dithered Wav, i'll compare the unaltered Wav mixdown with the dithered one to see whats up with it.....

is there anything i should be paying particular attention to while doing this?
 
Dithering and MP3 compression standardized?

OK ... in line with this discussion. I have wondered if the devices/applications that are used to go from 24-bit to 16-bit audio are based on a standard dithering algoritm, or is each device/application working with its own proprietary algorithm? Same deal with conversion from 16-bit WAV to MP3 -- is a standard compression algorithm used? I ask because when going in the opposite direction (128kbs MP3s to audio CD) I get different results from different software (Windoze Media Player and Yahoo Jukebox).

Tom
 
Oancient1 said:
OK ... in line with this discussion. I have wondered if the devices/applications that are used to go from 24-bit to 16-bit audio are based on a standard dithering algoritm, or is each device/application working with its own proprietary algorithm? Same deal with conversion from 16-bit WAV to MP3 -- is a standard compression algorithm used? I ask because when going in the opposite direction (128kbs MP3s to audio CD) I get different results from different software (Windoze Media Player and Yahoo Jukebox).

Tom
Click to expand...


there's no standard. Each company offers their own flavor. There's actually a listening test on the web somewhere to compare different dither algorithms. As far as MP3 goes...the "real" MP3 codec is the Fraunhofer IIS codec as they are the company that created the MP3. But there IS many different techniques of encoding MP3s...done by many different companies. Not all use the Fraunhofer method. However, as far as decoding goes, there is a defined set standard.
 
The only real way to compare them would be to compare the original wave file as recorded with the MP3 through a system capable of playing both without degrading the quality, ie. a studio or at least high quality stereo system. Computer monitors, or any other inexpensive audio setup will not give a realistic comparison.
 
Soundmind?? said:
The only real way to compare them would be to compare the original wave file as recorded with the MP3 through a system capable of playing both without degrading the quality, ie. a studio or at least high quality stereo system. Computer monitors, or any other inexpensive audio setup will not give a realistic comparison.
Click to expand...
yeah i kinda figured that, but hey i gotta use what i got for the time being, i'm actually tryin to invest in some decent priced monitors, i also need some damn tracking headphones too so i can start recordin again, i hate doin it without em.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top