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

  • Thread starter Thread starter WERNER 1
  • Start date Start date
BigRay said:
Depends on the audience. My customers are audio geeks and normally have expensive playback gear. sometimes I record at 88.2
Click to expand...
Like I said:
sillyhat said:
Beyond that, 96k doesn't make anything sound better than it does in the first place. If your source isn't top notch, it won't make any difference.
Click to expand...
 
24/48 then dither down, most people i work with cant tell the difference and it minimizes resources needed
 
tbone36109 said:
24/48 then dither down, most people i work with cant tell the difference and it minimizes resources needed
Click to expand...
Why do you use 24/48 and not 24/44.1? Do you do video also?
 
better highend with 48 than 44.1 and you wont really lose much when dithering it
 
Sillyhat said:
Beyond that, 96k doesn't make anything sound better than it does in the first place. If your source isn't top notch, it won't make any difference.
Click to expand...

We must assume a high quality source to have any discussion at all about the recording medium. Otherwise the very process of recording could never enter a discussion about recording... and that would be silly. ;)

Beck said:
All things being equal -- music, equipment, technique, etc, you will realize a greater benefit from greater bit depth if it’s not cut to pieces through digital conversion.
Click to expand...

By the way, I'm specifically referring to bit depth conversion, which regardless of the dithering algorithm used, removes whatever bits don’t fit into a 16-bit word. So 20-to-16 you loose the last four bits. Were they important? I hope not. And sample rate down-conversion – talk about a train wreck.

If you master to analog first or use the analog interface between disparate digital systems you avoid these iffy conversion schemes. A more complete representation of the source is effectively re-sampled at the lower rate, which IMO is preferable to an algorithm deciding what’s important and what's not.

~Tim
:)
 
Last edited:
tbone36109 said:
;)
whatever, i think there should be one word for both of em
Click to expand...
They are two completely different things that don't have anything to do with each other.

SRC, (sample rate conversion) is when you resample digital audio to a different sample rate.

Dithering, adding noise to the least significant bit, when changing bit depth from higher to lower, to give the illusion that more bits are still present.

You can do each separately.
 
well one is changing the 24 to 16 and the other is 48 to 44.1(in this case) i think we should just call em both makingthenumberssmallerthantheyweretherebyslightlyreducingqualitytoputthemonacdization :D :D
 
Digital Downconversion would work nicely, but it’s really digital radio terminology, named after its analog microwave frequency downconverter predecessor.

But I use the term down-conversion (hyphenated) anyway... screw 'em! It’s a good term that sounds like what it does. :)

Digital Dumbing-Down-Conversion sounds even more like what it does. :D

Ok... it's official.
 
Beck said:
We must assume a high quality source to have any discussion at all about the recording medium. Otherwise the very process of recording could never enter a discussion about recording... and that would be silly. ;)
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right. With the amount of people on this forum recording everything with a pair sm57's plugged into a small mixer plugged into a soundblaster, assuming a high quality source is lunacy.

Far too many people have the impression that recording at 96k will make things sound better than they are. This is clearly not the case. If you can't meake a great sounding recording at 44.1k, 96k won't help you.
 
Sillyhat said:
If you can't meake a great sounding recording at 44.1k, 96k won't help you.
Click to expand...

That's the truth. You just end up with more than twice as many shitty sounding bits.
 
Sillyhat said:
You're kidding, right. With the amount of people on this forum recording everything with a pair sm57's plugged into a small mixer plugged into a soundblaster, assuming a high quality source is lunacy.

Far too many people have the impression that recording at 96k will make things sound better than they are. This is clearly not the case. If you can't meake a great sounding recording at 44.1k, 96k won't help you.
Click to expand...

No, I’m not kidding.

While I understand what you mean, the fact is everything influences the outcome of the recording. I agree that there are many problems other than bit depth.

However, it doesn’t matter what people are using on this forum. The universal dialog about recording medium on a grand scale assumes everything else is in order. All things being equal is the logical starting point to separate various aspects of recording and weigh each for what it adds or detracts.

Your premise precludes any discussion of the recording medium… ever, because you can always point to another problem.

I think we’re living in the dark ages as far as creativity. Contemporary music in general sucks. It doesn’t move me. Maybe no equipment issues matter until there is something decent to record.

