96K/24 bits - Aardvark Q10

[jdier]

I have been recording at 44.1/16 and now that I have the new aardvark drivers and everything seems to be running much better I wanted to try out (at a minimum) changing bit depth to 24 and possibly moving sampling rate up to 96K.

First question: The sampling change is done in Aardvark AND Sonar, Right?

Second question: The bit depth is set in Sonar only, Right?

Anyone want to share any thoughts about what to expect, words of caution, arguments for or against what I am doing?

What should I look out for?

Thanks in advance.

Jim

 

[moskus]

First question: The sampling change is done in Aardvark AND Sonar, Right?

Second question: The bit depth is set in Sonar only, Right?

I think so, yes.

But be aware that 24/96 is a lot more demanding on your computer than 16/44...

 

[dachay2tnr]

Expect the size of your wave files to grow exponentially. 96KHz will more than double the size needs of a 44.1 file. Not sure how much impact 24 bits will have, but it also increases the size of the file.

Prevailing wisdom has been that increasing the bit rate is generally worth it, while increasing the sample rate is generally not worth it. You'll find arguments both ways however.

I use 24 bits and 44.1 sample rate. Mostly because that is the way I've always done it, and I don't really want to commit the extra hard drive space required to go to 96KHz.

 

[Porter]

Expect the size of your wave files to grow exponentially. 96KHz will more than double the size needs of a 44.1 file. Not sure how much impact 24 bits will have, but it also increases the size of the file.

16bit to 24bit will go close to doubling the file size... 44.1KHz 96KHz will probably double it again.. so roughly 1 minute of audio will go from a 10MB file to 40MB or so (I think). Now running 16 tracks, that would mean instead of reading 160MB off your disk a minute, it will have to read 640... a little food for thought.

Porter

(I'm pretty sure those figures are correct.. or close to it)

 

[Qwerty]

Hi there,

I am running at 44.1/24-bit which sounds a lot bigger and deeper than 16-bit.

Set the SOURCE SELECT on the Aardvark control panel to be INTERNAL 96KHZ or INTERNAL 44.1KHZ.

Set the BIT DEPTH in Sonar - there is an option for the default bit depth and the project bit depth. OPTIONS-AUDIO.

I would also vote against 96KHZ unless you have speed and disk space to burn.

Q.

 

[Wife]

I use my Q10 at 24/48k, and I love the sound. The response time is quick enough to keep the work flow going smoothly. And, so far, when backing up to CD via bundle files, I can get an entire song on one CD, whereas recording at 96k would be too big for one CD. No matter what, I'm sure you'll be happy with your Q10.
Lynn

 

[dachay2tnr]

I use my Q10 at 24/48k, and I love the sound. The response time is quick enough to keep the work flow going smoothly. And, so far, when backing up to CD via bundle files, I can get an entire song on one CD, whereas recording at 96k would be too big for one CD. No matter what, I'm sure you'll be happy with your Q10.
Lynn

Why on earth at 48KHz??

Unless you're mixing down to ADAT, you need to resample to go to an audio CD - for essentially no gain. Why would you put your music through a resampling algorithm unless you were deriving some real benefit from the initial sample rate?

 

[Wife]

Why 48k? I mix down to DAT which records at 16/44.1k, then I transfer back into Sound Forge for my edits. The higher the resolution that you start with, the more you end up with even after converting to 16/44.1. A lot of people record this way, and it yields excellent results. I reiterate: the higher you start with, the more you end up with. I guess it all depends on your goals. Mine is to produce commercial quality CDs, and I believe that I have achieved that goal. Care to comment?
Lynn

 

[moskus]

Care to comment?

Yes, indeed. When you convert you loose something, but with 96kHz what you gain much more than what you loose in the conversion. But the difference between 48 kHz and 44.1 kHz is not that big ...

And why are you recording to DAT and then transfer it back to Sound Forge? Wouldn't it be easier to just export the project directly from Sonar? Seems like you're going in a loop...


Are you actually recording first into Sonar (at 48k), and then over to the DAT (at 44.1k) and then back to the PC (at 44.1k)?

 

[dachay2tnr]

The higher the resolution that you start with, the more you end up with even after converting to 16/44.1.

What are you basing that comment on?

The conversion process to get from 48KHz to 44.1KHz can easily lose you more than you ever gained by recording at 48KHz in the first place. As moskus stated, your case might be arguable for recording at 96KHz (although I personally remain somewhat doubtful even at that resolution).

 

[Wife]

Why record to DAT? I use several midi instruments along with a number of audio tracks, and it saves a lot of time and hard drive space by mixing to an external recorder. Plus, it gives me the opportunity to run my mixes through an FMR compressor and other high quality outboard gear which gives my mixes more of a three dimensional sound than any other method I know. I have tried it numerous ways including the methods you have described. Yes, I'm sure there is some loss when going through the converters, but probably not enough to be heard by most people, especially since my converters (Aardvarck Q10 and Tascam DA-30mk) are high quality. The enhancements from good quality analogue gear cannot be over emphasized. I'm sure there are hundreds of musicians that are doing essentially the same thing for the same reasons that I am. Therefore, the higher resolution that I start with, the better resolution I end up with. If I stayed entirely within the digital domain, then I would use your methods and agree with your conclusions. It's just that to my ears, my roundabout method has more punch, dimensionality. and warmth for the style of music that I record. It just goes to show you that in recording there are many roads to the same destination. Whether you agree or not, this is a good topic, and I appreciate your comments and wisdom.
Lynn