1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Which computers do you use for recording HQ sound?

Discussion in 'Recording' started by gentlevoice, May 29, 2012.

  1. gentlevoice

    gentlevoice Active Member

    Hi :smile:

    I am slowly getting to the point where I'll be recording HQ sound possibly directly onto a computer (192 kHz/24 bits minimum). To that end I am looking for a computer and operating system that will allow for this, and wonder what you generally use for recording sound? I'm looking for a flexible and portable solution so a laptop would be preferred - preferably a completely silent one - and Windows 7 as the operating system.

    Does this make sense or are there more feasible solutions?

    Best regards,

    Jesper
     
  2. sdelsolray

    sdelsolray Active Member

    You don't need to record at a 192 kHz sample rate. Indeed, it's probably a bad idea to do so. Recording at a 24 bit depth is certainly a good thing to do. Recording at a 32 bit float bit rate is just fine too.

    There are many acceptable solutions at 96k for a laptop running Windows 7. Perhaps too many.
     
  3. gentlevoice

    gentlevoice Active Member

    Hi - & thanks for replying, but 192 kHz already is too low for me so I actually need information/insights hopefully from some of you who do at least 192 kHz/24 bits (or 32 bits) recordings. Could be information like this: Does Win7 add clicks or pops or its own "jingles" or the like during the recordings? Can a computer with Win7 be considered reliable for hour-long recordings? Do I need special software or is something else important?

    Greetings from Denmark,

    Jesper
     
  4. gentlevoice

    gentlevoice Active Member

    Hi - I hope I got most of my answers at homerecording.org's forum so no need to reply here ;-)

    Greetings,

    Jesper
     
  5. DrGonz

    DrGonz Active Member

    Recording in 192khz is just redundant in many regards and more a waste of hard drive space for the most part. I remember a while back someone had said if they could value analog reel-to-reel sampling in a digital realm it would hit into the 300+khz range. That being just a guess of what it is equivalent from tape to the digital world. However, there is no truncation or bit depth involved w/ voltage based analog recordings. Truncation is really the problem when it comes to the way that time code clocks sync up to AD/DA conversion. My opinion has always been that converters that can reach up to 192khz must be better converters but just because you can doesn't always mean you should. I may be wrong about this but I would bet on it still! But I still only buy converters that CAN reach the highest potential in hopes that I am right.

    Edit: In other words I am saying to record at 44.1 or 88.2 or 96khz etc, but not needed to go any higher really. The higher sampling rates don't always mean that you have the greatest conversion back to 44.1khz 16bit. Which you ultimately need to degrade the sample rate back down and that might also cause smearing of the wave form. The best is to keep it simple and make sure that you are using analog in a way that is more hybrid. Make sure that what you are recording, your sources, are high quality and you will get added benefits. Now if you have the greatest converters and most expensive gears and thousands & thousands of dollar$ and you just love higher sample rates then ignore all that I posted...

    Double Edit: If you want to get these higher sampling rates then start buying lots of hard drives and make sure your computer/converters can keep up!! It's really all that simple.
     
  6. RemyRAD

    RemyRAD Guest

    If you're only going to record stereo, I would go for the Korg DSD computer audio interface device.

    If you're going to go multitrack, you're either going to spend 25-$50,000 or you could buy an Joe Co. for a couple of grand. 24-bit/96 kHz is more than adequate. It all comes down to iPods anyhow. An online stream is even worse. The CD is a CD and that's 1983 technology.

    Do you also own a Maserati, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolls-Royce, Bentley? No?
    Mx. Remy Ann David
     
  7. BSCDave

    BSCDave Active Member

    HI I've just finished reading up on the exact same problems and questions you're needing answers to. To start with I'd like to make it clear that my music tech knowledge is just starting to expand with the technology of today. The computer that seems to be getting the recommendations to use with pro tools is a mac, as goes for alot of the high end interfaces. However I've found from hours and hours of reading and researching that an actual PC system and a fire-wire converter offers so much more of all the spec needed to run these music recording programs. I was told to avoid windows 7 like the plague, however I wasn't told that windows 7 premium, pro, ult and 7 service 1 were all fine to use and didn't effect any end results. If ya cant move from the laptop, the only thing I would suggest to keep your eyes open for in the spec is a Pci or Pcie slot, this is for a fire wire converter kit to hook up with. And the words Fire Wire seem to be popping up alot in the requirement section. If ya can move from the laptop I promise you that you'll get so much more for your money :)
    This is my first reply on this site and I hope it's been some help for you? If not I'll keep on learning and trying. Have a good shop, Dave
     

Share This Page