Asher Guitars WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Nordstarnd Pickups darrenriley.com
Asher Guitars WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Nordstarnd Pickups Warmoth.com
Asher Guitars WD Music Products Amplified Parts Mod Kits DIY Nordstarnd Pickups Warmoth.com

Recording with 96Kz resolution

Discussion in 'Recording In Progress' started by Tornado, Jan 12, 2018.

  1. Tornado

    Tornado TDPRI Member

    Age:
    44
    65
    Mar 13, 2016
    Amsterdam
    Hi guys,

    I am still recording with a hardware multitracker. I wonder, do you people who work with recording software on a computer, record with a resolution of 24bit 96Kz?

    When it comes to sharing with or selling your music to other people, is it of any use?
     

  2. MA6200

    MA6200 Tele-Meister

    243
    May 12, 2017
    Maryland
    I always use 24 bit at 44.1k sampling. AFAIK 44.1k is a standard for CDs.

    I'm just an amateur though.
     

  3. raito

    raito Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    Nov 22, 2010
    Madison, WI
    I do. In fact, it was, along with price, the criterion for my interface selection.

    My reasons are esoteric, and have to do with the fact that I occasionally write my own audio processing software.

    When I distribute, which is quite rare, I resample to more standard rates/bit depths.
     

  4. Teleterr

    Teleterr Friend of Leo's

    Feb 7, 2011
    Lewes De.
    Do you lose sound quality at all ?
    I mean the bit rate change.
     

  5. LutherBurger

    LutherBurger Friend of Leo's

    Oct 29, 2013
    NYC
    I always record and edit/process at a bit depth of 24 (32-bit float), but I think high sample rates are overkill. If the final product is audio only, 44.1kHz is sufficient. If the audio is for a video project, I'll record at 48kHz because that's what the video producers usually ask for.
     

  6. BuckSatan

    BuckSatan Tele-Meister

    163
    Feb 23, 2011
    USA
    24 bit recording effectively pushes the noise floor down by 48 dB (6 dB per bit). I am still grateful for the transition from 16 bit to 24; I don’t have to be quite so concerned with levels in the digital domain.

    96 kHz, however, is fine sounding but overkill to my ear. I tend to work at 48 kHz both professionally and personally, it sounds great and it ready for video. And these days, sample rate conversion is pretty good sounding so going from 48 kHz to 44.1 kHz for CD replication sounds fine.

    Working at 96 kHz and above is also fairly demanding on the computer in terms of CPU, hard drives, RAM, etc.

    That being said, I’ve mixed material recorded on 16 bit 44.1 kHz standalone recorders which sound just fine. Pay attention to levels and tones and you’ll probably be good if that’s all you have to work with.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018

  7. raito

    raito Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    Nov 22, 2010
    Madison, WI
    No. I won't go into all the details, but there's really no loss of 'quality' (which can have several meanings here) with any moderately modern resampling algorithm.

    I'd be curious as to why you might think there would be a loss of quality going from 96 to 44.1 (or 48) vs. recording at those rates in the first place?
     

  8. Teleterr

    Teleterr Friend of Leo's

    Feb 7, 2011
    Lewes De.
    A friend was having some kind of problem using tracks that were 44 and others that were 48 together. Hes not totally digitally savy, so I was wondering if it was inherient, or just him, his software or his box.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018

  9. raito

    raito Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    Nov 22, 2010
    Madison, WI
    Could be any of those, though his box is the least likely problem. I try to avoid using using tracks of differing formats like that. On the rare occasion I've had to (like adding some externally generated audio, like a sound effect or voice or something), I'll match formats first, then import into a project with the other tracks.
     
    Teleterr likes this.

  10. woodman

    woodman Grand Wazoo @ The Woodshed Ad Free Member

    Age:
    72
    Nov 28, 2004
    Mint Hill, NC
    Call me a bozo, but I stick to 44/16 ... once the file's downsampled, I can't tell much difference, if any. For my purposes, it's not worth the larger file sizes. The exception is if I'm doing a song for a film (48/24).
     

  11. Chud

    Chud Poster Extraordinaire Platinum Supporter

    Dec 30, 2010
    New York City
    As others have mentioned, 48/24 is the standard in most professional circles, and most of us wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between 96/48/44.1 or 24/16 on a well recorded, well mixed and well mastered track.
     

  12. LutherBurger

    LutherBurger Friend of Leo's

    Oct 29, 2013
    NYC
    Higher bit depths allow for cleaner processing. That's what I was taught, anyway.
     
    Dennyf likes this.

  13. brogh

    brogh Super Moderator Staff Member

    Jun 26, 2010
    italy
    unless it's a specific client request & unless you're not recording an album, 96/24 is just nuts for recording normal tracks in the home studio environment.

    Makes sense in a studio environment, with great mics, and treated room & top notch equipment for professional recording, for good demos 48/16 is way more than enough.

    you can use 96 ... but it will just be harder to handle (bigger files) if you can't control it accurately i don't think it's worth the effort.
     
    Jules78 likes this.

  14. still_fiddlin

    still_fiddlin Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    May 6, 2009
    Texas
    I finished the last of the Harry & David gourmet popcorn my sister sent us for Christmas, so I guess I will add my $.002, which I've probably done before...

    Except for the person who records bats, IMO, the normal recording environment (and that includes most places that would describe themselves as "pro") cannot capture any sound that would be lost if recorded at 48kHz vs 96kHz. Now, someone could generate soundwaves with those frequencies, but nobody can hear them, so what, please tell me, is the point? I really believe it's all marketing.
     

  15. Tornado

    Tornado TDPRI Member

    Age:
    44
    65
    Mar 13, 2016
    Amsterdam
    Suppose in the future you wanna make a video clip forv your recording and put it on a blue ray disk? Blue ray works with 96K doesn't it?

    However, I think I will stick to my multitracker and record with 44,1k. Thanks for the replies so far.
     

  16. still_fiddlin

    still_fiddlin Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    May 6, 2009
    Texas
    Technically, yes, you can have Dolby True HD audio on your BD but if you're producing for that, chances are you're working in a professional studio which has the ability to charge enough so as to pay for the ability to produce audio that nobody can hear.

    No argument that non-lossy 24-bit is going to sound better than lossy 16-bit, but I can do that without spending $10k on new equipment.
     

  17. brogh

    brogh Super Moderator Staff Member

    Jun 26, 2010
    italy
    it's not about sound frequency, it's about frequency resolution the higher the frequency the more samples, here's a link to a short description

    Link

    you can find recordings at 192 kHz too, or dsd

    Cheers

    [​IMG]
     
    dr_tom likes this.

  18. still_fiddlin

    still_fiddlin Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    May 6, 2009
    Texas
    The graphs are misleading because the interpolation of points between samples is based on actual data captured at those points. The only reason to have more than 48kHz is because you believe you are possibly missing some important information in that range above 24kHz. (Which I haven't heard an explanation of where that data comes from. Chances are, if there's anything there, it's noise.)

    Nobody's arguing that you might get different audio output from a higher sampled file, because it's all done with algorithms that are attempting to recreate something that no longer exists and was measured/digitized with some errors to begin with. When there are a couple good double-blind tests that demonstrate any group of listeners can distinguish between music recorded at these two sample rates, I'll listen. Until then, it's the same effect as wine tasters that know "more expensive wine tastes better." Switch the price tags, and surprise, cheaper wine tastes better.

    Look, if it keeps studios in business, I'm happy. I'm not competing with them. Heck, I'm not competing with anyone. But, I'm not buying this snake oil either.
     

  19. Jules78

    Jules78 Tele-Holic

    656
    Dec 12, 2016
    Northern VA
    It would help for those participating in the discussion to have an understanding as to what a bit rate means and equally important, bit number.

    Sounds are waves. A digital format takes an analog sound wave and tries to represent it with 1s and 0s, the language of computers. Digital sound is an approximation of analog waves. When it is played back, the digital data is converted to analog so you can hear it.

    To represent the analog waves, digital cuts up the analog wave into segments. The number of segments per second is the sample rate. 96k means 96,000 segments per second.

    Each of these 96,000 segments has a series of 1s and 0s to define the data within the segment. 24 bit sound has 24 1s and 0s for each segment.

    The higher the sample rate and bitrate, the more finely divided and the closer the digital comes to being a perfect copy of analog.

    It has nothing to do with frequency of sounds, although many mp3 formats chop out the high and low frequency noises to reduce file size.

    You cant add info that wasnt there originally which means if your plugging into a pc and using a plugin that processes at 44.1, recording it at 96 isnt going to add anything.

    For the average person at home, subtle things like mic placement, mixing, and quality of equipment will have a far greater contribution to the sound than a high bit rate. High bit rate recording is the icing on the cake, the last thing you do to produce the highest quality material.
     
    teleaddicted and dr_tom like this.

  20. still_fiddlin

    still_fiddlin Friend of Leo's Silver Supporter

    May 6, 2009
    Texas
    Please stop claiming that the higher sample rate is necessary to capture a more accurate "picture" of audio in the range of human hearing. As someone said, maybe for [some] 10-year-olds...

    Here's a knowledgeable article that explains the possible benefits of higher sampling rates. My take is you're better off spending your money on better converters because there's no sonic advantage purely due to frequency (admitting a theoretic advantage up to 60kHz though), but, "uncle," it's clear the direction the industry is headed, because it's going to sell more hardware.

    https://sonicscoop.com/2016/02/19/t...rates-when-higher-is-better-and-when-it-isnt/
     
    LutherBurger likes this.

IMPORTANT: Treat everyone here with respect, no matter how difficult!
No sex, drug, political, religion or hate discussion permitted here.