Recording Quality?

Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:07 pm

So we have some loose Monkey Shite floating around aimlessly on these hallowed grounds? Is this what I'm hearing?

This IS strange.

I've never deleted anything. Some mods move stuff to other forums cause they dont think it fits in their box.....so-to-speak......

As for recording digitally at some pie-in-the-sky bit and sampling rate, record at whatever you want to. I record everything @ 48/24 simply because thats what the machine was set at when I bought it.

TAKE THAT YOU MATHMATICALLY CHALLENGED!!!

All of my ANALOG equipment works at all the bitrates mentioned, so whuts the dealleeo?

Yeah yeah theres endless discussions of this all over the net and you simply have to go with what your ears say is right.

I think (subjective yes??) that I can hear less of a lossy in the highs @ 48/24.......I know......crappola.

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:17 am

44.1 for those projects destined for CD
and I like the added dynamic range of 24bit which takes away some of the pressure to get your gain structure perfect
and for those that don't compress during tracking
... yes I disagree slightly with Remy and Dave

BUT as Dave says
"Yeah yeah theres endless discussions of this all over the net and you simply have to go with what your ears say is right. "

try them and make your own choice
talk to the person that will do your mix and or mastering and see what they want from you

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:14 am

Like Kev I find 44.1/24 to be the most convenient. 44.1 keeps size and cpu usage relatively low. 24 bits lets me fill up a nice 18-20 bits and leave plenty of headroom so that I never clip.

As far as what sounds better, you have the tools to test this for yourself and you definitely should do it.
1. Find a repeatable sound source. I used the demo program on one of my keyboards.
2. Record it at various sample rates and bit depths.
3. Bounce all of the recordings down to 44.1/16 and burn a CD.
4. Put the CD on "random" and see how good you are a picking out which recording is which.
5. If you can detect the differences accurately then you have to decide if the higher sample rates or bit depths are worth the trouble. If you can't, go with what is easiest to use.

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:02 am

This is an interesting test Bob, but I see one fatal flaw.

The sample programs on your keyboard were likely recorded at a 16/44.1 level and therefore, you're merely upsampling through your ADCs. In theory, the 16 and 24 bit signals should sound identical in this case with the 24 merely having a lower imposed noise floor although the signal itself already well-surpasses that (in a negative way). Especially when you take into consideration that the analog output of most keyboards isn't what I'd consider to be spectacular.

I've tried similar test, but usually, I call it my "poor man's orchestra recording test." This involves setting up a pair of mics in a fixed location in my listening room and piping some dynamic classical music through the main speakers and recording the output.

The funny thing is, this actually can sound REALLY good if the mics are placed JUST right. I do this as a test for new mics a lot of times as well as preamps, comps, etc. It works for ADCs as well. You'd be surprised the differences you hear in ADCs through an identical recording chain like this.

Cheers-
J.

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:22 am

Cucco wrote:

This is an interesting test Bob, but I see one fatal flaw.

The sample programs on your keyboard were likely recorded at a 16/44.1 level and therefore, you're merely upsampling through your ADCs. ...

I agree that is a flaw, though I felt that there would be enough nonlinearity in the signal chain to make it a genuine test. I was thinking of getting something analog like a music box and trying it again. For what it is worth, I felt that there was a audible difference between the raw tracks. Of course, that comparison was not blind and I had to shut down one session of PT Le and open another to listen - a gap of several seconds. Pretty much an ideal environment for the power of suggestion to raise its ugly head.

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:12 pm

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 48khz and 24 bit or something? What does a normal studio record at???

Possibly due to your mangled use of terminology that you have no knowledge of, your question was misconscrewed? You need to crack a book.

And so what didn't you understand when I provided you with an answer? Or weren't you reading these responses?

24-bit, 44.1kHz. Use that. If you can. If not? 16-bit, 44.1kHz.

Is that clear enough for you to comprehend?
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:16 pm

I agree with Remy but I think the next big thing is going to be infinite resolution analog live. You heard it hear first.

pun intended Laughing

gb

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:46 pm

So...would 44.1kHz vz 41mHz also apply to CodeMonkey? Wasn't he complaining of dropouts?

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:13 pm

Ufff. That was rotten.

Transposing the idea of rate to forum, imagine someone could post stuff at a rate of 44.1 thousand posts per second...

Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:45 pm

Nothing bad brother, I was thinking maybe calls to your personality sub-routines could be slowed down, you wouldn't be seeing things before you post them.

Now you see me now you

This topic sponsored by: