if 16/44.1 is consumer standard why get a 24/96 soundcard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jugalo180
  • Start date Start date
jugalo180

jugalo180

www.moneyistherecipe.com
what is the reason to spend the extra money on a 24/96 soundcard wich anything it creates for cd has to be dithered down, wich in some cases i've read may introduce a poorer sound than just recording with the 16/44.1 card. is it that you have the ability to process more effects due to the more information before you dither it? what can justify it?
 
You don't record an entire album in one perfect take, pre-mixed with all effects processing, all in just two tracks. That is why people use 24/96 or 24/48 or 24/44.

Slackmaster 2000
 
when you do DSP, every time you process the file with effects, you lose some resolution....so if you start with 16/44, youll end up with less than CD quality sound (even though technically its still at 16/44)....starting at 24/44, 24/88, or 24/96 gives you a better starting point, giving you some headroom to record, and room to lose a bit of quality to processing.....
 
Like slackmaster and gidge said, it helps to have 24/96 when recording, applying effects and mixing down everything to a stereo .wav file.

24bits of audio recorded 96,000 times a second gives you more intial data to work with and makes the computer "guess" less.

with 16 bits you have (2)^16 or a range of 0-65,536 for volume/amplitude changes, etc...

when working in 24 bits, that range increases to 0-16,777,216 ( 2^24)
 
and who knows how long 16/44 will be the standard....DVD quality is here and we'll be asking why should we record with 32bit/192khz when 24/96 is the standard...and the answer will be the same.......
 
Another great but overlooked benefit is that you can track at lower levels without sacrificing as much crucial resolution as you would with 16 bit. Plus it pushes your noise floor down to the -85db to -95db range or so, depending on your soundcard, where a 16bit converter might only be able to reasonably do -70db to -85db.

In other words, you can technically record 48db lower before you even get into the 16bit resolution range. That's a bit extreme, but you can definately track peaking at -6db instead of trying to ping that 0 mark without having to worry about resolution or noise.

This is a great benefit when you're recording yourself because you can't be watching your levels and trying to make a good take at the same time.

Slackmaster 2000
 
Just to be clear, however....the converters themselves and the actual sounds your recording are more important to your project than bit depth or sample rate. Fine recordings have been made in 16bit. A professional engineer with pro quality 16bit converters can make a better recording than any amature here with 24bit converters!

Slackmaster 2000
 
bravo

every thing here was copied in notepad. thank you all
 
Don´t use Notepad. Click below on the printer version icon and then copy-paste into a Word doc for your files.....:D
 
sorry,

but, but the unauthorized reproduction of my posts is a copyright infringement of my unintellectual property......:rolleyes:


Michael J. Guidry

owner,President

Gidge Productions
Gidge Master-Beta Tube Mic Stands
Gidge 1.1 AutoSearch
 
What do you mean by copyright? What copyright?Ohhhh, that little thingy that says we cannot copy other people's intellectual property like books, software (suffer Bill) and wise BBS postings?Sorry, won't happen again, don't wanna be prosecuted for posting piracy...:D
 
recording in 24bit isn't going to sound worse when you take it to 16bit.

however, when you dither from 96k to 44.1k, that will cause a problem.

so if your intended release is for CDs...then your best option is to record at 24/44.1
 
Gidge,
Your'e presuming that your post qualifies as intelectual (from the root intelligent). :)

Whoops, read it again......raz rescinded.
 
When you resample a signal from a high sample rate to a lower sample rate I think it can only change by whole numbers. For example 96k can be cut in half to 48k, but it can not be directly changed to 44.1k with going through a number of different conversions first. This is why going from 96k to 44.1k can cause some problems. However, why not record at 24bit/88.2k (I think Sonar and my Delta44 can do this) This way to resample down to 44.1k the siganl doesn't have to be processed so many times. This process is refered to as decimation.

Reading what I just wrote I realize that it might be confusing, but if anyone can comment on it I'd like to hear your thoughts
 
In keeping with the shining example of my god & mentor Bill Gates, I have recently copyrighted the phrase "24 bit". Any use of this phrase in the future will require royalty payments to me, lest I unlease my horde of rabid-dog lawyers upon your collective mangy asses.

Thank you, and I await my royalty checks.

:D
 
You wouldn't go out onto the freeway in a car that can only go the legal speed limit..... you always want just a bit more room for passing and safety. Same principle.

I stick with 24bit/44.1khz; I personally don't hear any benefit in 96k in my setup/style and it works for me.
 
food for thought

thanx everyone, your posts are very helpful to me.
 
My albums lately are all recorded digitally, but when I take em to the mastering lab( usually Mat Murman at http://www.saemastering.com/ ) he will usually convert back to analog for the mastering phase...in this way there is no sample rate conversion hit, tho there is a DAC and an ADC hit

I can record in whatever format I want and not worry

in a paerfect world 24 bit is a no brainer, you can record at MUCH lower levels, so you wont absolutely HAVE to compress or limit to keep from digital overs. However since everyone mashes the hell out of everyhting anyway, we may not reap the benefits....volume wars need to end
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top