Should I be recording in 24/96?

[boomtap]

I don't agree with this. In the final product you will have mixed it such that you are utilizing the full dynamic range. When recording at 16bit, you'd have to record everything as hot as possible to acheive this. What you are most likely doing is recording a track and then upping the gain later in the mix, either with the fader or compression, which further emphasizes the quantization error of low bit size. It's much better to record at 24 bits, because even at very low recording levels you have better resolution than you end format. You can they manipulate and add gain without fear of large quantization errors.

That is interesting and probably all true, but when I do this side by side in a class A studio, I just don't get this amazing recording when compared to 16bit. By the time it gets to mastering you just can't tell that the mix was 24 bit. I think that the very best equipment with the very best engineers, and the very best mastering house might be able to squeeze some extra out of 24 bit, but for the average project going to CD I just don't think you will be able to. I say do it if you want to, no big deal it won't hurt, I just don't think you will be gaining much.

If I polled 100 people and took 2 song versions 1 16 bit and 1 24bit(whole process), I bet that 100 of them could not pick out the diffrence. I mean people listen to music in thier cars, and on crappy headphones that don't reveal the clarity, and the rest of them can't tell FM from CD. Shoot AAC and MP3 rule the world now adays.

In short 24bit is better, but it is so minor that nobody cares. Until they can send sound direct to your brain with no sound pressure or cables, I think we are not going to see overwhelming advancement in sound technology.

 

[amra]

Amra - you're talking about the Nyquist theory which states for lossless audio your sampling rate should be twice the range of human hearing. It has nothing to do with bit depth.

Sorry, I meant sampling rate, not resolution. I wasn't talking about bit depths.
In any case I found the article I mentioned, and it is pretty interesting and explains the nyquist effect in terms us mere mortals can understand:

http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/SoapBox/soap2_Apogee.htm

 

[Bob's Mods]

I believe the current wisdom is to record in the sample rate of the final product.

Bob

 

[ds21]

That is interesting and probably all true, but when I do this side by side in a class A studio, I just don't get this amazing recording when compared to 16bit. By the time it gets to mastering you just can't tell that the mix was 24 bit. I think that the very best equipment with the very best engineers, and the very best mastering house might be able to squeeze some extra out of 24 bit, but for the average project going to CD I just don't think you will be able to. I say do it if you want to, no big deal it won't hurt, I just don't think you will be gaining much.

If I polled 100 people and took 2 song versions 1 16 bit and 1 24bit(whole process), I bet that 100 of them could not pick out the diffrence. I mean people listen to music in thier cars, and on crappy headphones that don't reveal the clarity, and the rest of them can't tell FM from CD. Shoot AAC and MP3 rule the world now adays.

In short 24bit is better, but it is so minor that nobody cares. Until they can send sound direct to your brain with no sound pressure or cables, I think we are not going to see overwhelming advancement in sound technology.

But what if you want to archive for the future or even DVD, do you really want to convert it up from 16 to 24, or at least start with 24 and be safer, that is unless you don't have the HD space or CPU to handle it, that's the only rational reason to go with lower resolution. Of course this is MHO.

 

[altiris]

what about 32 bit floating? Is it better to record a 32 bit, 32 bit floating , or 24 bit rate? Cubase default is 32 bit floating. Should I change it to 24 bit. If so, why?

 

[boomtap]

But what if you want to archive for the future or even DVD, do you really want to convert it up from 16 to 24, or at least start with 24 and be safer, that is unless you don't have the HD space or CPU to handle it, that's the only rational reason to go with lower resolution. Of course this is MHO.

Ya, I agree with that. But for Audio DVD and Super CD you need to also think about 6(or more) tracks of audio at 24bit so you are talking about lots of space.

I just am saying that it would be hard for anybody to know the diffrence even if you did. Do you need 2 gigs of ram in your computer to send an e-mail, No but if you have it use it. Will the reciever of that e-mail notice, probably not.

 

[boomtap]

Sorry, I meant sampling rate, not resolution. I wasn't talking about bit depths.
In any case I found the article I mentioned, and it is pretty interesting and explains the nyquist effect in terms us mere mortals can understand:

http://www.digitalprosound.com/Htm/SoapBox/soap2_Apogee.htm

Good Article. I like the point about the stereo imaging...I again have never noticed this, but it makes a strong factual case for recording at the higher level to attain better imaging...

 

[boomtap]

Please don't propagate garbage like this just because it's what you've bought into.

This is just what I have been taught (and believe) by some of engineers in studios hear in Denver like FTM. I can't argue with thier products, because the churn out great stuff http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/30/TheFray/TheFray_01_04_30.ram . I just posted my opinion and then you blast me for it, that isn't cool. I still don't think people can hear the difference.

 

[XLR]

I record at 24 bits because
1. I like the sound better listening back in the studio.
2. I can hear a difference in the end result after mixing/processing when dithered down to 16 bits, though it's subtle.
3. When the consumer standard format eventually changes from 16 bits to higher resolution I'll be glad I used a higher res on my past recordings.
4. Storage is cheap and easy.

