bezonline
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 49
- Joined: 2007/11/07 12:16:29
- Location: England - now living in California U.S.A.
- Status: offline
Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
I am recording projects into Sonar (7.0 PE) that will ultimately be burned to a CD. My Delta 66 card will let me record at a max of 24 bit and 96kHz. My understanding is that to burn a CD, the final wav file will need to be 16 bit and 44.1 kHz. So here is my question - will I benefit by recording an external synth at 24/96, mixing the project, and then exporting to 16/44.1 using the Powr-3 dithering, or should I just stick with bringing the input signal in at 16/44.1 in the first place? Seems that either way, the output will be 16/44.1; I am assuming the main benefits of a higher source signal might be a) more dynamics and wider frequency range in the source material to mix with before any reduction, and/or b) the powr-3 dithering being a better reduction algorithm to arrive at 16/44.1 than the AD/DA converters on my Delta 66. Also bear in mind my PC is older (see specs in my sig below), so I need to be mindful of available system resources. With that in mind, would a good middle ground compromise be 16/96 or 24/44.1, or is that spitting hairs at that point?
Any opinions/feedback is much appreciated. Also, thanks goes out to mwd and Bill Durham for answering my first post on this forum - I took your advice and slapped a 7200rpm 160GB drive in as a 2nd drive for data.
Sonar 7 PE | HP Pavilion 7970 P4 2.0GHz 1GB | Roland XP-50 | M-Audio Axiom 49 | M-Audio Delta 66/Omni Studio | M-Audio BX5a monitors 
|
mgh
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8594
- Joined: 2007/05/10 05:15:56
- Location: betwixt and between
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/23 19:10:18
(permalink)
record at 24 bit. the sample rate is perhaps less important, i do this at 48khz but anything from 44.1 to 96 will be fine - the higher the figure the more strain on your cpu. then dither down with the powr-3 setting and 64 bit mix engine enabled.
|
dantesjuice
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 364
- Joined: 2005/08/27 17:44:16
- Location: San Diego
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/23 19:21:46
(permalink)
+2
i recored at 48/24, then render at 44/16.
"5 out of 4 people have a problem with fractions..." S6PE | DFH 2 | Reason 3 | Vetta II | PodXTPro | Behringer T1951 | BBE 482 | Nady TMP3 | Presonus Firepod | Asus P5N32-E SLI Plus | Intel PD 3.2 | 4 gig PE 800 | WD sata2 www.dantesjuice.com
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/23 19:24:36
(permalink)
If you are doing something like solo voice and guitar, or a couple accoustic instruments, then go with 96. The processing overhead won't be a problem (assuming you have a reasonably powerful machine) and that kind of music can arguably justify 96K. For pop/rock/etc... type stuff, which has lots of processing and tracks, and is fairly dense, go with 48K since it's way lighter on the CPU and the difference in quality won't be worth arguing about probably in the end.
|
rumleymusic
Max Output Level: -60 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1533
- Joined: 2006/08/23 18:03:05
- Location: California
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/23 22:29:04
(permalink)
Diddo on most of these suggestions.
Bit depth is definatelly more of a concern than sample rate. The human ear can hear changes in volume much more minute than 16 bit can provide, and dithering can certainly help preserve that perceived 24bit resolution in a CD. I personally can hear only a slight difference between 44.1 48 or 96K sample rates with my equipment. I usually default at 48K also. (Except when recording orchestras when that "slight difference" is noticable).
|
MarlboroMan23
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 776
- Joined: 2005/08/20 20:32:17
- Location: Lil' D Texas
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/24 13:35:44
(permalink)
I read somewhere there was a school of thought that if you're gonna go to CD at 44.1kHz, the benefit of recording at 48kHz is outweighed by the complicated math of resampling the audio down to 44.1kHz. By complicated I just mean that the downsampling ratio is not at a simple whole number ratio, it is 1.0884353741496598639455782312925:1. It also mentions that if you are gonna record at a high sample rate, that 88.2kHz would be better since that is a just simple multiple (x2) of 44.1kHz and with the math for that conversion there will be no rounding off of the result. To convert a 96kHz track to 44.1kHz the ratio used for downsampling is 2.176870748299319727891156462585:1.
Maybe a benefit for recording at 48 or 96kHz would be possible better forward compatibility if 24bit/96kHz audio becomes the new 16/44.1.
Whatever the sampling rate, common wisdom is that 24 bit is better than 16 bit because of the much wider dynamic range available for 24 bit.
|
krizrox
Max Output Level: -35 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4046
- Joined: 2003/11/23 09:49:33
- Location: Elgin, IL
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/24 16:35:20
(permalink)
I agree with everyone's responses - I use 24/48 Try the highest setting you can get away with and see what happens. Try them all - see what you like is the best answer. You will find the size of the files gets huge at 96K (I can't imagine what happens at 192  ). At some point you will find your threshold of pain and settle into a comfort zone I would think.
