this might be a really stupid question, but it does come from a quandary I've always had: what's the point of recording audio in a higher quality than 16b, 44hz if I'm trying to then burn the music (let's suppose I'm making an album) into a CD? It's obvious that the recording quality will definitely be great, but won't I have to "lower" or modify it later so as to burn it to the Cd? I know that, for example, 24 bit recording does take larger room in the hard disk, so...
Fer
Comments
The point is to make a better assessment of the original. A mor
The point is to make a better assessment of the original. A more accurate picture of the original source allows you to create a better mix which should (when done properly) create a better sound when dithered to 16/44. If your monitoring system is less than good, it may not do you any good to increase hz or samples. If your monitoring system can't alert you to problems or quality that is in your original your changes may make it worse when dithering.
PHil
Recording your multitrack at higher sample rates will yield bett
Recording your multitrack at higher sample rates will yield better end results than recording it at lower rates. Just try it yourself. One reason is working off higher rates reduces jitter even when dithering and downsampleing to 16 / 44.1 later ... you will always be clocking at 24 bit rate.. faster clock, better clock resolution, lower jitter...
It has always been standard practice to record at your best quality possible ... Can you imagine asking twenty five years ago, "Who needs a 2" machine? Why not just record all masters to a cassette? After all, most recordings are listened to in this format?" or asking "Since all my recordings are distributed via mp3's, why don't I just record them in that format to begin with?"
For future use, I always advise people to use the best quality possible ... no matter what the delivery system is.. Just because TV and FM radio quality suck is no excuse for employing low quality formats to generate our recordings..
Bit and sample rates are a hot topic. There is a trade off in DAW performance and storage vs. higher sample / bit rates.. I currently stick to 24 bit / 44.1 or 48 sample rates for economy of operation within my DAW. This way I can run lots of tracks and plugs with automation at mix. However if cost were not an issue and I had a new and super powerful computer, able to handle the math while deliveing high track and plug in counts, I would be using as high a sample and bit rate as I could ...
Kurt Foster
I've found a good analog to this in the use of flatbed scanners
I've found a good analog to this in the use of flatbed scanners for image acquisition.
Scanning the image at a much higher resolution (say, 1200dpi) than you'll use in the final product and then resampling the scanned image down to where you need it to be (say, 300dpi), and you get a much sharper, and cripser result than scanning in at a straight 300dpi.
Audio is much the same way.
Any DAW software is going to let you print your audio to disk. T
Any DAW software is going to let you print your audio to disk. This is the point where you would choose any other bit/sampling rates for the subsequent audio being printed. You may also be able to find a dithering plug-in for your system. Some users have favorite plugs to dither, others find that the DAW software does an adequate job.
A higher-than-cd quality recording may become useful in the futu
A higher-than-cd quality recording may become useful in the future when different medias are available? dvd-a and sacd are here now, i don't know the exact specs but its higher. They're supposed to start making holographic optical discs that have a capacity of like 200 gig as opposed to the 700mb cd. that leaves lotsa room for higher resolution recordings. thats just my opinion...