Recording Quality?

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:05 am

What is a good quality to record at??? I've been recording at 41 mhz and 16 bit. It sounds alright? Would it make a big difference if I bumped it up to 48khz and 24 bit or something? What does a normal studio record at???

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:19 am

I guess you mean kHz not mHz. In our studio we usually record at 24 bit 44.1 kHz, sometimes 24 bit 96 kHz. It depends on the type of material.

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:28 am

brentdrns wrote:

What is a good quality to record at??? I've been recording at 41 mhz and 16 bit. It sounds alright? Would it make a big difference if I bumped it up to 48mhz and 24 bit or something? What does a normal studio record at???

Discussions abound about this very subject, with slightly differing opinions. Use the "search" function to search for "24 bit", "48kHz", or any of the various combinations of bit and frequency rates.

A lot of it is going to be "for what purpose?", and many will say to save disk space and CPU cycles and stay where you are, or perhaps do a minor change, such as "24/44.1", etc., and then perhaps tell you about conversions back down TO 16/44.1.

This subject has been pounded to death here. To go into all the positives and negatives, and all the theories and pontifications would be to just regurgitate everything that is already available.

But, somebody may take the time to search for you, and link you to some of the more interesting and in-depth threads of this.

Kapt.Krunch Wink

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:07 pm

I'm just going to sit and giggle about recording in 41 mhz...

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:15 pm

Recording in millihertz is the latest thing, I hear. Confused

Kapt.Krunch

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:19 pm

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:57 pm

brentdrns, here's the long and short of it.

I'm a professional so, 44.1kHz at 16-bit is the CD standard. I have no problem recording & mixing at that resolution.

Since much more of the new equipment is not so much more capable, faster, etc., it's not unusual to find your so recording at 44.1kHz at 24-bit resolution. Does 24-bit sound better? I don't think it sounds any different. Others believe it sounds better. Basically, it is your software more of a safety cushion of digital processing range. Really has nothing to do with the sound. And it doesn't matter if you have a 140 DB dynamic range, the audio equipment that you record with only has a 100 DB dynamic range (on a good day). If you want higher resolution, try 88.2kHz, 96kHz, 192kHz. But it all goes back to 44.1kHz. So why bother? It's all bad math making mistakes for you automatically. So you can actually outsmart the computer by not screwing around with anything other than 16-bit at 44.1kHz (24-bit optional)

Higher resolutions are for higher people that hold higher positions with a higher amount of disposable income that feel it's necessary to record at higher sample rates and higher bit rates while the rest of us just try to get hired. It might be a factor if you have a problem with your anal instincts or other anal maladies which might interfere with your decision-making process regarding resolution. If your record company has provided you with a half $1 million and are waiting for your next hit that will make them many more hundreds of millions of dollars, you might want to record at a higher resolution.

Lettuce, tomato, ketchup, onions, 44.1kHz, 16-bit, on a sesame seed bun.
Ms. Remy Ann David

If I told you what the secret sauce was, I'd have to kill you.

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 7:27 pm

Actually, Remy is correct if you want to release stuff to today's CD standards.

However, there MAY be some reasons to record at higher bit/sampling rates. And higher always comes at a price...mainly storage costs and computer performance. You need lots more hard drive/backup space, and the higher you go, the more demands it puts on a computer per track.

You also have to think about what the future may hold as far as the next technological standard that will Betamax plain vanilla CDs. Will it be DVD audio, or SACD? Will it be something else? Do you want to have higher rate originals on hand in case the new standard is DVD audio, which will play higher rates? (SACD is another story...you can't get there from here, easily and inexpensively). Then, instead of converting up a past work from a lesser source, you'll have the better source, which can always still be converted down, probably more gracefully than converting up.

In 6 years, your CD that you released this year in 16/44.1 may only need going back to the original to release it in a higher rate. If you only knew for sure what that was going to be.

Or, if you're composing for soundtracks, it may be handy for some stuff.

As far as current stuff, I suppose even since everyone mangles everything down to MP3s anyway these days, it probably doesn't matter much.

Just something to consider...but I may be wrong....I've been before. Rolling Eyes

Kapt.Krunch

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:16 pm

basilbowman wrote:

I'm just going to sit and giggle about recording in 41 mhz...

Now don't laugh too hard. Korg has a new unit out that records at 1 bit, 2.8 Mhz.

http://korg.com/gear/info.asp?a_prod_no=MR1

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:23 pm

DSD quality, nothing to laugh about there...

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 9:46 pm

That's not new. That came out one year ago. I think it's already obsolete? I'm waiting for the 24 track version.

If anybody really wants to discuss anything, about good versus better sound, advancing the state-of-the-art, how about we discuss the PCM versus DSD difference?

Yeah. I see not many people have heard the difference in my magic mirror. But

There just isn't any comparison period. This is why I keep going off like a nutcase regarding the higher definition format recordings. PCM sounds like PCM sounds like PCM at any bit rate or sample rate. Sony/Philips Direct Stream Digital is a whole new ballgame that is also probably obsolete? But not obsolete enough until we all have 24 track versions of these things built into our notebook computers.

Then people will only have to learn how to make good recordings and not be bothered by the "what's the best syndrome".

I'm not direct enough
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:30 pm

OK I guess my posts are near enough spam and don't add to the conversation but I'm sure I've posted here. And in about 20 other threads.

Mods, if you want me to shut up, tell me, I will.
If not then the forum has a problem Wink

.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:15 am

SACD...DSD...OK..this IS off Wiki, so take it for what it's worth, but here's some info for those who may be interested. And as Remy alludes to (I think), is DSD the next thing that we'll all just HAVE to have just in time for us to buy everything, and then they obsolete THAT?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

Kapt.Krunch

(P.S. Hope this doesn't double-post after the first one couldn't connect).

(P.S.P.S And Code....what happened? Are you posting things that the Dept. of Homeland Security is removing? Shocked

)

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:58 am

At least twice now I've went into topics I'm sure I posted in (and get emails about) to find nothing by me.
Unless I'm going mad, I don't know.

IIRC I didn't post any links to nuclear weapon designs or to Osama Bin Laden's homepage.

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 2:33 pm

I for one have never deleted anything you've written - I'm pretty sure no one else has either.

This topic sponsored by: