Converting 96Khz/24-bit to 44.1khz/16-bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter BeyondMusic
  • Start date Start date
B

BeyondMusic

New member
I use Cakewalk Sonar to record my mix into a separate audio track at 24/96 quality. But then I need to convert it to 44.1/16. I've just been using the 'convert' function in Sonar. Is there a better quality way to do this, or is Sonar's conversion quality good for doing it this way?

What do you all do to convert?

Thanks!
 
How bad does the result sound to you? How much money are you willing to spend to get better results? I use the Apogee UV22 noise shaping to reduce the word length (24bit to 16bit) and the sample rate conversion in the Alesis Masterlink to go from high sample rates to 44.1 . [ HOWEVER I go from 88.2 to 44.1 since there is less calculation involved, hence less chance for errors] Some of the big name pros have come out in favor of going from 96k to 44.1 by using high quality converters (costing thousands per channel) to convert to analog and then back to digital at the new sample rate.
Bottom line: unless you're hearing a noticeble degradation in sound quality when converting, leave it alone. You can spend an awful lot of money on a stand alone sample rate converter, software plug-ins etc. and not notice much (if any) improvement. I think that looking into the different ways of reducing bit depth - truncation (yech!) dither & various types of noise shaping - will make a more noticeble difference.

Scott
 
why 96 and not 88.2?

You can also work at 88.2 kHz. I don't understand why people work at 96k when the final target is audio CD... is it just because you can? 88.2 / 2 = 44.1... it divides evenly, and I think the results at CD quality sound noticeably less computed. Use 96k if you're working on film audio or DVD audio. There's no reason in the normal CD world, and that digital information is going to be mangled six ways to Sunday to get it into the right format, regardless of what conversion algorithm you use.
 
Just this morning I tried converting from 24bit to 16 bit uisng SONAR. And the result was horrible!!!! The guitar, which was played through a POD pro, sounded like a $25.00 guitar. Also the overall quality of the track was terrible and distorted.

Any other advise guys?
 
Converting with Sonar

I export to 16bit wav currently and it sounds fairly decent. Try that for now.
 
when i export from 24-16 bits i get no problems, but i did read in the help section, i havent tried it, that if you change a projects bit depth the results can be less than pleasant

p.s. i export and dont just convert within sonar, I take it thats what you have problems with
 
Does Sonar have a DITHER function or plugin? That can give you much nicer sounding file conversions. It adds a barely audible random noise to the last few bits and helps retain stereo seperation and dynamic range.
 
Sonar does have a dithering function (Options -> Audio -> Advanced -> Apply Dither). It's not the world's best, but better than truncating.
 
How about recording at 16/44.1?? What good is anything else if it looses on CD. I've been tempted to change my settings everytime I start a new project, but I haven't yet. I'm after people saying great song, not great bit depth recording. Not a damn soul would notice or care anyway, at least that's been my experience.
 
you say that 88.2 - 44.1 is the simplest math, but what if you are limited to 48 khz, would i just be better off at 44.1?, i have a MOTU 24i, only their newer stuff has 96khz support.
 
What works

Ok. I've found something that works pretty good, actually it sounds excellent. I record everything at 96Khz/24-bit in Sonar. Then I simply 'Export' the audio to a 16-bit wave file. Then I use CD'n'Go and Fraunhoffer encouder and it automatically takes it from 96khz down to 44.1. I've tried it, and it sounds awesome.
 
I record everything at 96Khz/24-bit in Sonar. Then I simply 'Export' the audio to a 16-bit wave file. Then I use CD'n'Go and Fraunhoffer encouder and it automatically takes it from 96khz down to 44.1. I've tried it, and it sounds awesome.
Click to expand...

This is wrong on just about every level I can think of. Please do not do this.

It's important to note here that you are going to MP3, so you are not going to hear the intricacies of the way that the internal bit/sample rate reduction is crushing your sound into oblivion. When a professional studio works at 96 k, it's either because they have a target platform (e.g. DVD) that is 96k compatible, or they are using extremely high-end digital/analog converters to get the audio out as analog, then using more high-end converters to get the audio back in to the digital realm at 44.1/16 or 44.1/24 for CD. There may be some pros who do the bit-depth and sample-rate conversion in their computers, but I have yet to hear a very good algorithm for doing this. The math just does not work.

Again, you should work at a sample rate that is either an even multiplier of your target sample rate, or you should work at your target sample rate. Any of the "hype" that you gain by getting that extra 9% of samples is definitely counterbalanced by the artifacts you will experience in the sample-rate destruction necessary to come out at your target sample rate.
 
What audio interfaces allow you to record @ 88.2?

Is it better to just do everything @ 44.1/16?

i heard that mixing down from a higher sample rate equates to a better mixdown to 44.1/16 than if you recorded it from that point from the start?

also, what's the point of using 48hz? [and eventually having to mixdown]
 
I'm 99.999% sure that any audio interface that lets you record at 96k will also allow you to record at 88.2.

I'm also 99.999% sure that it is better to work at your target sample rate or an even mutliple of your target sample rate than to work at any other sample rate. "I heard" is not a good enough reason. Go do the math, see how well 96,000 divides into 44,100. Every sample in your final mix will be created from 2.1768707... samples... That's some ugly ass munging going on there.

Now realize that that ugly ass munging of numbers will affect your music if you convert your sample rate inside the computer.

Bit depth is a different story: there are some excellent dithering algorithms out there that make the conversion from 24 or 32 bit to 16-bit relatively tasty (Apogee's UV22, Waves' IDR, Digidesign's POW-r Dither). The added advantages of perfroming mixing and plugin calculations at a higher bit depth are more apprent than the effects of reducing to the target bit depth. In this case, all you're really doing is removing least significant bits and masking the artifacts, you're not trying to mathematically squeeze 2.1768707 samples into 1 sample.
 
if you're ending target is CD, why would you want to record in higher bit depths than 16-bits?
 
Higher bit depths allow you to take advantage of greater dynamic range. Higher bit depths also allow more precision in the math used by your system to perform mixing operations and calculate things like fades and audio processing by plugins.

Obviously, you can record at 44.1/16 bit, and mix there, and your audio will sound fine. You might not even hear a difference between 24-bit sessions and 16-bit sessions. Do whatever you feel comfortable with. But please avoid the nasty math of incompatible sample rates if at all possible.
 
so recording @ 24-bit/44.1khz and downsampling to 16/44.1 is a good method to use?

will it sound better this way than recording from 16/44.1 from the beginning?

if higher sampling is better........ wouldn't 24-bit/88.2khz be the best way to record, and downsample to 16/44.1 @ the end?
 
so recording @ 24-bit/44.1khz and downsampling to 16/44.1 is a good method to use?

Yes. I don't think this is technically "downsampling," but the term for bit depth reduction escapes me at the moment, so...

will it sound better this way than recording from 16/44.1 from the beginning?

Yes.

if higher sampling is better........ wouldn't 24-bit/88.2khz be the best way to record, and downsample to 16/44.1 @ the end?

Maybe. Try it and see. I prefer to stick at my target sample rate, which is 44.1 for music, 48k for post. However, there will certainly be less damage done to your music going from 88.2 >> 44.1 than going from 96k >> 44.1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top