What's the difference?
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > What's the difference?
Posted on Apr 09, 2002 09:08 pm
MSHARC
Member Since: Apr 05, 2002
Just when I was beginnign to think I understood this great world of digital recording, I find I have yet another question. What is the difference between recording in 44.1Khz(This seems to be the default for SONAR and my aardvark control panel) and lets say the 96Khz. I realize one is a higher value and therefore probably gives better sound quality, but what does this number refer to? Also, is it that much better to record in 24 bit rather than 16. I know that cd quality is 16 bit, but is it imperative that I use 24 bit, or if it bogs down my computer, should I just go with 16? Thanks again all.
Marc (da Sharc)
[ Back to Top ]
Apr 10, 2002 06:05 am there was a pretty long thread on this at the old site, it's one of those I should moved. But, first the bits, the bit-rate of recording is, well, for example lets say you have a 2 second note, a C-chord, the bits are kind of like how many chunks the data that produces that sound are stored in, 24 chunks of data would store more info, and therefore, theoretically keep a more accurate respresentation of the sound rather than only have 16 chunks of data to store it in. So, theoretically 24 bit is better than 16 bit.
the 44.1 is pretty much the same theory, it is how many cycles the sound is stored in, 44.1 is less cycles then 96, therefore 96Khz stores a more accurate sample of the sound.
However, there is one hole in this theory, red-book CD standard is 16 bit, 44.1Khz stereo, so, when you go to master the recording and burn it to CD, it has to be converted to 16/44.1 bit anyway, so, even though 24/96 bit may be a better sound to work with, you lose sound qualtiy in the convertion. Know what I mean?
I always record all my stuff at 16/44.1 and leave it at that for the whole life of the song, even though I can record higher, I don't. Also, for certain sounds recording at a higher bitrate will actual screw up the sound, I have recorded at 20-bit and the sound comes out kinda compressed and nasty sounding...
When george returns to these boards, he will argue (with good reason) that applying effects and such degrades the sound becuase through all the calculations and such done to apply the process, and left over numbers from the calculations are just thrown away, so it isn't a true 16-bit file anymore, which is a valid point, but I have never heard the degredation myself enough to speak of...
Does that help at all?
Apr 10, 2002 09:59 am masterfully put db. =)
for me personally, i like to record and edit in 24 bit at 96Khz.. simply for the effects reason db mentioned.
ive tried 16 bit at 44.1 and it did degrade the highs and lows of some effects i was using (all software plugins).
however, 24 bit at 96Khz retained its correct sound.
now for the part that db mentioned on cd burning.
with 16bit at 44.1 with those effects, there was no need to convert and they burned fine, but still with the loss in quality.
the 24bit at 96Khz, when converted, converted correctly down to the 16bit 44.1 format AND retained its correct sound.
im figuring that it has to do with what sound cards people are using along with which plugins.
Apr 10, 2002 10:17 am It totally depends on what plugins you use, some are cleaner than others...actually, AnalogX www.analogx.com/ has a little app that will look at your plugins and tell you how "clean" they are, it's called "The Bit Police" www.analogx.com/contents/download/audio/bpolice.htm I haven't used it , but it sounds good. If you get good plugins like most of us do, Waves, Sonic Foundry, Steinberg, etc, they will be good, it's the cool little freeware plugins you have to be careful about, some of them are programmed pretty sloppily and you can tell in the mix.
As far as the burn, no you don't have to convert, but the burning process wil convert it to 16-bit if it is not, becasue thatis what CD-Quality standard is, when an app boasts Red-Book format burning, that means that it makes it 16-bit 44.1 Khz audio from the source it is given.
Ultimately it comes down to whatever works best for you, the 24-bit may work very well for collapse, as he is in a vastly different musical genre than myself, I am a rock-n-roll guy, where he is a techno.experimental dude, so it comes as little surprise that he has developed a different form of producing his music...that's good, he is doing what works best for him, and I am doing the same thing...and we both get what we want, what a deal! :-)
MSHARCMember
Since: Apr 05, 2002
Apr 10, 2002 10:48 am I remembered reading the thing about 24 bit and 16, I was just curious what you overall opinion was, and I'll just have to experiment and see if it makes a big difference, but I ahve noticed a real lack in the highs in my recordings, so that may be a factor.
As for the 44.1 thing, that is what I was really curious about, thanks. Looks as if I will have to play around with it and see if it makes a huge difference. Probably not to my untrained ear, but what can it hurt. Thanks guys.
Marc (da Sharc)
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 10, 2002 08:51 pm I have used the pluggin dB spoke of and yes it really does make a differance what processor you use as far as using higher bit rate's. I have used 2 differant amp sim effect's that on the outside and to the normal ear sound very much the same. One is a bit warmer than the other. But when bit police comapred the 2, man was I suprised. The lower grade plug was about 70 percent behind the more expensive plug. And after thinking about it, whenever I used the lower grade pluggin, I alway's had to Q thing's a bit and resweetin the track to get it just right. And like dB, I have always run at 16/44.1 and I use alot more FX and processing and hacking to create sound's and sample's then most, so it is important for me to have good audio. And I have ot ever had a problem going that route.
Noize 2 U
georgeContributor
Since: Apr 14, 2002
Apr 14, 2002 10:58 am Hiya Sharc. Dan spoke for me in my absense, which I appreciate. I record at the highest bit rate possible, for the aforementioned reasons. I usually record at 44.1 sample rate for two reasons. One, the dithering isn't quite as good for sample rates as it is for bit rates, and I think the end result sounds better if recorded at 44.1 Two, every sample rate notch ya go up, it greatly increases the load on your computer. I like recording a bunch of tracks for each sound, even if I don't end up using them all at mixdown. So, like most of our home recording techniques, my approach is a comprimise. Good luck, George.
MSHARCMember
Since: Apr 05, 2002
Apr 14, 2002 08:19 pm Thanks everyone for the advice. Most appreciated and I tried some higher bit sampling rates and higher frequncy, seems like it slows things down a lot. George, since you mentioned it, what excatly is "dither?" I see that check box and it is checked but I am curious as to what it is and what it does. As you can tell from my replies I am very much into knowing what something is and how it works. My cross to bare, I am an info junky! lol Thanks again fro the advice.
Marc (da Sharc)
georgeContributor
Since: Apr 14, 2002
Apr 15, 2002 09:03 pm Hi Sharc. I'll reply in nauseating detail tomorrow. The missus says she needs some attention. Later, George.
Apr 16, 2002 08:14 am Also in the realm of sample rate system load, also consider that George, Noize and myself are all running on under 1 Ghz machines, many of you are running on much faster systems...so it's all relative.
I am thinking of adding a "gear profile" field in the personal profile so we can see what each other is using when we talk about subjects like that...since george says his PC slows down, it would be nice to look and see what size system he actually has, what OS and all that stuff, but hey, that's off topic...
I would get into the dither thing, but I will let george field that one, he has some catching up to do around here anyway :-) And besides, he actually uses dithering...
Apr 16, 2002 08:43 am I think a gear profile is a great idea. Plus, if anyone needs help ugrading your PC's let me know(Dan I know you probably won't but you never know).
Apr 16, 2002 09:24 am Gear profile implemented! Now is that service or what!
MSHARCMember
Since: Apr 05, 2002
Apr 16, 2002 11:00 am I just did the gear profile, its a good idea. You're right, its nice not to have to retype that info every time. Cheers on a great idea.
Marc (da Sharc)
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Apr 16, 2002 08:48 pm And when we upgrade, you just edit the profile. This site is making some inovation's allready. And Mark O, you know your advice will come in handy more than once I am sure.
georgeContributor
Since: Apr 14, 2002
Apr 17, 2002 07:47 pm Hi Sharc. Dithering is the process of reducing bit/sample rates, usually to burn onto a cd that will play anywhere, such as 16 bit, 44.1sample rate. How it works, is a little trickier. As we talked about in our disscusion of bit rates, when you process info, the leftover bits are tossed out. In the process of dithering however, there is just too much info to just toss. It would leave gaping holes in your music, much like when la machine is giving you some sass. Anyway, with all this stuff being tossed, we have to replace it with something, so we will have some form of decent playback. You'll never guess what your precious music is being replaced with. Noise. Yup, noise, that you've been working so hard to keep out of your recording. Kinda depressing, huh? But, it isn't just any noise. The dithering process actually shapes and EQs the noise, to hide it behind the peaks in your music. The better the dithering program, the less noticable it is, and almost all of 'em are fantastic. If the info was just tossed, your cds would sound more like MP3s. Apogee is considered the best, with Waves IDR probably the closest second. Apogee's UV22 is included in Cubase 5, and now Wavelab 4, by the way. Good luck, George.
