Is 24/96 worth using over 16/44

  • Thread starter Thread starter Freudian Slip
  • Start date Start date
Freudian Slip

Freudian Slip

New member
I have a layla 24/96, a 1ghz PIII, 258 of ram and a 60gig HD. I have considered going to 24/96 in my projects but they have to be brought back to 16/44 anyway. When I convert back to 16bit will I lose dynamic range I gained? will it mess with my mix? And if not what will I gain for this extra step? I do not have a scusi ultra-wide so I am not the fastest in the world and I would rather be able to be care free in my aproach to recording ( able to record many tracks at once next to a fully mixed automated song) than be restricted for a very minor improvement.

What are your thoughts on this?
It does not seem worth it to me?!?
Am I in the dark?

depperly@crpud.net
www.mp3.com/freudian_slip1
 
I agree with C7. The consensus from what I've been able to gather is definitely go with 24 bits, but the 96K Sample Rate is overkill.

The 24 bits will help when you do any processing of your signal - effects, mixdown, etc. - even though you will eventually step back down to 16 when you burn to CD.

There has been a lot posted on this subject, so as C7 suggested, do a search.

FWIW, I record at 24 and 44.1 and dither to 16/44.1 as the final step before burning to CD.
 
I wouldnt say that 24/96 is overkill....the higher bit and sample rate you record at the better....the only reason most opt for 24/48 or 24/44.1 over 24/96 is the resourses that it eats up sometimes isnt worth it....if you have the system and disk space to handle 24/96 by all means do it....you'll be ready when you get your DVD burner.....

from 16 bit to 24 bit is a SUBSTANTIAL difference so ALWAYS choose that....
 
Thanks! one more question?

Some of you implied that 24bit would make my processing better.
I have cake walk 9 with FX1, 2 & 3 plugins. My chorus sounds extremely digitized and I'm not that impressed with other effects that cost me a pretty penny. Do you think I would see a marked improvement in my effects sound? I run all my effects realtime and I don't want to drag my machine to a hault either. Any one tried this for comparison?

thanks
 
It wont actually make your effects sound better.....every time you process a digital track, in a way you lose some resolution....therefore, the higher bit rate you start out with, the better the end result will be....
 
damn I was crossing my fingers on effects quality. I can't say they are dirty and degrading as much as they lack smoothness/saturation. Does that make any sence?
 
i have found that every DX or VST plugin for verb ive used has had this... i dont know how well i can describe it, but its a tail like part of the reverb that sounds like a hollow aluminum cylinder that is banged against a pan, and that is what some of the reverb sounds like. I think i just ahven't used the right verbs yet, as i believe the algorithms must be the same in the rackgear as it is in the plugins.
 
I Dont know?

It is very hard to describe my thoughts on the chorus as well. To me it is like the cycles are brooken in to very smal steps. As if it moves in steps rather than a smooth line. I think I know hte reverb sound you are talking about. It is metalic. That is close to the same sound that the chorus has to it. I have to say thoug that sound stage / FX3 reverb in prosuite 9.0 seems pretty good to me. The main problem is that they changed the game and to away decay and replaced it with room size and trapping and absorbtion. they screwed with the old standards laid out in thousands of a second and put three things in its place. give me decay, mix, brightness, ect.. Mabey I just need to get used to it.


Thanks

F S

www,mp3.com/freudian_slip1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top