A
Altaire
New member
which is better, recording at 44.1/24 and converting to 16 or just recording at 16...i heard its better to record at 44.1K than to record at 96 and convert, I was wondering if that goes for the bit rate too
MadAudio
Damned if I do
I usually track at 44.1/24. 16-bit sounds like crap to me now. Also you don't need to record as hot at 24 and still have nice resolution. I try to keep everything 24 bit for as long as possible before going to audio CD.
96kHz for most home users is a strain on system resources. Not really worth it.
96kHz for most home users is a strain on system resources. Not really worth it.
M
mrface2112
Well-known member
i record at 44.1/24 as well. the 44.1 sample rate is fine if you're going to dump to cd anyway--plus you don't have to worry about shitty resampling.
the 24bits instead of 16 will give you additional resolution and headroom--that's where you'll see the biggest benefits. plus, it just sounds SO much nicer.
and like madaudio said, stay at 24bits as long as you can--process all effects at 24bits, etc., and ONLY dither to 16bits right at the very end.
cheers,
wade
the 24bits instead of 16 will give you additional resolution and headroom--that's where you'll see the biggest benefits. plus, it just sounds SO much nicer.
and like madaudio said, stay at 24bits as long as you can--process all effects at 24bits, etc., and ONLY dither to 16bits right at the very end.
cheers,
wade