Recording at 24/96K vs. 16/44.1??

  • Thread starter Thread starter WERNER 1
  • Start date Start date
WERNER 1

WERNER 1

Member
What's the best way to record in general??

Is it better to be at 24/96 and then convert the final mixdown, or just record at 16/44 from the get go??

I'm getting some conflicting info on this, and was hoping someone would be able to clear this up for me. :)

Thanks,
Rick
 
werner...you've been here long enough now. Do a search, man.
There has been soooo much info posted on this here, especially recently.
 
Yeah, this has been discussed alot lately. Short version.... 24 bits is vastly superior to 16 bits, everyone agrees. The majority opinion is that for a bound for CD project, 44.1K is the way to go to. Higher sample rates gain little, then lose those gains to the damage inflicted by down sampling SRC. So you use a lot more system resources to end up with no better, possibly less quality, depending on the quality of the SRC used.
 
Its a coincidence, I post this message minutes ago in another forum:

"When I had my (M audio)Audiophile 2496, I recorded a project (songs with less tracks ,4 or 6 acoustic guitars channels , 1 piano, strings and a voice), in 96K (and obvously ,resample in digital to 44.1)
my opinion: the sound is better in 96, better convert than record all project in 44.1.

That´s my opinion...(with a lot of channels and plug ins is other story,the computer can ...:mad: ."

Now that i bought the m audio audiophile 192, in other cases, i olny record, for ex. , the voice channel in 176.4k , and do the "down"sample to 44.1 to mix with the other tracks (in 44k). In my experiences, results in a better sound than simply record in 44.1.

Remember, my personal opinion...
 
I wish I could find it, but there was a double blind test done on this. Where the same performance (same mic routed to two different DAWs, one at 44.1 the other at 96) was recorded in both. The people were asked to pick which was which, the results were random. No one could consistantly pick out the 96K.
 
Yes, you are correct.....I should have searched this out... :o

I'm on 12 hour shifts right now, and I don't have a whole lot of PC time anymore, so I just threw this up in a hurry......sorry!

Thanks for the replies though!!

Rick
 
Ok, I agree that in a "blind test" the diference could be very small or even "zero",but.... in what situation?An audition of a single channel or a mix with a lot of chanels? Perhaps if iou compare only a single track the difference could not be noted, but layering(correct term?sorry,i,m brazilian,my english is + or less)with a lot of channels the difference appear.

I began to record in 96K or even 176 since I try a test with headphones (and monitors), playing chords (and paying attention in the "punch"of my right hand) in an acoustic guitar and changing ; first 44, after 48 (no difference,for me), and then, when change to 88 (and more), the sound "open", and i feel more the strings.It´s very subtle, but, better is better, no?
(and fell no significant lost of quality when "down" to 44). (better, as already comment,than record direct i 44)
 
Theres always a group of people that CAN pick it out. If anyone at ALL can , then the statement that it doesnt matter is a wash. I can hear a difference, depending on the source material.
 
well, you also have to think about whether or not the pros of a higher sample rate out weigh the cons enough to warrant doing so. Is 176kHz worth the tons of extra disc space that is going to be taken up? How big of a difference is it between 48 and 96...or 44.1 and 192??? Is it something you can only hear when you listen critically while switching back and forth between sample rates...or can you also listen to commercial CDs and immediately tell which sample rate they recorded at? I would doubt it.
The sample rate doesn't make or break a recording (within reason). Don't worry about it so much.
Set it and forget it.
 
I will agree that is much better a 44.1k record in excelent condiction (Manley pré, neumann mic, excelent room) that something recorded in 192 with a behringer b1, a behringer pré ,for example ... . The reason ´cause I record in better sample rates is that my hardware are not the ideal. :o
 
It also depends upon the content style somewhat. Classical/jazz/acoustic/etc. stuff will tend to shine better at 96. With Thrash/metal/live rock/etc. it arguably doesn't make as much of a difference.

