Skip to main content

Recording Quality?

Member for

21 years
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???

Comments

Member for

15 years 10 months

Kapt.Krunch Tue, 03/25/2008 - 10:28
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:

Member for

15 years 11 months

RemyRAD Tue, 03/25/2008 - 17:57
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.

Member for

15 years 10 months

Kapt.Krunch Tue, 03/25/2008 - 18:27
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. :roll:

Kapt.Krunch

Member for

15 years 11 months

RemyRAD Tue, 03/25/2008 - 20:46
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

Member for

15 years 10 months

Kapt.Krunch Wed, 03/26/2008 - 06:15
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? :shock: )

Member for

19 years 9 months

Davedog Wed, 03/26/2008 - 18:07
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.

Member for

19 years 10 months

Kev Thu, 03/27/2008 - 00:17
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

Member for

15 years 5 months

BobRogers Thu, 03/27/2008 - 07:14
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.

Member for

17 years 6 months

Cucco Thu, 03/27/2008 - 08:02
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.

Member for

15 years 5 months

BobRogers Thu, 03/27/2008 - 09:22
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.

Member for

15 years 11 months

RemyRAD Thu, 03/27/2008 - 12:12
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

Tags

x