I have read a million forums regarding the best way to achieve high-endquality recordings (to the point were its is doing my head in now!). I was going to go down the road of recording at 24bit/48khz Wav. I was hoping this would be suitable playback on a good audiophile home setup.
Comments
My Pro Tool mix system recorded at 24 48 and it was terrible bec
My Pro Tool mix system recorded at 24 48 and it was terrible because the converters were junk. My new system is much better at 24/48. If your AD is low end, 24/48... 24/88 24/96 ... = still bad.
Are you leaving the audio ITB ? or burning it onto CD?
Do what sounds the best with what you have. That's the bottom line.
If you are wanting CD's as the format do NOT use 48k. Use 44.1k
If you are wanting CD's as the format do NOT use 48k. Use 44.1k instead. Cheap gear trashes the conversion from 48k to 44.1k so again, 44.1K or 88.2k or 176.4k.
Thanks for replies, will not be burning to CD at any stage.
Thanks for replies, will not be burning to CD at any stage.
24/48 or better yet,24/96 then, but wait... what are you going t
24/48 or better yet,24/96 then, but wait... what are you going to do then? Just keep them or MP3?
Good question! since posting this thread I have looked at 24/96
Good question! since posting this thread I have looked at 24/96 as the best possible resulting option which you have just mentioned. To put it bluntly I can't stand MP3s so I intend to save the files on a server and back up on DVD or something along those lines.
Youp, MP3 are awful.. How about combining the above advices and
Youp, MP3 are awful..
How about combining the above advices and go 88,2 kHz...
If you ever want to have it on CD the math is rather simple to obtain 44.1 kHz, which gives the resampler less chance to mess it up.
There are no audible differences between 96 and 88.2.
What pre-amp are you going to use? The quality of that is much more important, since you need excellent and musical RIAA correction.
My favorite:
Attached files