Sampling Rate and Bit Depth

  • Thread starter Thread starter dachay2tnr
  • Start date Start date
dachay2tnr

dachay2tnr

One Hit Wonder
I am using PA9 with the goal of a final mix recorded on CD. I know CD's have a sample rate of 44.1. So my question is should I bother recording in the highest available sample rate and bit depth in Cakewalk (i.e., 96.0 and 24 bits), or am I just wasting processor power since when it finally goes to CD it will need to be cut to 44.1 anyway? Therefore, am I better off just doing the original recording at 44.1 and saving my resources?

I understand the benefit of 96.0 sampling, but what's the use if you can't output to anything that maintains the same sample rate? Am I missing something?
 
What does your soundcard support? I'd go with 24bit if it can handle that but would stay in 44.1, unless it sounds better to you.
 
I'm using a Delta 1010 card, which supports 24 bit, 96K. I know CD's don't support 96K. Will they handle 24 bits?

If CD's support only 44.1 sample, and ADAT's 48.0, what's the purpose of the 96.0 rate? Is there a medium that this rate has any use in?
 
Ordinary audio CDs are 16-bit. The purpose of 24 bit, 96 kHz? Kind of like recording on big fat fast-moving reel-to-reel tape used to be even though the end product were LPs and cassettes -- the more clarity and detail you can capture at the start, the better your results when you print to the distribution medium. Or why newspaper photographers uses Leicas and Hasselblads to take pictures that end up being printed in gray scale with big-ass dots on newsprint.
 
Thanks, Al-C.

So you are saying to use the power if you got it? I guess this means if I can record in 96K and 24bit without experiencing computer problems or latency, then I should do so.

Your analogy seems similar to what I've done with graphics. I usually start with a high-res tiff file, even if the final product is just a jpeg for a web site. I find that if I later want to edit the graphic, I can do a lot of massaging to the tiff, but almost nothing if I start with the jpeg.

By the way, I'm assuming that the 96K, 24bit will also chew up a lot more hard disk space for storage.

Decisions, decisions.
 
The graphics analogy is a good one. The disk space issue is a serious consideration. Is recording at 96 kHz worth it? I've read arguments that unless you have superlative gear (Apogee converters, Neumann mics, etc.) and are recording certain instruments that have significant energy in the spectrum above 20 kHz, 96 kHz is not worth it.

Using a resolution of 24 bits, however, is another story. More bits means more dynamic range and a lower noise floor, whatever the sampling rate. Probably 24/48 will be sonically equivalent to 24/96 unless you're recording flutes and pianos and bells.

-AlChuck
 
Do all your recording at 24bit. When you are happy with your tracks and mix - convert to 16bit for finalising - (thank you, sonusman).

To avoid confusion keep everything @ 44k, whenever possible.

By the by-
24bit tracks chew up hella space - so some form of file maintenence would be in order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top