Digital Recording Resolution

[tuna]

I dont know if this is the right forum, but seems like the computer forum is more hardware and setup oriented.
I am researching about recording using 24bits/96khz and fitting it to Cd ( 16 bits & 44.1khz).
I know about truncating, and dithering, but would like to ask if there are any specific source of info regarding some comments on this subject, like, experiences, and what do you think about the final results.
I did some research in the forum`s archives and found some valuable tech info, but not much about the final result and perceptions.
Thanks !

 

[volltreffer]

24 bit will give you great advantages with recording levels anyway. You probably won't have to compress/limit while going in, simply as you don't need to record so hot.

If you use 96k you'll have to do a sample rate conversion while going down to 44.1k It seems to me that the procedure is easier if you record in 88.2k. A major advantage in using the higher freqs should be that the digital EQ algorithms should be more 'precise' in the high end, thus causing a 'more analogue' behaviour. You usually have kind of 'distortion' of the transfer functions when you approach the upper margin of your recordable frequencies...

So far the theory. I have never recorded in either 24 bit nor in 96k, so I can't tell you about the 'real' effects, but at least this bumps you up.

aXel

 

[ecs113]

I usually track at 24bit / 88.2kHz, then dither and sample down to 16bit / 44.1kHz - the math for 88.2 > 44.1 is easier than 96 > 44.1

 

[tuna]

Thanks !
I didn't get why I would not need to do some limiting when tracking in 24 bits...

Apart of the math stuff, which I know can do the difference over it, I was wondering about how to explain about the final result gain.
I mean, I did some 24/96 recordings ( not with 88.2 yet ) and got that there is more headroom, and the low frequencies appears to be more detailed.

Does the usual Dither function in some programs already do the sampledown or just converts from 24 to 16 ?