studio bot rate

  • Thread starter Thread starter mixaholic
  • Start date Start date
M

mixaholic

New member
what bit rate do studios record at? like 96,000 hz 24 bit or what?
 
The "Standard" pro rate (i put that in quotes because it isn't really a standard) is 24 bit 48kHz.

24 bit is pretty much what everyone uses, however a lot of people are now going to 96kHz. There are a number of reasons behind this, some of them good, some of them BS, but yeah.

I use 24/96, mostly 'cuase I can, and 24/96 sounds cool...

My opinion of the Bot rate, however, is that it is far too low in most studios. In fact, find a 'bot in any studio is a rare occurance.

When I finally build my studio, I'm going to have robots doing everything, the n I can clain to have the highest bot rate studio in the Southern Hemisphere (I'm guessing not in the world, as Iguess Japan has probably already gota studio run by Aibos and Roboraptors...)
 
thanks guys. i wanted to use 24bit but how can i burn them to cd if it's 24 bit and cd can only take 16 bit?
 
mixaholic said:
thanks guys. i wanted to use 24bit but how can i burn them to cd if it's 24 bit and cd can only take 16 bit?
Click to expand...

Most DAW software will allow you to export the file at a different bit depth.
 
Oh, and one other thing...

...it's not bit rate, it's bit depth.

The 44.1/48/96KHz thing is sample rate.

There: now you're smarter.
 
is it still better quality when i export 24bit to 16 bit? what's the point in recording at 24bit whenit's just going to change back to 16 bit when it's going on cd?
 
mixaholic said:
is it still better quality when i export 24bit to 16 bit? what's the point in recording at 24bit whenit's just going to change back to 16 bit when it's going on cd?
Click to expand...

headroom I believe
 
mixaholic said:
what's the point in recording at 24bit whenit's just going to change back to 16 bit when it's going on cd?
Click to expand...

better resolution with every edit, effect, etc. that you do. Same reason photographers or graphic designers like to work with high resolution images. The bigger the picture and the better the quality the more it gives them flexibility and allows the end product to remain at the highest quality it can be.
You can always downgrade quality, but you can never increase quality. If you start off at a better quality than your output resolution, you're still better off than you would be if you started off at a lower resolution than your output quality.
Also, read more about bit depth and the dithering process here.

Increasing your recording bit depth to 24 bit produces very minimal amount of disc space and when you are concerned about such a thing, it is much more beneifical to do so than increase sample rate instead. Big post production facilities who have terrabyte storage facilities can utilize 96-192kHz sample rate, but there is no huge need to. 48kHz, 24 bit has been suggested and used for a very long time.
 
Last edited:
If it makes a difference, just about every poll of full-time industry professionals I've seen (even recent ones) show around 80% recording at the target rate (normally 44.1kHz) in 24-bit. If you can't make that sound good, increasing the sampling rate isn't going to help.
 
Massive Master said:
If it makes a difference, just about every poll of full-time industry professionals I've seen (even recent ones) show around 80% recording at the target rate (normally 44.1kHz) in 24-bit. If you can't make that sound good, increasing the sampling rate isn't going to help.
Click to expand...

how interesting... they are the settings I use... and I'm a nob head :)


just a fluke I assure you ;)
 
If the tune has a low track count ill use 192k and 24bit.
If its a large multitrack session ill use 96k and 24bit.
 
Massive, I've heard you mention the "24 bit at target rate" a few times before- is this simply to limit the amount of dithering operations, or is there some other basis behind it?
Thanks,
Crud
 
Avoiding unecessary SRC... If you work at your target rate, there are no "Hey! What the hell happened to the sound?!?" moments after sample rate conversion later.

Especially 48 to 44.1... I'll never understand that one... It's a particularly difficult conversion, the higher rate only gives you a *tiny* amount of increased response, and it almost always sounds better (IMO) if it's just recorded in 44.1 in the first place.

That all being said - The conversion only matters if everything stays ITB... Here, (during the mastering phase) I'm almost always using an analog chain - 2 DAW's - One playback, one record. No digital SRC needed.

But I *still* track at 44.1...
 
But I *still* track at 44.1...
Click to expand...

Well... I think that just about says it all... if it's good enough for Mr Scrip then it's more than good enough for me. Saved me a bit of messing about because I was going look into 48 bit meself but I don't think I'll bother now;)
 
He's actaully talking aobut he sample rate, not hte bit depth, ie 44.1kHz over 48kHz

I don't think there's any 48 bit recorders out there... the filesize would be insane, and I doubt that even the best copmuters out there would be able to do any amount of realtime processing... at lesat not to the extent that mixing ITB would require...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top