44.1kHz, 48kHz, and 96kHz?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Track Rat
  • Start date Start date
Thanks again, Ed!
I hope i'm not going to far here but, what kind of difference would using simulating tape compression like DBX Type IV soft-knee limiting do to this scenario?
 
Hey people, I really liked this topic, mainly the "lessons" given by sonusman.
Ed, I liked the articles at www.digido.com, but I found them really deep in technical issues. Do you know where I can find information to improve my knowledge in every aspect of computer recording, but not at the level of being a pro?
 
Yeah Kinsley, this site is full of very good information if you have the time to wade through it all. I have passed on some usefull stuff in my 1200 posts.... :)

But really, the main page, www.homerecording.com has some really good, easy to follow, no nonsense articles that explain recording in very simple terms. Check it out.

Ummmmm, just one little comment though. Bob Katz over there was simplifying many very complex issues about digital processing in his articles. I found some stuff he wrote in some other BBS that made those articles look like 1st grade reading in comparison. It would pay to get up on recording lingo, and digital terms and what not if you are having a hard time with those articles, because they are almost as simple as you can get on those topics. It is no easy thing trying to learn about recording. There is a lifetime of learning if you want to understand it and get good at it.

Ed

Ed
 
Is there any value in upsampling tracks that are originally recorded in 16bit/44.1kHz to a higher bit/freq such as 24/96 and processing your audio data there then dithering them down again for a final mixdown/master.

The reason I ask this question is that alot of material on the net or on sample CDs are in this format to begin with?
 
96 probably won't make a huge difference either way. Converting to 24-bit may or may not help. If you're going to be multi-tracking with lots of volume changs, panning, and DSP effects... then you'll probably get some benefit. If you're just putting a final touch on a stereo recording, it probably won't be worth the conversions.

You could always do it both ways and A/B the results, unless drive space is a huge issue.

[I'm blaming my keyboard]

[This message has been edited by pglewis (edited 06-14-2000).]
 
Sonusman, do you have any references that explain how the high frequencies that we can't hear affect the lower frequencies that we do hear? I checked out www.digido.com for an answer (primarily for the 96 KHz sampling vs. lesser rates question) but came away with distortion being spread over more bandwidth. This doesn't sound exactly like what you were talking about. Thanks.



[This message has been edited by Ron Galicia (edited 06-15-2000).]
 
Opinions are across the board on this issue. You can find a really easy to follow discussion at <http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm>.

One quoted section here:

Because I do all my recording on computers with sequencers, 24 bit files seem easier to work with. They have more headroom for tweaking. One can record with less compression. Once inside the sequencer, audio files may be converted to 32 bit for processing and converted back to 24 or 16 on the way out. My advice is to record at 24 bits/44.1 at minimum and go up to a sample rate of 88.2 or 96 if you think your material warrants it (and you have the disk space.
Click to expand...


Another opinion, for what it's worth.
 
i like the original nintendo the most... 8 bit rules (it was 8 bit wasn't it?)

If it;s good enough for mario it is good enough for you!
 
How many pages do you have to go through to find a thread from 6 years ago? Without finding the 20 threads on the same subject that are only a couple months old.
 
I think I heard somewhere that having higher resolution improves the accuracy of certain effects, e.g. reverb, because the algorithms for more data to work with and analyze. The effects are better even when you downsample. Is this an urban myth? :confused:
 
zenpicker said:
I think I heard somewhere that having higher resolution improves the accuracy of certain effects, e.g. reverb, because the algorithms for more data to work with and analyze. The effects are better even when you downsample. Is this an urban myth? :confused:
Click to expand...
No, it isn't an urban myth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top