Recording at 24/96

[resolectric]

Please let me start out by emphasizing that i believe there is nothing wrong in recording at 44/16. It is much better than cassette, so, no arguments there. If it sounds good enough, go for it.

If you want it to sound better, there are options today.

Now, regarding therealbigd's post there are a few things that i have to comment. My views on your remarks are just my oppinions, of course.

- style of music: if you are recording heavy, scream-your-heart-out, metal; then there is probably little logic in using a high sample and bit rate. the sound quality gained in the up'd rates are most likely lost in the lack of detail in the sounds used within the track. the guitars are likely to be mushy anyway, the drum kit a tad splashy, and the vocals... well errr.... and all these merely down to the way in which the track is performed. If on the other hand you are recording a string quartet, where the instruments may be much more defined and clear, a higher sample rate could be warranted.

If that is your definition of what a Heavy Metal piece sounds like you should check your monitoring, your recording practices or just stay away from making technical comments on music you simply don't like.

If on a string quartet you have lack of detail on the Cello, mushy Viola and splashy violins, and the musicians are... well, errrr... what would you say? It could happen!

- number of tracks / fx used: using a high number of tracks / high number of plug-ins can strain your CPU, and using high rates will only further that. if the project looks like theres going to be loads of overdubs, extra tracks, AU synths, lots of plugins, perhaps a rewire as well; it may be a good idea to be conservative on the amount of data that you are going to apply these things to. a reduced sample rate and bit rate will reduce this actual amount of data.

Certainly, higher sampling rates will require more power from your CPU. As will more plugins.
Maybe it could be advisable as well to use less Plugin Compressors and a higher Sample Rate instead, no?
Besides, people in the studio business have always had technical limitations presented by gear.
If you had a 1 inch/8 track machine you wouldn't record 16 Tracks. One uses what the gear allows.
If you have a less powerful computer/DAW you will use it within its capabilities.

I have a ASUS laptop, 2 year old, Dual Core Intel 1.66GHz with 2GB ram. It cost me in March 2006, more than 2500 Euro.
I record 8 simultaneous tracks at 88.2KHz/32bit with it because that's what my interface allows me. The laptop seems to allow for more since it doesn't even cough.
Nowadays, a faster more powerful laptop costs about 600.
I don't think gear is an excuse to record at 44/16.
Not in 2008.

- the end format: if the track is being bounced for a DVD in HD, by all means go for the higher rates. but if you are going for a CD, why step above 44.1 / 16? many argue with dithering that you can use the higher sample rates to create a nicer sound, so by all means try it... but try dithering without the sample rates and some interesting things can happen too! if the end product is an asetate vinyl / dub plate, where the sound quality will likely be very low anyway, or indeed and mp3 end format, I see no reason to use the higher sample and bit rates, as this additional quality will almost certainly be lost once "burnt" to the media.

Dithering has nothing to do with Sample Rate conversion.

Vinyl has a very low quality, you say?
I would say it sounds better than CD.
Maybe because it isn't at 44/16 but, i am not going to convince you anyway, and that is an entirely different subject.

Besides, comparing mp3 and vinyl as the "lower quality" end formats is, in the least, offensive.

As for why using higher sample rates, either go to page 1 in this topic or read again here:
1. get a 44.1/16 audio file. Any length.
Apply a Reverb, a good one. Listen carefully (not with the same system that you listen to Heavy Metal and/or Vinyl records since it seems it doesn't sound that good) check the spectrum.
2. upsample the same original sound file to 96KHz.
Apply a Reverb, a good one.
Downconvert to 44.1 again.
Listen carefully and check the spectrum.

Notice that they are now, both, at 44.1

They'll sound different and i bet the second one, the one that was converted to 96 before applying the nice Reverb will sound better, more detailed with a better sounding reverb.

- the purpose of the product: if the product is going to be used within a high def film, or sold as a CD album, etc; a higher sample rate could help you achieve a nicer sounding product. However, if the purpose of the product is for a DJ to play at high volumes through some whacked-out PA system at the local venue, once again, the quality gained by higher rates may be lost by the playback equipment, and further to that the audience of the music is unlikely to notice the difference in quality.

The better the quality of the original format, the less it'll degrade after it is played "through some whacked-out PA system".
If you start with lower quality, it'll never, ever, get better.

- the recording equipment: if you are using low-end dynamic mics, a cheap desk for pre-amps, and a naff sounding room; the higher sample rates may only highlight this fact. if you are using a nice set of valve mics, into high end pre-amps, through top end converters, from a purpose built live room, the higher sample rates, once again, will highlight this fact. make up your own mind as to which you'd rather highlight, and which you'd rather not highlight.

Your advice is: if your gear isn't top notch, don't record well because people will notice

Higher Sample Rates do not highlight handicaps in recording gear any more than lower Sample Rates hide them.

If your gear is giving you a bad sounding recording, no Sample Rate option will make it sound better. Even if it's a lower Sample Rate.
The contrary may be true.

I say: go for the best that your gear gives you to take the max out of it.
And record carefully and with taste.

overall point - take everything into consideration and make your own mind up!

Take the truth in consideration and be coherent in your options.
Learn to listen and develop your aesthetic appreciation of sound.
Improve your earing instead of damaging it.
Learn to listen and appreciate all types of music and sound.
Experiment and judge by yourself when you feel you have attained a better sense of judgement.

And record well.

[therealbigd]

(post deleted by author)

[resolectric]

i feel i should clarify a few things

The way you have posted doesn't make it at all clear since you have replied inside the quotations.
Anyway, i'll edit it for you and make your post clear.

You said, to make things clear:

i said heavy, scream-your-heart-out metal, not heavy metal. when somebody is screaming their little heart out, no sample rate will change that fact. and as the drummer bashes the hell out of their cymbals and double kick, there is little you can do about that either. practical experience tells me this.

i am sorry for any offence caused to people who like listening to screaming people.

No offense taken, but you're wrong.

"Screaming one's little heart out" (as you said) can be captured with upper harmonics in the region of 26 or 28 KHz, the room sound, the very light snare noise caused by the vocal SPL in the same room, all those small tiny sounds that give space, ambience and a certain mistery to the sound of a recording will be captured if you record at 88.2 or 96 (or above).
Not if you're at 44.1.
Even if you don't scream your little heart out.

i think you have totally missed my point. you surely, cannot be totally serious, when you say you'd rather use 32/192, and undermix your track, than use a very similar sounding sample rate, and be able to mix your track completely. you must be crazy if that is the case, either that or your ears are extremely fine and you dont like using plugins. in such a case, i would recommend you return to the tape format. you have exactly repeated my point - we all have technical limitations. my point was that by downsizing your sample / bit rate you can apply more creative processing to your track, with a small effect on the audio quality. yours was that for the sake of working at a higher quality, you are unable to apply plugins to your track. for those relying on a computer only setup, and no outboard, this is not really an option.

Offense taken on the "crazy" part.
You should avoid those adjectives. Pretend we're discussing technical matters at dinner. Chating.
You wouldn't call me crazy.
So... moving on:

There is no such thing as "similar sampling rates".
There is no such thing as similar tape formats, there is no such thing as similar recording booths.
They all sound different. Some sound better.

You suggest recording at a lower Sample Rate in order to use more Plugins.
I disagree.

You admit that recording at lower Sample Rates as an affect on the sound quality.

That is my point.
Thankyou.
Crazy who?

you're saying you'd happily take the maltesers, cherries, ice cream, chocolate brownie, fudge and chocolate sprinkles off the cake in order to have dark chocolate icing, whilst i'd keep the milk chocolate icing and have all the decorations. this is a matter that depends on your priorities, but bearing in mind that most tracks will wind up as 44.1/16 anyway, it seems a tad pointless to sacrifice so much for so little.

Never said i avoid using processing (hardware or software) just to be able to use a higher Sample Rate.
You're assuming. Your risk.
You failed. Again.

As for the famous sentence "most tracks will wind up as 44.1/16 anyway" maybe that is why there were so many 1 inch 2 track Masters of albums that ended up in vinyl albums.
As you said before, in your oppinion Vinyl/Acetate/mp3 all sound the same (read: bad) it must have been a waste of good tape and good tape recorders.
Afterall, why record in 2 inch Studers with frequency response from 10Hz to 26KHz if the recordings ended up in limited bandwidth media... such as 44.1/16 CDs.

i am not referring so much to the strain on recording, but more on mixing. you may be able to record 8 tracks at 32bit, but that's irrelevant. when mixing 16 tracks, for instance, that were recorded at 32/96, your computer has to deal with just over 3Mb per second. at 16/44.1, a very small downgrade in audio quality, the computer has only to deal with 0.7Mb per second. This allows a much larger scope for working with plug-in effects.

Ohhh... the magic of Plugins is so much more important than the magic of good sound/good music/proper recording.

I see why you hate so much the sound of Heavy Metal and praise the string quartet as an example of good sound.
It's all in the Plugins, right?

Dithering has nothing to do with Sample Rate conversion.

not directly. dithering adds noise around a wave, close to the original wave. this "colouration" produces a similar effect to that of using a higher sample rate, as percieved by the human ear.

Not directly nor indirectly.
Not at all.
Not.
No.

Noise "around a wave, close to the original wave"... what is that????

Dithering produces a similar effect to that of using a higher sample rate?
Don't you mean "word length" instead of Sample Rate?

Look, i'm only here to help but if you know of something that none of us knows about, let us know.

Vinyl has a very low quality, you say?
I would say it sounds better than CD.
Maybe because it isn't at 44/16 but, i am not going to convince you anyway, and that is an entirely different subject.


Besides, comparing mp3 and vinyl as the "lower quality" end formats is, in the least, offensive.

vinyl sounds better than CDs, no doubt, as analogue format. HOWEVER, my qoute referred to asetate vinyl and dubplates. these are short run vinyls, that are made of a much lighter material, and have much poorer sound quality than a standard CD, and this quality is downgraded at each play as the surface is worn away. so, it is a fact, that asetate vinyl is of a lower quality, not an offensive opinion.

Agreed.
So, you suggest that if we record something that will end up in an acetate dubplate we should use 44.1/16 instead of higher Sample Rates.
Ok.
I won't do it.

DMM pressing is also short run and is the highest quality possible for Vinyl pressings.
And Vinyl is also affected by surface degradation.
I still prefer to Master for Vinyl pressings on 96/32.
In fact, when i deliver a Master for a Vinyl pressing i always deliver a 96/32 file.
I only downgrade to 44 and dither to 16bit when i deliver a Master for CD, wich is lower qualitty than DMM Vinyl.

mp3, again, is a fact proven lower quality medium. mp3 files are created by removing the parts of the wave that are not heard by the human ear. this being all the frequencies below 20Hz, above 20kHz, and anything within the song that is masked by something else, and not heard. this, on a 4minute song, can take a 40MB WAV file down to around 4MB. speaks for itself huh?

So, why did you say that acetate sounds the same as mp3?
Do acetate pressings have 90% of their content removed as it happens on mp3? Guess not.
Guess acetate pressings go well below 20Hz and well above 20KHz.

your sarcasm and level of humour bores me. dont bother commenting on the sound of Wilson Benesch / PMC / Genelec equipment, I think we're all in agreement that it's darn fine stuff. I've never claimed that vinyl sounds worse, or that heavy metal does. Ive merely commented that in the midst of heavy, screaming metal, the detail is much harder to define, and that acetate vinyl is of lower quality. The first is a matter of opinion, the second, a matter of fact. If you still wish to argue that one, I'll get you in contact with the UK's main supplier of acetate vinyl, as they're good friends of mine, and you can chat about it with them.

further to this, ive never doubted that 96 sounds better than 44. ive merely commented, that there are other issues that may affect how you wish to use different sample rates. so you seem to have got the wrong end of that stick too, seeing as we tour with a 192 pro tools rig.

Sorry to disagree with most things you said.
I tend to be a really friendly and helpful guy but since your previous post was so full of things that i disagreed (i am being very polite) i had to comment.

there is no point making a product better than the appliance.

Yes there is.
Lots of "points" to be true.
The future is one.
Or do you think that the art that people put in your hands today, to record/produce/mix/master will see it's end after it leaves your hands?
The Beatles, Charlie Patton and Maria Callas would have been long forgotten.

My advice is, don't look at a bad painting with a magnifying glass. If your equipment won't provide a great sound at 16/44, don't exemplify it with 32/192.

...

and get a decent sense of humour. some struggle.

Yes.
When something is poorly recorded, better listen to it in mp3 format.
That way you'll think it sounds like crap because it's an mp3.

And sorry for not understanding that the infos you have written in your previous post were meant as humour.
I wished they were, but couldn't believe.
Now i see that you were just being humorous.
Nice one.

[therealbigd]

(post deleted by author)

[resolectric]

im not going to bother quoting because i have a job and a life and you're pettiness comes below both.

but i would like you to know that:

* i agree that those 26/28kHz sounds all add to the texture, but I disagree with the fact that you can hear them when there's 2 guitars being shredded, a bass being bludgeoned with hammer like fingers, and a drum kit being smashed by the drummer. and your point about it not being recorded at 44, but being recorded at 88 is wrong! are you telling me that these reflections / refractions only last 1/82200th of a second, and none of them last as much as 1/44100th of a second?
* i'd call you crazy alright, if you told me to ditch half my creative process in order to hear "all those small tiny sounds that give space, ambience and a certain mistery to the sound"
* when i say similar sampling rates, i mean that there really is very little difference between 1/88200th of a second and 2/88200ths of a second. the difference is not big enough to sacrifice your ability to add whatever plugins you like afterwards.
* I have always admitted using lower sample rates has an effect on the sound quality. what I have questioned is whether the pros of using higher sample rates are able to match the cons of putting a higher strain on your CPU.
* I didn't assume, you said so. "You suggest recording at a lower Sample Rate in order to use more Plugins. I disagree."
* I have never said that Vinyl, Acetate and mp3 all sound the same. I have in fact, said that Vinyl sounds better than an audio CD, as it follows the analogue format, the the degradation of acetate means that it suffers from loss of audio quality, and the processing of mp3s also gives loss of quality. I have never grouped them, and suggested that they hold them same properties. Learn English. then criticise others' use of it.
* We are not arguing about the past use of audio technology. We are referring to modern day use of A/D converters.
* I don't believe that plug-ins are capable of matching a genuinely good recording. When I was working at Hook End we were very thorough about getting the right sound in recording and not having to use much processing afterwards. However, we also enjoyed using the magic of computer plug-ins to do some awesome stuff that just couldn't be achieved elsewhere. When they had a G4, and it struggled a bit on some of the Pro Tools work, there was nothing I found more annoying than having an amazing idea for a track, going to apply it, then getting a beach ball because I'd maxxed it out. Until we started using G5s and Mac Pros I used lower sample rates to prevent this occuring.
* the definition of dithering, in imagery, is "display or print (an image) without sharp edges so that there appear to be more colors in it than are really available". the same principle is applied to an audio file.
* OK my first post was early in the morning, I should have made it all clear. You should always use the highest sample rate possible. However, why risk running out of CPU, when you are merely producing it for a piece of dodgy plastic, that will sound rubbish after 5 plays (THIS APPLIES TO ACETATE ONLY, NOT MP3 OR VINYL YOU ILLITERATE FOOL!)?
* I don't produce my stuff for the future, I produce it for here and now. That's what they pay me for. They're never too fussed about people picking it up in 40 years time and re-releasing it.
* Im glad you work in music, because your English skills are rubbish.

I am quoting all your post with bold on parts and words that i would like to point.
It is a very interesting post.

1. Nice to know that you have a job. In fact i was counting the minutes before you used that sentence. The old "i don't have time for this, i have a life, blah blah...". It was about time that you made it clear that we're all a bunch of lazy bones and you're the working type who doesn't have time for this.

2. It's funny to notice that you agree that certain frequencies only possible with higher sample rates add to the texture of sound but you disagree that they can be heard. Huh? What is texture then? Something you smell?

3. You've called me crazy again. Ouch.

4. You insist on the "similar sampling rates" thing but now you're trying to polish the turd you've written. As usual.

5. You're not arguing about the past of music technology yet you suggest people use outdated Sample Rate and Wordlength definitions to save on resources on outdated CPUs. You're not discussing the present either. Even less the future. You're using past technologies and methods.

6. So, you've managed to eat all the power in a G4 CPU running Pro Tools therefore having to recur to recording in lower sample rates? And all that in a professional recording studio.
Did you say you have a job? Don't make plans and save money.

7. The definition of "dithering in imagery" is just the same as for dithering in audio. Dither is Dither and it is applied to the wordlength and not the sample rate.

8. The sentence you wrote with all capital letters probably went through a loudness maximizer of some sort. It's not polite to write in all capitals. It's as if you were shouting.
Also, the final part of the sentence ("YOU ILLITERATE FOOL!") is offensive and denotes a very low brain rate. You should dither yourself and use less maximizer.
Stop using all capitals and start being polite.
You'll gain with being polite and educated.

9. When, finally, you state that you don't produce for the future but only for what they pay you for i assume that you are either underpaid or have a very short prospective on your own work.
I assume it's due to the quality of what you put in your efforts (if any).

10. I appreciate that you are glad that i work in music as I believe we don't work in the same business at all.
I must say i'm glad.
As for my english skills, they're as good as my french skills, better than my german skills but not as good as my spanish or portuguese skills. Not being born or ever having lived in an english speaking country i assume my english skills are up to par with yours, since i understood everything you wrote and you understood all my words as well.
Care for a conversation in my own language? I don't think you can.

By the way: in the first sentence, when you write "you're pettiness" you're referring to "my pettiness" or are you saying that i am "pettiness"? It doesn't make sense. You should have written "your pettiness", possessive.
Also, you should use a capital letter at the beginning of each sentence and "Acetate" is with a "C", not an "S".

[therealbigd]

hmmm
2) i never agreed... as i said, i would be utmost surprised if there are any sounds that last 1/82200th of a second that dont also last for 1/44100th of a second, and if there are, that the short space of time that it goes on for is detectable by a human ear?
4) as far as human perception of time goes, is 1/82200th of a second really that far different to 2/82200ths of a second. no. i bet you cant count that fast.
5) there was no mention of outdated CPUs. we now run mac pros and are pretty confident that we can bust them too. we are synth people and like piling hundreds of synths on top of each other to make massive additive synths. its fun and awesome, but maxes out the mac pretty fast. and i dont think you can call a mac pro outdated. lower sample rates are in no way outdated, if they were then programs like Logic / Cubase / Pro Tools would stop accepting them. And Apogee wouldn't make converters that go that low. clearly, they're not outdated yet.
6) in a word, yes. getting to a crucial point in a project and being told "no" by the G4 was darn annoying. all for the sake of a higher sample rate. waste.
7) dithering may be applied to the wordlength, but you cant deny that it is used when going from a higher sample rate to a lower one.
i used capitals to yes, increase the loudness, as, after your obvious inability to understand what was being said earlier, i thought that maybe you were unable to "hear" it correctly and needed it somewhat louder. you'll gain with reading things properly in the first place.
9) i'm not the first, but indeed the second. as i said before, im being paid for here and now, not tomorrow.
10) i care not for a conversation in your own language, this forum is in english, therefore we speak that way. if you simply read what you were criticising rather than jumping to conclusions, you'd have less to moan about.

ironically, i thought i might mention that we record in 24/192. higher sample rates are great if the machine can handle them, and you are confident that you can keep piling stuff on until the cows come home. my original comment was merely a "here's some other things to think about before just switching everything to full"... just to clarify that bit.

[therealbigd]

its late and im calm so im going to add this:

* my message in my original post was unclear. and i worded it very badly. my prime point was, in fact:

if CPU power, or hard drive space, is at a premium, here are things that you could consider before setting your sample rate.
as, obviously, if it's possible to use 32/192 at the same time as all the plugins / instruments / rewire channels / etc as you like... do it!

* i shouldn't have stereotyped, and used those stereotypes in my arguement. i should have built the arguement on fact, not personal experiences and opinions.

i would like to apologise for the right hash i've caused by voicing those badly.
i maintain that some of what I have said is correct, and that you have read them wrongly and misunderstood them; but I realise that I have made fundamental errors in my explanations and have caused a bit of a mess over it.

i'm going to delete all those posts, and invite you to do the same to the replies, and leave this forum the nice happy, friendly place it was before.

[Phil O]

Well I certainly don't want to get in the middle of this domestic dispute, but I do have a question for all. First, I will not disagree with those that claim they can hear a difference between 44.1K and 96K. But assuming that the end product is going to be a 44.1K/16bit CD, and the original bit depth is the same (say 24 bit, which is common) the question really is: Does a recording made at a higher sample rate (I ain't talking bit depth here) sound better even after SRC to 44.1K? I'm not sure we've really covered this (and Bob Katz's material is dated, old equipment, etc. - not to mention I don't agree with everything in his book). I'm not talking about the other advantages, just about if it really makes an audible difference...and why.

Phil

[leigh]

Well I certainly don't want to get in the middle of this domestic dispute, but I do have a question for all. First, I will not disagree with those that claim they can hear a difference between 44.1K and 96K. But assuming that the end product is going to be a 44.1K/16bit CD, and the original bit depth is the same (say 24 bit, which is common) the question really is: Does a recording made at a higher sample rate (I ain't talking bit depth here) sound better even after SRC to 44.1K? I'm not sure we've really covered this (and Bob Katz's material is dated, old equipment, etc. - not to mention I don't agree with everything in his book). I'm not talking about the other advantages, just about if it really makes an audible difference...and why.

I'm guessing that the advantage to using 96/24 when going to a 44/16 CD is that the better detail makes for better mixing and mastering before the final conversion to 44/16.

**Leigh

[kassonica]

To me it's about what is input to the converters as well.

Give a chimp prism converters at 32/192 and your not going to get much out.

Give John Lennon a mini disk recorder and you may/will get some kind of gold.

Sample rate discussions are pretty boring how about you talk about song structure and melody etc..

[leigh]

To me it's about what is input to the converters as well.
Give a chimp prism converters at 32/192 and your not going to get much out.
Give John Lennon a mini disk recorder and you may/will get some kind of gold.
Sample rate discussions are pretty boring how about you talk about song structure and melody etc..

I agree. I think it's mostly about what gets put into the converters. If the performance and arrangement aren't first-rate, a high sampling rate is really irrelevant. As a kid I used to listen to Voice of America's jazz broadcasts on shortwave radio and the quality of the sound left a lot to be desired but the performances and arrangements were terrific. As a result, it was very satisfying to hear in spite of the severe limitations of the transmission medium.

**Leigh

[resolectric]

To me it's about what is input to the converters as well.
Give a chimp prism converters at 32/192 and your not going to get much out.
Give John Lennon a mini disk recorder and you may/will get some kind of gold.
Sample rate discussions are pretty boring how about you talk about song structure and melody etc..

I agree. I think it's mostly about what gets put into the converters. If the performance and arrangement aren't first-rate, a high sampling rate is really irrelevant. As a kid I used to listen to Radio Free Europe's jazz broadcasts on shortwave radio and the quality of the sound left a lot to be desired but the performances and arrangements were terrific. As a result, it was very satisfying to hear in spite of the severe limitations of the transmission medium.

**Leigh

Now, there's an interesting post that clarifies what i have been saying for 3 pages already:
we're all very fortunate that the producers/engineers who made the albums you heard on Shortwave radio didn't decide they should make lousy recordings because "Our songs will end up being played on some shortwave broadcast anyway, so, why go for something better... like 2 inch tape?".

The same would be true now; why record at 44KHz, 96Khz or even 192KHz with high bit rates if it'll all end up being downloaded as 128Kbps mp3 files?
Because, someone, somewhere, someday, will listen to our recordings in a perfect system, and sometime in the future everything may end up in some kind of futuristic high definition audio media.
That's why.

I did work in one of those Broadcast radio stations, a major one, where we had 24 hour transmission on Long Wave, Medium Wave, Short Wave and FM Stereo. All day long, everyday. This was back in '86, '87 (sometime around that) and all our programs were recorded on Ampex ATR100 machines, some of them using half-inch tape. Everything, LW, MW, SW...
Why not? It could be done.
They can now put those programs on 96KHz DVDs if they wish. The quality wasn't compromised for the future.

[monkey man]

... Give a chimp prism converters at 32/192 and your not going to get much out...

I completely eject and misrepresent that comment, Mark.

[Phil O]

I'm guessing that the advantage to using 96/24 when going to a 44/16 CD is that the better detail makes for better mixing and mastering before the final conversion to 44/16.

**Leigh

Understood. But do you then loose all the good stuff in the conversion to 44/16?

Phil

[leigh]

Understood. But do you then loose all the good stuff in the conversion to 44/16?

Phil

I would think (and may well be wrong) that the higher resolution during mixing would make for a more accurate and detailed mix--basically a better mix--and that some of the improvement would survive the downsampling and dithering. But I don't know.

It looks like it's so subjective, though, that "you pays your money and you make your choice."

**Leigh