Larry Kriz www.LnLRecording.com www.myspace.com/lnlrecording Sonar PE 8.5, Samplitude Pro 11, Sonic Core Scope Professional/XTC, A16 Ultra AD/DA, Intel DG965RY MOBO, Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz processor, XFX GeForce 7300 GT PCIe video card, Barracuda 750 & 320GB SATA drives, 4GB DDR Ram, Plextor DVD/CD-R burner.
|
Thomas Campitelli
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 598
- Joined: 2003/12/29 22:13:08
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/24 17:19:55
(permalink)
I realize everyone is saying to go for 24-bit recording. I would suggest that it doesn't really matter. It is a rare person that would be able to tell the difference between the same track recorded at 24-bt vs. 16-bit in a properly set up test. This is especially true once things get dithered. The placebo effect is very real and very strong. Don't believe me, check this out: http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/ Good luck telling the difference between many of these files. Even some of the stuff at bit depths lower than 16 sounds pretty damn good. Perhaps on really expensive gear some of the differences will be more pronounced, perhaps not. So, if you can't tell the difference between 16-bit and 24-bit recording, is there much point to taking up the extra hard drive space? Probably not, although 24-bit does allow you to record sources more softly than with 16-bit while still preserving better-than-CD sound quality. Should you record at higher than 44.1 kHz sampling rates? Once again, good luck telling the difference. I don't doubt that some people can, but I cannot. Do some testing and see what you come up with. As always, good songs are far more important than high bit depths or sampling rates.
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/24 19:23:47
(permalink)
Recording at 24 bit isn't about whether people can tell the difference, it's about having the extra headroom to not have to worry about tracking everything super-hot and compressed during tracking in order to avoid clipping (or alternatively, to not have enough signal above the noise floor.) So you should definitely use 24 bit, whether the end result is distinguishable or not, because it's just easier to achieve the same quality results than at 16 bit.
|
Thomas Campitelli
Max Output Level: -79 dBFS
- Total Posts : 598
- Joined: 2003/12/29 22:13:08
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/24 20:02:20
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: droddey
Recording at 24 bit isn't about whether people can tell the difference, it's about having the extra headroom to not have to worry about tracking everything super-hot and compressed during tracking in order to avoid clipping (or alternatively, to not have enough signal above the noise floor.) So you should definitely use 24 bit, whether the end result is distinguishable or not, because it's just easier to achieve the same quality results than at 16 bit.
We mostly agree on this, but there is a matter of divergence. Most folks cannot tell the difference between 16 and 24 even when they are listening for it. Going with 24 will get you a lower theoretical noise floor and will give you more gradations in volume. So far, we agree. However, you said, "to not have to worry about tracking everything super-hot and compressed during tracking" is the big benefit of 24. However, you don't really have to worry about this with 16 bit. It's okay to be at -6 or -9. Most of our gear and our systems are very quiet, especially when compared to analog gear. In the test I linked above, you had to get a long way below 16 bit before you really started noticing any noise in the track. I stand by my assertion: There's nothing wrong with either 16 or 24 bit, although 24 bit recording offers few real world benefits.
|
MarlboroMan23
Max Output Level: -75 dBFS
- Total Posts : 776
- Joined: 2005/08/20 20:32:17
- Location: Lil' D Texas
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/24 23:00:00
(permalink)
I thought another benefit for 24bit recording was that any dsp that is performed on the audio be it simple volume adjustments or complex vst/dx plugins and mixing operations will be more accurate because you are starting off with a more accurate "description" of the audio data.
You would be pretty hard pressed to tell the difference between 16/24bits for raw recorded tracks, but on a full arrangement with effects on most tracks and after mixdown, that may be where the difference becomes audible.
|
droddey
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5147
- Joined: 2007/02/09 03:44:49
- Location: Mountain View, CA
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/25 00:48:55
(permalink)
Most of our gear and our systems are very quiet, especially when compared to analog gear. In the test I linked above, you had to get a long way below 16 bit before you really started noticing any noise in the track. But a song isn't composed of one track. It's often composed of 20 or 30 or more tracks. So the point of keeping the noise floor low is to keep it low after they are all added up (and including those tracks that are coming in via mics and adding even more noise.)
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/25 01:41:39
(permalink)
Krizrox is right as always. Try it different ways and see what works best for you. Whether a higher or lower sample rate makes any audible difference is fairly converter-dependent. 44.1 is, in theory, perfectly adequate but in practice certain converters/soundcards sound better or worse at different sample rates for a lot of reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. ORIGINAL: Thomas Campitelli
I realize everyone is saying to go for 24-bit recording. I would suggest that it doesn't really matter. It is a rare person that would be able to tell the difference between the same track recorded at 24-bt vs. 16-bit in a properly set up test...
The primary reason to record at 24 bit is because it doesn't hurt anything, and doesn't cost anything other than disk space, which is inconsequentially cheap by most reckonings. The secondary reason to record at 24 bit is for headroom insurance-- you can record at extremely low levels with no appreciable loss of resolution, so it removes a lot of the headaches of the "properly set up test." It is true that 16 bit is generally fine if you optimize your levels, but in the real world musicians are not always as consistent as we would like them to be and 24-bit allows us to set the record levels at -30dB or whatever with no worries about clipping or loss of resolution even with extremely wild and untrained singers who have no mic technique. With 16-bit we are always threading the needle between overs on one end and loss of resolution on the other, and you have to add in qualifiers like "properly set up" before you can say that it is adequate as a professional recording medium. With 24 bit there is way more headroom and resolution than any sane real-world would ever require so those worries are removed. This is different from sample rate, which has a big cost in terms of CPU. It takes twice as much processing power to handle an 88.2 project as an equivalent 44.1 project, and this can be a very real consideration, especially in small studios that rely heavily on native plug-ins and/or real-time monitoring through the computer. But in a program like Sonar, the processing bit depth is already either 32 or 64 bits, so it makes no difference whether you are processing 16- or 24-bit files. Hence the general consensus to always record in 24-bit. Cheers.
|
RRabbi
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 923
- Joined: 2004/02/24 16:16:54
- Location: Avondale, AZ (previously NB, Canada) eh?
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 06:29:46
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: MarlboroMan23
I read somewhere there was a school of thought that if you're gonna go to CD at 44.1kHz, the benefit of recording at 48kHz is outweighed by the complicated math of resampling the audio down to 44.1kHz. By complicated I just mean that the downsampling ratio is not at a simple whole number ratio, it is 1.0884353741496598639455782312925:1. It also mentions that if you are gonna record at a high sample rate, that 88.2kHz would be better since that is a just simple multiple (x2) of 44.1kHz and with the math for that conversion there will be no rounding off of the result. To convert a 96kHz track to 44.1kHz the ratio used for downsampling is 2.176870748299319727891156462585:1.
Maybe a benefit for recording at 48 or 96kHz would be possible better forward compatibility if 24bit/96kHz audio becomes the new 16/44.1.
Whatever the sampling rate, common wisdom is that 24 bit is better than 16 bit because of the much wider dynamic range available for 24 bit.
I've been recording at 24/44.1, but i'm thinking i'll switch to 24/48... A couple years back, one of the local recording engineers in my city was trying to explain to me the benefits of it, drew a diagragm and everything so my puny little brain could understand ;) .... Made sense, too, what he said... BUT, then I always hear the arguments about the "math" involved in downsampling... So I just stuck with 44.1... Thing is, doesn't the software take care of whatever is required to downsample? If it's just a matter of one extra step, when rendering the audio files, then why wouldn't everyone at least record at 48? do we really have to worry about the math? or does the complicated calculation somehow degrade the audio? Dave
|
mgh
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8594
- Joined: 2007/05/10 05:15:56
- Location: betwixt and between
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 06:44:34
(permalink)
dave
you're right about why everyone wouldn't do it - i think this is just an examlpe of hardware advancing and software being slow to catch up - nowadays every new pc can easily handle the processing power needed to run at 24bit/48khz and most will be able to do 96khz. dithering down doesn't audibly degrade anything to my ears. in 3 years time with multi-terabyte drives and cpus with 8 processors to a chip, people will be using 192khz more and more i'm sure, and wondering why us luddites are stuck at 48khz. if ever an alternative audio source to cd or mp3 takes off, and uses better specs (rather than 16 bit/44.1khz), this will also push things in a new direction.
just my twopennorth.
mark
|
mcourter
Max Output Level: -41 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3442
- Joined: 2006/02/27 16:57:11
- Location: Los Angeles area
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 13:06:31
(permalink)
after having read all this sage advice, I tried to alter my bit depth in SHS4, but 16 bit is the only option available to me. Is this a limitation of SHS4 or do I need to alter settings first at my soundcard? Which, in this case, is my Toneport. Edit: Ah-ha! Instead of Tools>change audio format, I found it under Options>Audio. Another new technique to try on my next project!
post edited by mcourter - 2007/11/26 13:25:49
A few guitars, a couple of basses, a MIDI controller, a mandolin, a banjo, a mic, PodFarm2 Unbridled Enthusiasm My music: www.Soundclick.com/markcourter
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 17:04:00
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mgh
...people will be using 192khz more and more i'm sure, and wondering why us luddites are stuck at 48khz. if ever an alternative audio source to cd or mp3 takes off, and uses better specs (rather than 16 bit/44.1khz)... One thing to keep in mind with this logic is the possibility that recording at higher sample rates does not automatically produce better sound quality, and can in some cases actually degrade it, depending on a variety of factors. Moreover, accurately "upsampling" lower sample-rate material is generally easier to do without error than "downsampling" from higher non-multiple sample rates. I suspect that for most of the people on this board, there is greater danger in over-thinking this stuff than there is in using the wrong sample rate. If the goal is to find the best real-world sound quality from a particular setup, the simple answer is: try it and see. Cheers.
|
RRabbi
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 923
- Joined: 2004/02/24 16:16:54
- Location: Avondale, AZ (previously NB, Canada) eh?
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 22:24:43
(permalink)
Here's a question.... Does each recorded track in a Sonar project need to be the same sample rate? i.e. can some be 96, but others 48 or 44.1, and still the project will playback fine?
Another thing, I find that i'm always fooling myself a bit whenever i'm tracking into Sonar using my Motu and Cuemix to monitor. I think... When I monitor with Cuemix, it sounds awesome and I think to myself "wow... that sounds awesome", but when I playback the recorded track it doesn't sound AS AWESOME. That was recording at 24 bit, 44.1... So yeah, i'm not sure what exactly i'm hearing, but i'm assuming it's the raw unprocessed sound (not dependant on the sample rate, bit depth, etc...) or does the Cuemix monitor audio get affected by the sample rate and bit depth that i'm recording at?
Or, maybe i'm crazy.
heh
Dave
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 23:38:19
(permalink)
Hi Dave,
RE: whether cuemix is affecting the mix-- i think you are the best one to answer that question. My suspicion is that if you are hearing a consisten subjective difference that there is a difference and that it is likely some sort of user error.
Cheers.
|
RRabbi
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 923
- Joined: 2004/02/24 16:16:54
- Location: Avondale, AZ (previously NB, Canada) eh?
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/26 23:45:01
(permalink)
oh... I know cuemix isn't affecting the mix...
I guess what I mean (and this can apply to ANY zero-latency monitoring ability for most audio interfaces) is what we're hearing during monitoring exactly what's being recorded... I'm thinking it's not... What i'm hearing through monitoring sounds pristine... I just dunno if I have to jack the settings way up in Sonar to get the same thing during playback after tracking is finished...
I might be confusing the issue too, I guess I just wondered if anyone else noticed the same thing... (those that use zero latency monitoring with their audio interface...)
Dave
|
yep
Max Output Level: -34.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4057
- Joined: 2004/01/26 15:21:41
- Location: Hub of the Universe
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/27 00:21:44
(permalink)
Ohh...
that is a topic for a new thread, I'm sure.
There are about a billion reasons why you might hear something different when monitoring through the input hardware rather than actually monitoring through Sonar, anything from a different hardware mix to AD clipping to track levels in Sonar to wayward busses or effects processors to forgotten FX loops or who knows what...
FWIW, this is the primary reason that I personally dislike outboard "zero latency" monitoring solutions: there is no absolute way to be sure that what you are recording is what you are hearing. The closest you can get is to make absolutely sure that the signal sent to your monitors is the exact same as the signal sent to the soundcard's internal AD, which is what I would recommend. But it can be deceptively tricky to be absolutely sure that you've nailed it that way in some setups. I would suggest running a search or starting a new thread for more detailed info.
Cheers.
|
RRabbi
Max Output Level: -72 dBFS
- Total Posts : 923
- Joined: 2004/02/24 16:16:54
- Location: Avondale, AZ (previously NB, Canada) eh?
- Status: offline
RE: Record at 24/96kHz or 16/44.1kHz? (for CD)
2007/11/27 10:31:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: yep
Ohh...
that is a topic for a new thread, I'm sure.
There are about a billion reasons why you might hear something different when monitoring through the input hardware rather than actually monitoring through Sonar, anything from a different hardware mix to AD clipping to track levels in Sonar to wayward busses or effects processors to forgotten FX loops or who knows what...
FWIW, this is the primary reason that I personally dislike outboard "zero latency" monitoring solutions: there is no absolute way to be sure that what you are recording is what you are hearing. The closest you can get is to make absolutely sure that the signal sent to your monitors is the exact same as the signal sent to the soundcard's internal AD, which is what I would recommend. But it can be deceptively tricky to be absolutely sure that you've nailed it that way in some setups. I would suggest running a search or starting a new thread for more detailed info.
Cheers.
Yeah.. that's what I meant... ;) I'll play around with it and see what I come up with... And maybe start a new thread if necessary... I only posted it hear since something was telling me that MAYBE in order to get the same nice sound as what i'm hearing thru zero-latency monitoring, that i'd have to jack up the bit depth, sample rate, etc... I guess not... Yeah, the cuemix monitoring is deceptive for sure. It sounds amazing, but that's not necessarily what is getting recorded (or how it would play back...) I'm getting off topic now... my bad... Dave
|