sample rates, dithering ETC

  • Thread starter Thread starter GamezBond
  • Start date Start date
G

GamezBond

New member
Hey everyone.I'm just wondering what is the correct way to record a project, that is going to CD.

I read in a magazine, an engineer who works for major labels, who has engineered quite a few hit singles, that they record at 24 bit/48 khz.
That was about all he said that relates to my questions in this thread.

From what I understand 24 Bit is pretty much standard in the industry, and, you have to dither down to 16 Bit/44.1 khz.Dithering down bitrates , you will have no problems.But with sample rates that are not even with each other (48 and 44) it will cause problems, because it will randomly take out samples in order 2 get down 2 44.1.I read on another forum, it's best to record at 24 bit 88.2 khz, because its and even conversion(to 44.1) and it will "give a more accurate picture than it would when dithering down from 48 and 96).Is this true?

Ok , now I heard this:

Some engineer(he does classical music, not pop like the engineer i read about in the magazine keep in mind) records in to his systems at 24 Bit 96 khz, then sends the signal out through his interface, into his analog master EQ, then records back in at 44.1 16 bit.He says this is the best sample rate conversion(even though it really isnt one).

So I guess my questions are:
1.What is the best sample rate to record at :confused:
2.For pop music(which I do) is dithering done (It didnt say how it was done in the magazine) digitally within a program?
3.(only if yes to number 2) which program has the best sample rate conversion algorithm?
4.For Pop music is it dithered/converted like the engineer who works on classical music does?

Thanks
 
This topic has been covered well, but a post by Blue Bear helped me understand it better, he posted this-

"I track at 48KHz/24-bit, I mixdown to 88.2KHz/24-bit...

The reason? Look at digital imaging as an example - if you start with lo-res and apply effects/resizes/etc, you end up with a murky fuzzy mess - if you start with hi-res, and apply the same processes, the results are much clearer and you lose very little detail. When you dumb it down to lo-res, you end up with a much better result.

Exactly the same rational for digital audio.... record as high a resolution as is practical (for your rig) - then you'll maintain resolution through whatever DSP you apply, then you can always dumb it down to the comparatively lo-res Redbook spec later with less degeneration.
"

Does that help?
 
I would suggest recording at the target rate - If you're doing music to end up on CD, then record at 44.1kHz unless there's some specific reason to go higher.

90% of the time, you're not going to hear the difference. 44.1kHz through a good set of converters will sound fine. DO stick with 24-bit as long as you can (up through the mastering phase, which is where the dithering occurs also).

If the conversion is fairly good to begin with, you'll likely wind up with a better sounding project if you don't have to resample.

And no, the 88.2/44.1 or 96/48 argument is not true. It's not as simple as dropping every other sample.

As far as the resampling process itself, I have yet to find a software or hardware solution that sounds better than an analog pass through a nice set of converters. On the dithering process, I'm on the fence. I normally use the software POW-r dither, but my Apogee UV22HR (hardware) and Lavry units certainly get a workout on occasion.

(4) Yes, during the mastering process, using whatever technique is most applicable to the source material.
 
Back
Top