24bit - 48khz vs. 24bit - 96khz

  • Thread starter Thread starter CarcPazu
  • Start date Start date
C

CarcPazu

New member
Here's some question, if it's already been discuss, could someone point me at the right page, I don't really know what to search for to find a thread answering this.

1-With the right gear, am I supposed to hear the difference between a 24bit - 48khz recording versus a 24bit - 96khz?

Someone I know wich seems to know what he's talking about said clearly that 24/96 is just a marketing gimmick and no one on earth can hear that far.
So he told me that I would hear a difference between 16bit and 24bit, but that I wouldn't hear shit from 48khz to 96khz... and that I would only take more hard disk space for nothing.
I'd like to have many opinions about this.

I'm asking this because I'm messing around with a music project that will be out only on DVD so if I can get the best out of it I'd like to go with 24bit - 96khz.

2- As we speak, to record the guitar I'm using a Pod (first version) with M-Box on Pro Tools at 24/48. Would it be better to keep it that way or to invest in a box that do 24/96 with my pod, or get a PodXT wich output 24/96 right off the USB port? I'm wondering if the 24/96 encoder in the pod is as good as some USB box...

I don't know if I explain this well, I don't write technical stuff very well in english. If it's not clear, I can try to rephrase that.
 
My 2 cents:

Some people say even 24 bit is a bit of a waste of time...let alone hz

I reckon you'd be hard pressed to consistently pick a 24/96 from a 24/48 recording.

Does that tell you anything? I dunno.
 
1.- I agree with your friend. I do believe there's a noticeable difference recording at 24 bit over 16 but not at a sampling rate higher than 48.

2.- I'd stick with 24-48.
 
wooo

I read half of the thread and now I got an headache!
I'm not sure it answer my question, but now I'm scared to ask questions, since I'm officially an stupid newbie... hehe ;-)

I think i'll fuck up my future and record at 24/48, but anyway, no studio will ever buy my shit either way! haha
 
I hear a difference between 24 and 16 bits - at least with the stuff I record... a difference in clarity and richness of detail. I'm not sure I hear any difference when switching from 41.1 to 96 kHz sample rate though. Don't use 48 kHz myself.

IME a converter's sound quality isn't just a matter of its wordlenth and sample rate...
My best converters sound noticeably better even when set to 16 bits than my 2nd best unit sounds at 24. So it probably wouldn't matter all that much whether I used 16/41 or whatever compared to the other aspects of converter quality.

And the general quality level of the other front end gear adds up to a greater effect on sound quality than just the converters. And even all that matters less than the quality of the room I record in.

Best of luck with your buying. :)

Tim
 
CarcPazu said:
1-With the right gear, am I supposed to hear the difference between a 24bit - 48khz recording versus a 24bit - 96khz?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with your statement:

1-With the right gear
Click to expand...

What's the right gear? Let's say you had excellent A/D/A conversion, at either rate, and excellent monitors and monitoring environment. Could you hear a difference? I don't know, I don't have all of those things :(

If you can record with your current resources at 24/96, go ahead, not much harm in doing so. If you can't, don't worry about it.
 
I'm a big fan of recording at the target rate - The audible difference between 44.1 and 48kHz is subtle at best - The difference between a 44.1kHz file and a 48kHz that was coverted to 44.1kHz can be... less than subtle...

Rule of thumb - If it's going to stay "in the box" or if you're working with less than amazingly good SRC, stay at the target rate. Some of the best minds in digital audio (Dan Lavry comes to mind) feel that 44.1kHz is more than adequate in the first place.
 
mshilarious said:
Here's the problem with your statement:

What's the right gear? Let's say you had excellent A/D/A conversion, at either rate, and excellent monitors and monitoring environment. Could you hear a difference? I don't know, I don't have all of those things :(

If you can record with your current resources at 24/96, go ahead, not much harm in doing so. If you can't, don't worry about it.
Click to expand...

