Jose7822


Freddie,

I can understand you wanting to record at 192KHz more than I can compehend why you would record in 32 bit.  At least the former gives you more data (even if you can't hear it), but the latter doesn't.  It just makes the files bigger for no reason.  Converters can only go up to 24 bits.  Setting them to record at 32 bit fills the file with silence by padding 0's at the end.  There's no audio quality gain and you're only giving your computer a hard time.  It's a lost case my friend :-)


HTH

John


Freddie how on earth can you tell? You can never hear a 32 bit file. It will always be a maximum of 24 bits going out to your sound card. 

Freddie H


Please, I have sincer question! 44.1 kHz VS 48 kHZ?


Can we hear he different in the softwares? I have problem with my Kontakt in 48kHz and up so it seems that I get unfortunately forced to work and use 44.1 kHz again instead...
At least until this get fixed! I feel it doesn't sound as good as 48 kHz though, but I want to hear any good thoughts & comments about this?

mike_mccue


"Still, it guarantee me that it would sound the same as "Realtime"."

What does a dance tracks producer call Realtime?

The groovy sound coming out of a $6k 16bit wavetable synthesis keyboard work station?

Just wondering :-)

Is it safe to go back to 24/48?

Freddie H

Undertow, thanks for the tips but last I checked it was 48 khz?
East West, Vienna? Perhaps I'm wrong?  
 

UnderTow

Maybe one day when physical media is forgotten everything will be 48Khz...

UnderTow


Freddie. I have reported your posts as copyright infringements. This is out of order.

UnderTow

Jose7822

Freddie H

Jose7822


Freddie,

I can understand you wanting to record at 192KHz more than I can comprehend why you would record in 32 bit.  At least the former gives you more data (even if you can't hear it), but the latter doesn't.  It just makes the files bigger for no reason.  Converters can only go up to 24 bits.  Setting them to record at 32 bit fills the file with silence by padding 0's at the end.  There's no audio quality gain and you're only giving your computer a hard time.  It's a lost case my friend :-)


HTH

192 kHz I must say is overkill... 48 kHz and after that its hard to hear the differnet Jose!
That there is no audio quality gain is not entirely correct Jose. There many great factors using 32bit floating files instead of 24bit...
 
Data-bits of 32bit floating or higher gives you the guarantee that you will not loose any quality working internal with your software synths and your audio files rendering “internal” in SONAR.
 
 
 
 
All software Synths are in 32bit floating and up. So if you downmix a software synth internal in SONAR and use 24bit fileformat it will not sound the same as if you played on it "Live" in SONAR from the midi track. If you use 32bit floating the recording of the Software synth, FX and if you Freeze a track will sound exactly the same as when SONAR played it "Live".
 
Also you can't peak a 32bit floating file format. You can peak a 24bit file format very easy if the singnal reach more then 0.000000001 db above 0db . Of course you can always peak a 32bit floating file too but I think its more then +120 db above 0 db internal or even more ++db or something. 
 
 
Best Regards
Freddie

 
Freddie,
 
I mentioned 192KHz as a way to express how ridiculous recording at 32 bit really is.  Your audio interface can only do 24 bits, that's it.  Adding more bits is the same as adding silence to your files, which doesn't offer any of the benefits you speak of.  Those benefits come from your DAW's mixing engine.  It computes your audio files at the higher bit depths with floating point precision.  But you don't need to record at 32 bit to get advantage of that.  The mixing engine already does this for you, even if you record at 16 bits.  IOW, the recording bit depth and the mixing engine's bit depth are two separate things and your are combining them together as if they were one, and that is just wrong!
 
Freddie, not to sound rude or anything, but I think you should stop posting about anything concerning this topic.  You're just spreading misinformation because you don't know what you're talking about.  So please, stop this madness.  Just let the thread die, please.
 
Thanks!
 
 

Freddie H

I'm sorry for misunderstanding, but are you for real?
When would---> "quotes" of Dan Lavry get copyrighted on the internet?
Then posting --->links be copyrighted too?...its not....

UnderTow

Freddie H

I'm sorry for misunderstanding, but are you for real?
When would---> "quotes" of Dan Lavry get copyrighted on the internet?
Then posting --->links be copyrighted too?...its not....

Yes I am absolutely for real. You can not just copy and paste other people's words like that. But even more importantly, there is no need to! It just clutters up the thread and confuses everyone. It is also a complete waste of space. It would make much more sense if you made ONE post with a few links to the relevant material with a short explanation of what the material covered.

Also, if Dan Lavry updates his document, your copy&pasted text won't be updated will it?

Here is the last line of one of the documents you cop&pasted from: "Copyright Dan Lavry, Lavry Engineering, Inc, 2004". In other words, what you did is illegal. And no, a link to a document is not a copyright infringement. It is just a link.

So please delete all those posts and replace them by ONE post with links to the relevant documents, forum posts etc with a bit of info so that people know what they will find.

Thanks,

UnderTow