TIP: recording at 24bit 96k then mix down to 44.1 16bit

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alchemist3k
  • Start date Start date
A

Alchemist3k

New member
I wasn't aware of this before but I read in this month's "Computer Music" that it is a good idea to record at as high a resolution as possible, preferably 24bit depth at 96khz, then when you create your final mixdown .wav file you can convert to 16bit/44.1khz for writing to CD yet still retain a higher quality than if you had recorded at 44.1 16bit in the first place.

Aparently this process is called dithering and Cubase VST 5 has an algorithm by Apogee which does this very well indeed.

It's a technical thing I know but I thought some of you may be interested (esp as the higher the recording settings the less latency too so you get two advantages for the price of one!).
 
WOW! where can I buy a dither....I download the internet alot so I may have one already....is it compatible with my tube mic stand......
 
Oh boy......:rolleyes:

Gidge, I downloaded the internet once, and I didn't see a dither in it. I think it is "sekrit" stuff only for people with Cubase or something.

Gosh, the revelations!!! :rolleyes:

http://www.digido.com

A pretty good bet that the writer from "Computer Music" got his info from ol' Bob Katz, as most people do!!!

Alchemist3k, I think everyone appreciates your effort to share this information and be helpful. But, you can assume, with 215,000 posts in over 30,000 threads on this BBS that "dithering" has been mentioned a time or two. A quick search on dithering came up with:

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34647&highlight=dither

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34639&highlight=dither

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34098&highlight=dither

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34081&highlight=dither

http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33347&highlight=dither

There was about 148 other threads listed in the search, probably most of which had SOMTHING pertinent to the sudject.

Always a good idea to take a look around before sharing "discoveries"....;)

Ed
 
I want a dither!!! where can I get a dither?

Is that a small version of a ditheridoo?
 
I don't think so sjoko2. I believe it is part of that long forgotten woodwind family, the Ditheraphone! Didn't you used to play one?
 
yes but think about it... if you didnt knwo what dithering was before I posted this then how could you have searched for it? :rolleyes:
 
Thanks,

I enjoyed the Tip. Not all of us are experts. I will take what I can get when I can get it. I am sure there are hundreds of threads that talk about dithering and there is nothing wrong with one more.


Kit
 
Alchemist3k said:
yes but think about it... if you didnt knwo what dithering was before I posted this then how could you have searched for it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Well Alchemist3k,
You get 10 for taking it in stride and not losing it even
when some of us toy with you.;)

Nice effort as well but........It IS damm funny........
 
Alchemist3K - I think what you had to say about recording at the highest possible resolution is right on the money. Also, I heard (and I believe it, too) that if you do all your mixing and digital signal processing at the same high resolution, you'll get a similar good result.

But there's one thing I have my doubts about. You said something about a connection between recording at a high resolution and enjoying low latency by doing that. I don't think so... but I've been wrong before. :D
 
Alchemist3k is right. Latency at 96.khz is 9 milliseconds for me as opposed to recording at 44.1khz where my latency is 19 milliseconds. The higher the resolution, the lower the latency. You can really hear the difference when using softsynths. Changing your ASIO sample rate of your soundcard helps considerably as well. Just look out for pops & clicks at some of the lower sample rates.

Alchemist--Keep posting the good tips. Redundancy is OK in my book, especially when you are just learning such as myself.
 
thanks guys. that's 1 nil to the non-pros (aka us newbs!).;)
 
nattn said:
Alchemist3k is right. Latency at 96.khz is 9 milliseconds for me as opposed to recording at 44.1khz where my latency is 19 milliseconds. The higher the resolution, the lower the latency.
Alchemist--Keep posting the good tips. Redundancy is OK in my book, especially when you are just learning such as myself.
Click to expand...

Not necessary correct, but then - if its "1-nil to the non-pros" and if certain "non-pros" cannot be bothered to look up anything already posted multiple times before, but, apparently expect "pro's" to keep typing the same shit over and over again, I'm sure you don't mind if I don't make any comments you might learn something from, right?
 
well personally I'm sorry that we won't be hearing from you again sjoko2. The best of luck to you in future threads! :p
 
Sorry sjoko2 --- I was being a smart-ass. We (newbies) really appreciate all the expertise you & other pros offer to this BBS.