Note that I didn't said perfect gear! hehe
I was specifying "right gear" to avoid someone saying "it all depends what gear you're using". Apparently it triggered some confusion anyway hehe

And I don't have any of those things also, but it doesn't make me unhappy.

Anyway, the perfect gear is only a matter of point view (or point of hearing).

The more I read about my gear the more I get scared to work on my project for a very bad result. But on the other hand, If I want something decent, I would need to throw at least 3000$ at the problem...

I'm so affraid to invest an make a mistake.
 
Massive Master said:
Rule of thumb - If it's going to stay "in the box" or if you're working with less than amazingly good SRC, stay at the target rate. Some of the best minds in digital audio (Dan Lavry comes to mind) feel that 44.1kHz is more than adequate in the first place.
Click to expand...

My target is doing one 60 minutes experimental Death Metal song mixed in 5.1 on DVD only. That's basicaly why I'm asking questions about 24/96.
I'm basicaly doing this for fun, an experimenting with recording, I already have a career so I don't expect to sell anything. I guess I just want to impress my friends... hehe ;-)

But I red somewhere that even if I record at 24/96, when I'm going to encode in Dolby Digital, the encoder will downsample the 2 rear speakers at 24/48... anyone can comfirm that?
 
this question has been posted so many times im sick
when will there be 64bit/384khz
 
tubesrawsom said:
this question has been posted so many times im sick
when will there be 64bit/384khz
Click to expand...

Dude, then don't read the thread. This is a hot debate right up to the top of the profession. Gotta figure its going to get talked about a bit...

Professional consensus on the part of the people who are designing the hardware seems to be that the quality of your your convertors matters MUCH more than your sample rate. Killer 16/44.1 converters will sound better than budget 24/96 converters.

Seems to me that a home recordist is best served by getting low sample rate equipment s/he can. Getting a hi-def device that will make a notieceable difference is a lot more expensive, and usually your room, mics, skills, etc. aren't up to the task of sounding that much better anyway.

At the pro-sumer level, high samplerate recording seems like a way to sell more hardware to me, more than a way to actually acheive better quality recordings. Use your ears- if YOU can't hear the difference, don't shell out for the expensive stuff, yet.

If you REALLY want to understand what's going on in digital audio, how it works, when sample rate matters and why- check out this book. Its a bit thick, but its the most readable and clear explanation of HOW digital recording actually works that your are going to find anywhere.

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/NikaBook/

Take care,
-C
 
tubesrawsom said:
this question has been posted so many times im sick
when will there be 64bit/384khz
Click to expand...

Like the one before said, don't read it if you're sick of this debate.

For now, high bit/sample rate and surround sound is a debate for a bunch of reason ;

1- Most people aren't equipped to do it, or not equipped to do it professionnaly.

2- Most sound engineers are scared as hell of mixing in 5.1 at high res for some reasons.
It's obvious that mixing in 5.1 will require some artistic judgement, than the artist will need to be involved at most levels. Instead of now letting all of this into the hand of the over-technical engineer who love to remove the artist out of the loop.

3- For now people who are open minded about all this aren't very good at it, in a near future it will be standard and the amateurs will be masters. And record at lower res and in stereo will be seen as old-school and primitives projects.
 
i agree w/ you guys completely
i was just making a statement.
 
There is a big difference between 16 bit and 24 bit audio-------for 16 bit audio the voltage resolution of the signal is divided up into full scale/2^16 steps whereas a 24 bit system is divided in full scale/2^24 steps. For pro audio 24 bit is mandatory or you're not truly reproducing the analogue signal...........

.As far as sampling rate: Nyquist theory says sampling rate must be at least 2 times the highest frequency or aliasing will occur. so if your highest frequency is 20 kHz than 40 Khz sampling is mandatory for correct reproduction.......Don't mistake this theory for "well you can't hear up to 96 kHz anyway".....If their is harmonic content in the music above 24 Khz then 48 Khz sampling rate can cause errors in the reproduction. While this content is usually minimal it can make a difference on the "oscilliscope level". Therefore it is affecting the sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top