Bit resolution is still a small thing compared to good performance, room, and audio front end. But I feel like if I work so hard to get those things I want to make the most of them in the resolution of the audio file.

Tim

 

[Rado]

96khz recomended and MINIMUM 48khz!!!!!!
REad aboout digital clocking when AD convert.
44 is not real 44 it is actually ..something like 39 cause the clock takes 4-5khz.
That is why 48khz was a big dial in the past cause it left space for the clock.
With 96khz you don't realy care.
Not to mention better frequan response and twice as much resolution.
If recording 192 khz or 384-whatever- you can capture "REAL"tape sound resolution.
Can provide more details but you better research like everybody else.

 

[Farview]

.
44 is not real 44 it is actually ..something like 39 cause the clock takes 4-5khz.
That is why 48khz was a big dial in the past cause it left space for the clock.

48k was a big deal because it lined up with video frame rate. That is the only reason that standard exists.
I have never heard about the clock 'taking 4-5k', that doesn't make any sense. The clock is what keeps the time. If the clock took time, how would you know. Another clock perhaps.

 

[Rado]

48k was a big deal because it lined up with video frame rate. That is the only reason that standard exists.
I have never heard about the clock 'taking 4-5k', that doesn't make any sense. The clock is what keeps the time. If the clock took time, how would you know. Another clock perhaps.

I AGREE.48kHz sample rate (the international standard for television and film audio tracks) you can fit 2000 samples onto a 24fps film; 1920 samples for 25fps PAL video; and 1600 samples for 30fps black and white NTSC video.But that's another topic entirely!

Read about AD convertion.
And if you dont want to ...just record 44khz be happy

 

[apl]

96khz recomended and MINIMUM 48khz!!!!!!
REad aboout digital clocking when AD convert.
44 is not real 44 it is actually ..something like 39 cause the clock takes 4-5khz.
That is why 48khz was a big dial in the past cause it left space for the clock.
With 96khz you don't realy care.
Not to mention better frequan response and twice as much resolution.
If recording 192 khz or 384-whatever- you can capture "REAL"tape sound resolution.
Can provide more details but you better research like everybody else.

There are many errors in your thinking.

 

[Rado]

There are many errors in your thinking.

Like what???
This is not my thinking.
By the way if you were a professional you'd know the deferance between 44 48 and 96.!
But I guess you are not.
Since 2003 the game has changed.But I wont be the guy to open your eyes.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Like what???
This is not my thinking.

It's kinda assumed when you post your thoughts here they are your thoughts.

By the way if you were a professional you'd know the deferance between 44 48 and 96.!
But I guess you are not.
Since 2003 the game has changed.But I wont be the guy to open your eyes.

The games the same but the players are on steroids. Insults aren't going to open any eyes

 

[mshilarious]

Like what???
This is not my thinking.
By the way if you were a professional you'd know the deferance between 44 48 and 96.!
But I guess you are not.
Since 2003 the game has changed.But I wont be the guy to open your eyes.

Why don't you take your argument about 192 and 384 over to Dan Lavry's forum? Or better yet, do some of your own research and read the white paper from his website.

Start here:

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/t/2997/0

 

[Farview]

Like what???
This is not my thinking.
By the way if you were a professional you'd know the deferance between 44 48 and 96.!
But I guess you are not.
Since 2003 the game has changed.But I wont be the guy to open your eyes.

Where did you get this idea? What happened it 2003? What are you talking about?

 

[apl]

...if you were a professional you'd know...

Well, Rado, I'm a bit perplexed here. I was studying digital signal theory back in 1982 and using analog-digital conversion systems for a living since then so I though I'd be a pro by some definitions. Guess they must've changed a bunch of stuff and forgot to send me a memo.

Thanks for getting me up to speed!

 

[tenkas]

Rado, in every post about 96khz vs 44.1khz, you always say something like : 96khz or nothing people...

And then, when we ask you for PAPER (SOURCES), real information from a scientific or professionnal point of view, you just fade out of the thread.

Please confirm your authority in the 96khz debate and bring some facts. If ever you want to do a blind test over 96khz and 44.1khz, I guess some guy near you can invite you to his studio and test you.

Just PLEASE give us the REAL SOURCES... you just said that you didn't invent the theory that 96khz EXTREMELY kills 44.1khz... just post a few sources, and we will keep our mouth shut. This is homerecording, so we are not all pro's and we just want to learn.

 

[Mo-Kay]

I'm seriously going bananas over this shit.
I haven't been able to record @ high sample freqs just yet... I had a mobilepre that could record 16/48 but I tracked @ 16/44.1

Now my new computer will be equipped with an E-MU 1820m (max. 24/192) and I have no idea what to do.

A friend of mine has been recording (using an M-Audio Delta 1010 though) @ 24/96 but records @ 24/48 mostly because he "couldn't here the difference"

I'll mostly be recording vocals (both rap and singing), and maybe some stuff like guitar or sax...


I don't wanna come across like a newbie, but I'm just not familiair with this stuff yet...and to be quite honest...reading the posts here doesn't make it any easier!!!