My point is this. As a newbie, I have recvd a wealth of valuable info from those with more experience than me. I am grateful, & as I learn, would like to share what I've learned by posting tips or answering questions. When alchemist shared the information about dithering, he got a lot of shit & really not too much in the way of praise. Who cares if something has been posted before? There are new members everyday & they can value from tips like that. They should be able to lurk (just as I do) & catch another tidbit of info that they didn't know before. This should be the nature of the BBS.

We appreciate your expertise & would love to hear you comments on latency.
 
He didn't receive a lot of shit - I've been here long enough to know when somebody receives shit, and if you're a trusting sort of person, you can trust me when I say that wasn't shit.

Also, you don't have to apologize for being a smartass, because just about everybody else in this thread was being a smartass. :D Welcome aboard.

Here, consider this. When Alchemist posted that information about high res tracking and dithering, it was as if somebody had walked into the kitchen of a commercial kitchen and said something like: "I wasn't aware of this before, but there's this new technique I read about that I want to share with all of you. It's called 'cooking'. It's a technical thing but you may be interested."

First, everybody just looks at you, then the jokes start, right?

"Cooking, you say? Damn! Sounds good! Think I'll try some. What about the rest of you guys?"

Don't worry about Sjoko - he's cool. Sooner or later we'll find out about the relation between sample rate and latency too. I want to know - my soundcard's limited to 48 KHz.
 
Well, since we're on the subject..

There's something I've been wondering about for quite a while.

Is it simply a fact that recording at 24/96KHz and dithering down to 16/44.1KHz will always sound better than recording at 16/44.1KHz would have?

My soundcard can only do 16/44.1KHz, so I've not been able to experiment with this - but I've heard that it's best to keep wordlength and sample rate consistent unless you have some supremely good AD/DA converters, because otherwise you'll only be adding artifacts.

I've always been paranoid about changing the sample rate in any sort of file that I'm working with, so this concept has bugged me for a while. I mean, any time I've ever changed a 22KHz wave file to 44.1KHz so I could work with it in certain software, it sounded positively craptacular - even when it had sounded fine to begin with!
 
The answer to your first question's 'yes'.

I can hear the difference between stuff recorded at 16-bit and 24-bit. The 16-bit stuff is grainy, slightly raw, by comparison. I can't hear the difference between stuff recorded at 44.1 KHz and 48 KHz, nor can most people. Plus, I think you're right about needing good conversion to benefit from the difference, otherwise you might as well stick to 44.1 throughout. But although my card won't do 96 KHz, I've heard and believe it makes a positive difference to the sound. The problem with 96 is processing power. Do you have a computer that can track and mix in 96? We're talking about BIG files.
 
I recorded at 24bit 48K. The recording is only a little better than 16/44 from what I can hear. The trade off is a lower track count and a lower number of plug ins that you can use during mixdown.
My customers have listened to both and can not tell any difference whatsoever. So for me, recording at anything higher than 16/44 is pointless. Thats me though.

Not to mention, when you mixdown from 24/48k, there is a noticable loss of high frequencies even with dither on.

NOTE: I used the RENDER: function of Vegas Audio to down convert to 16/44 from 24/48.

I have tried 2 types of dither with little or no difference in high frequency loss. In order to get the highs back, I used a High Frequency Stimulator that I downloaded for free at the DirectX Files site.

www.directxfiles.com

If you want to dither, then download Dave Brown's Mastering Limiter plug-in from DB-Audioware available at DirectXFiles.com. You can buy it for a $35.
 
Speaking of recording at 24/96KHz, is there anybody here who's actually done it? I gotta think that even with dual Pent4's and 512 ram it would still take forever to do anything.

I'm quite happy with the sound I get at 16/44. If it's gonna really bog down the process then it would have to sound substantially better before I'd consider such a thing, which I really can't imagine. But, to be fair I've never heard anything recorded at that high a rate so maybe I'll be amazed after all....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top