If one goes beyond just the asthetic and into the logistic, there is also the issue of computer resources to consider on smaller or slower digital NLE systems. 96k does take both more horsepower and more disc space. Some may need to weigh that resource cost against whatever margin of benefit there may be with the additional fidelity.

And finally, A quality performer in a quality room with good miking technique recorded at the right levels through a quality mic, preamp and converter can potentially benefit from 96k. On the flipside, if one its tracking an average performance in a marginally treated room with inexpensive tracking gear and less-than-stellar technique, the recordings are still going to sound like an average performance in a marginally-treated room on inexpensive gear with less-than-stellar technique, whether recorded at 44.1k or 192k.

G.
 
You´re 100% right, and when I relate my experiences, I´m talking about records of voice , acoustic guitars and one or more percussion instrument (for that, I use An M audio Dmp3, M audio Audiophile 192 and a MXL 2003 modified ,whit acceptable results). And while I don´t have the ideal equip, I try things like high sample rates... (But, well, we are in the HOME recording.com), I read messsages from people that try the best with cheap gear. Really, almost everybody knows the difference from a beringer to a Millenia (principally our pockets)
 
Glenn, you are right with Classical music...High Res...DSD, DXD, etc...audio purists want high fi audiophile sounds...classical recording goes hand in hand with that market. minimal micing, straight wire with gain pres, and short signal chains for best fidelity..
 
i record at 96k, and dither down to 44.1. I dont know why, and have no reason for doing so.

the way that i look at it, im an "at home" recording artist. I dont have a PRO set-up or equiptment, but if by recording at 96k gives me a small increase in fidelity/sound quality....even if its only 1% improvement..........its still an improvement, and i want the best sound possible from what i have.

also, CD quality is 44.1/16k...........if you want to sound better than CD quality........the numbers must go up...right?
 
DOH! :D

Thanks for all of the replies guys!!!! I too have been recording at 32 ("float" - whatever that means??), and 96000. Then after I to a final mixdown, I "convert" ;) it to 16/44.1 --- don't know why either, I just thought it was the "best" that my set up had to offer (AA 1.5)

I guess if it's that close to call, I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing........of course I guess I could save a bit of space huh?

Thanks agian!!

Rick
 
WERNER 1 said:
DOH! :D

Thanks for all of the replies guys!!!! I too have been recording at 32 ("float" - whatever that means??)
Click to expand...
32 bit float is the internal resolution of your software. If you did no destructive processing to your audio files, you still only have 24 bits of info written in a 32 bit word. That's still more disk space, but it doesn't tax the CPU any more because your software does all its calculations at that bit depth anyway.
 
WERNER 1 said:
DOH! :D

Thanks for all of the replies guys!!!! I too have been recording at 32 ("float" - whatever that means??), and 96000. Then after I to a final mixdown, I "convert" ;) it to 16/44.1 --- don't know why either, I just thought it was the "best" that my set up had to offer (AA 1.5)

I guess if it's that close to call, I'll just keep on doing what I'm doing........of course I guess I could save a bit of space huh?

Thanks agian!!

Rick
Click to expand...
You might want to try mastering it before you changing to 16/44.1
 
opppps! my bad! i meant to say was " i record at 96/24, and after i put the final mastering touches on it, ill export/dither to 16/44.1"

:o :o :o
 
FWIW, I just did an experiment where I had a singer
recorded in 16 bit. I converted to 24 bit and I
could hear a change right there. The 24 bit sounded
more "open", and trebly. Then I EQed both the
16 bit recording and the one converted to 24 bit.
I then dithered the 24 back to 16 and compared the
results. I preferred the one that stayed 16 the whole
way -- it sounded fuller/warmer. Dithering the 24 down
took away some of the airiness that was taken on
by the conversion to 24 but not all of it.

I also noticed that if I just converted the 24 back
to 16 without dithering, this would retain more
of the 24 bit airiness than if I dithered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top