That could be my answer to every issue on the forum, but that would not be helpful for those that are trying to improve their art. I could come here with my 25 years of recording experience just to pick on “The little people” but I don’t find it entertaining.

So for the purpose of getting past quality and equipment issues, we have to assume we are recording the London Philharmonic at Royal Festival Hall with the finest audio chain money can buy.

Will the best 24/96 do a better job than the best 16/44? Yes of course. Would direct to half-track 1/4" or 1/2" open-reel analog tape be preferable to either of the above? IMO, yes it would, but that's all part of the process of sharing experiences and opinions in a discussion like his.

You can disagree with my preference of recording medium, but that’s great because now we’re getting somewhere – actually discussing this critical issue.

~Tim
:)
 
But, in the interest of giving practical advice to the person who started this thread, it is really important to stress that when compared to mics, mic technique, preamps, monitors, the source, etc... sample rate is probably the least of anyone worries. Bit depth is much farther up the list.

If you are doing the London Philharmonic, you are talking 2 tracks! How much processing are you going to use during mixdown?

Is 24/96 better than 24/44.1? Sure. Is it so much better that it's worth cutting your available computer power in half? Doubling your hard drive space?

2 tracks with minimal processing, I would use 96k. 46 tracks of a Nu-metal production, no.

There was nothing wrong with your response, but you didn't specify that it was conditional. A 57 into a soundblaster upsampled to 96k isn't going to do anything.
 
London Philharmonic, 2 tracks??

huh?

Sillyhat said:
But, in the interest of giving practical advice to the person who started this thread, it is really important to stress that when compared to mics, mic technique, preamps, monitors, the source, etc... sample rate is probably the least of anyone worries. Bit depth is much farther up the list.

If you are doing the London Philharmonic, you are talking 2 tracks! How much processing are you going to use during mixdown?

Is 24/96 better than 24/44.1? Sure. Is it so much better that it's worth cutting your available computer power in half? Doubling your hard drive space?

2 tracks with minimal processing, I would use 96k. 46 tracks of a Nu-metal production, no.

There was nothing wrong with your response, but you didn't specify that it was conditional. A 57 into a soundblaster upsampled to 96k isn't going to do anything.
Click to expand...
 
BigRay said:
London Philharmonic, 2 tracks??

huh?
Click to expand...

Well, how many ears do you have anyway? ;)

I hope you’re aware that some of the best live symphony stereo recordings extant were recorded with a single coincident pair and a half-track analog recorder – just like being there (if you have two ears). :)

EDIT: Added
Ah, here we go. A good read from Mr. Bartlett himself:
http://www.tape.com/Bartlett_Articles/stereo_microphone_techniques.html
 
Last edited:
Sillyhat,

I think the original question was pretty clear... well worded and fairly open.

WERNER 1 said:
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
Click to expand...

And it's a hot issue, primarily because of conversion. Rick presented two choices in his original question. I introduced a third (but I didn't invent it) -- record at the higher rate and transfer through the analog interface, thereby avoiding the digital conversion process and it's pitfalls altogether.

Sure, hard drive space and processing power are valid considerations. I'd say 33 MB per stereo minute for 24/96 is pretty frightening. But, as you know, I normally avoid the issue altogether by starting in the analog realm and converting that to 16/44.

However, my primary aversion to the 24/96-to-16/44 idea, and digital recording in general is digital conversion, which I first explained in #38 of this thread.

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=2028534&postcount=38

If analog weren't an option, I’m pretty much a “start in 16/44 and stay in 16/44” advocate. That is, if CD is the end-product.

There are other important elements that are too often overlooked, as you have pointed out... and I agree. But it's just an aside, and shouldn't be a thread stopper when discussing recording format.

~Tim
:)
 
Last edited:
I read it the question differently. I took the fact that he put 24/96 against 16/44.1, as if they were the only 2 options (leaving out 24/44.1), that he didn't really understand all the options or the different that sample rate has vs. bit depth.

Taking that into account, I formulated my response. I could have made an incorrect assumption. I really do believe that there is way to much hand wringing over sample rate by budding engineers that don't have the rest of thier act together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top