Bit's And K's...

  • Thread starter Thread starter memriloc
  • Start date Start date
M

memriloc

New member
Ok...Prompted by 'charly666''s soundcard thread and because I'm a lifetime analog guy grabbing as much info as I can about digi recording....'Big T...' mentioned that if you're burning to cd then it's better the record at 16bit 44.1k so as to minimize or eradicate conversions....So my questions are (and please excuse the ignorance..lol)...If you were burning to CD's then should you recording averything (eg, vinyl/tape drumps to mutitrack recordings on computer) in a 16bit 44.1k format?...If so, what situations would you record at 24bit 96k?....What are the situations, pros and cons of both?...Cheers guys!
 
'BigT...' is simply wrong.

This topic has been discussed so many times that you might have a hard time getting a decent answer anymore. You might try searching through this forum. A good question to add to the FAQ for sure!

Slackmaster 2000
 
Just my opinion. I record at 24/44.1. I feel there's more bennifit to 24 bit word length and 44.1 than the higher sampling rate and taking a hit on rate conversion artifacts and storage overhead. The longer word length definately makes a difference in quality of a recording, even when dithering to 16 bits. Higher resolution of individual tracks when mixed down gives a better sound, not to mention processing an individual track with EQ or compression (or any effect for that matter) will sound better.
 
Ok, so I found BigT's comments and answered your question in detail in that thread....but I swear, that's the last time I'm going to do it :) :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
Ok...

Ok...
Yep...Just in the middle of reading it now...Thanks Slackster....I did try to search, but all the info was just too damn confusing, I think you post on the other thread will help...So basicly, if you can, you should always record 24/96 right?....Ok...I see you mentioned it's better to have a gigh resolution like that for applying effects and such to the tracks...My other question is then,....I've got an absolute shit load of tapes of things I've done over the years (from about the age of 3 or 4 would you believe)...I'm in the process....ahhh....al long long process of dumping all the tapes down to computer to burn onto cds for storage....NOW...there's will be VERY LITTLE IF ANY messing with these tracks before I burn them off, so am I still better off recording at 24/69 or is there a different resolution I can go for that will suffice?....Cheers!
 
First off, I don't recommend 24/96 if it's impractical. It really puts a strain on the system. I personally record at 24/44 and many others record at 24/48.

If you're going to be processing the audio from these tapes you have in any way, then record them using 24bit. Otherwise, recording them at 16bit should be just peachy.

Slackmaster 2000
 
If the recorded medium is at 16bit 44.1k, then i wanted to transfer (in this case re-record) it to a DAW would the audio quality suffer if i were to record it at 24bit 96k opposed to the original 16bit 44.1k? I spose they would still be pretty much exactly the same just the 24bit 96k wouldnt be fully 24bit 96k?

i've confused myself :)
 
That's correct Ziggy. It wouldn't improve the existing 16/44.1 file but it wouldn't degraded it in any way either.
 
...unless you were recording it via analog means of course...
 
Raise your hand if your confused "ZiggY! raises both"

i think this is a little over my head, but ill ask anyway...

"...unless you were recording it via analog means of course..."


can you explain this a little? im lost... or maybe point me in a direction to find out about it, maybe a website or something?
 
I am assuming that you're aware of the difference between an analog signal and a digital one.

Anytime you record an analog signal on a digital machine, the signal must have passed through an "A/D converter", which is an analog-to-digital converter. What the converter does is sample the incoming analog voltage fluctuations at a specified rate (the sample rate!) and record its measurements as binary data (samples). Thus, your nice continuous analog waveform is chopped up into little discrete pieces that are supposedly close enough together that you can't hear the difference....kind of like how a movie is just 24 still frames running past your eyes every second.

In order for you to actually hear a digital "signal", it must first pass through a "D/A converter", or digital-to-analog converter. This creates a new continuous analog voltage wave from the discrete digital sample values.

Obviously, when you're having electronics chop things up and measure them, then later try to reassemble them...things are going to get a little ugly. For one thing, the clock used to sample the incoming audio and to render the outgoing analog audio must be as precise as possible. If it's just sampling when it feels like it, it's going to be awful hard to put back a waveform that looks as close to the original as possible! This time-based distortion is known as jitter. You also need to consider sample accuracy. If the converter cannot accurately measure or render the audio, it's not going to sound very good!

So, long story short, whenever you convert from analog to digital or digital to analog, you're doing some amount of damage to your sound...even on the best systems...it's just simple math! The better your converters, the less *audible* damage.

So, if you take an analog line out of your digital recorder into the analog line in on your soundcard, you just converted the signal from digital to analog and then from analog to digital...you just passed it through two conversions and it may not end up sounding as good as you want.

This has nothing to do with bit depth or sample rate, really.

Slackmaster 2000
 
This place is great!! ive been here for 5 hours and ive learnt heaps!! thanks Slack!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top