| Author
|
"professional" samplerate
|
Whr
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
130
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 15:44
|
bats are my kinda crowd.. so i have to pay attention to frequencies ranging from 20 Hz. to 120,000 Hz.
a 48 kHz sample rate is the only way to swim.
|
|
|
minddoctorsmakeacid
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
74
Posts :
577
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 21:16
|
People keep saying that 44 is enought for music but if it is so why do professional recording studios record everything at 96?
Trough time loads of engineers have stated that there is a sound quality diference between these rates so Im stiking to 96.
As for 16 or 24 bit. 16 only if your final goal is CD 24 if you are planing to play it live, and please dont turn arround and say it is the same cos it is not defently the same. the higher the bit rate higher the sound quality.
I find it amusing when someone says that 16bit is best than 24bit... It just proves they dont have a clue of what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 22:04
|
96K requires massive amounts of hard disk space, especially if you are making a lot of music + you have to upsample your entire sample library as DAW's are not happy playing back audio of various sample rates in the same arrangement.
24bit is a lot more viable and makes a lot more sense to use and minddoctorsmakeacid, its better to bounce things at 24bit even if you will dither down to 16bit at the mastering studio later on.
http://soundcloud.com/martianarts |
|
|
|
orange
Fat Data
Started Topics :
154
Posts :
3918
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 22:32
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 21:16, minddoctorsmakeacid wrote:
People keep saying that 44 is enought for music but if it is so why do professional recording studios record everything at 96?
Trough time loads of engineers have stated that there is a sound quality diference between these rates so Im stiking to 96.
As for 16 or 24 bit. 16 only if your final goal is CD 24 if you are planing to play it live, and please dont turn arround and say it is the same cos it is not defently the same. the higher the bit rate higher the sound quality.
I find it amusing when someone says that 16bit is best than 24bit... It just proves they dont have a clue of what they are talking about.
|
|
my question is...
does your music sounds so good that the 44100 is limiting you?
or your music sounds mediocre at best and you need a higher sample rate to make it sound a 4% better?
http://www.landmark-recordings.com/
http://soundcloud.com/kymamusic |
|
|
|
minddoctorsmakeacid
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
74
Posts :
577
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 23:29
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 22:04, disco hooligans wrote:
96K requires massive amounts of hard disk space, especially if you are making a lot of music + you have to upsample your entire sample library as DAW's are not happy playing back audio of various sample rates in the same arrangement.
24bit is a lot more viable and makes a lot more sense to use and minddoctorsmakeacid, its better to bounce things at 24bit even if you will dither down to 16bit at the mastering studio later on.
|
|
Im with you on that one but that is why in top end studios these days you see terabyte hard drives everywhere. |
|
|
|
minddoctorsmakeacid
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
74
Posts :
577
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 23:31
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 22:32, orange wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 21:16, minddoctorsmakeacid wrote:
People keep saying that 44 is enought for music but if it is so why do professional recording studios record everything at 96?
Trough time loads of engineers have stated that there is a sound quality diference between these rates so Im stiking to 96.
As for 16 or 24 bit. 16 only if your final goal is CD 24 if you are planing to play it live, and please dont turn arround and say it is the same cos it is not defently the same. the higher the bit rate higher the sound quality.
I find it amusing when someone says that 16bit is best than 24bit... It just proves they dont have a clue of what they are talking about.
|
|
my question is...
does your music sounds so good that the 44100 is limiting you?
or your music sounds mediocre at best and you need a higher sample rate to make it sound a 4% better?
|
|
No, Its simply because I record live instruments to apply to my music and they do sound better at 96.
I Guess that it is also because im a perfeccionist and like they say: every little counts. |
|
|
|
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 23:34
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 23:29, minddoctorsmakeacid wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 22:04, disco hooligans wrote:
96K requires massive amounts of hard disk space, especially if you are making a lot of music + you have to upsample your entire sample library as DAW's are not happy playing back audio of various sample rates in the same arrangement.
24bit is a lot more viable and makes a lot more sense to use and minddoctorsmakeacid, its better to bounce things at 24bit even if you will dither down to 16bit at the mastering studio later on.
|
|
Im with you on that one but that is why in top end studios these days you see terabyte hard drives everywhere.
|
|
My house is no top end studio though and my abilities as an engineer have not reached the 44.1k ceiling.
http://soundcloud.com/martianarts |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 23:56
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 21:16, minddoctorsmakeacid wrote:
People keep saying that 44 is enought for music but if it is so why do professional recording studios record everything at 96?
|
|
it s not true and when recording at 96 khz with some highend converters it may not sound better than 44.1 khz ,in fact it could sound worst with the convertion 96 to 44.1, but let your ears be the judge . |
|
|
|
Maska
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
27
Posts :
869
Posted : Mar 8, 2010 23:57
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 21:16, minddoctorsmakeacid wrote:
People keep saying that 44 is enought for music but if it is so why do professional recording studios record everything at 96?
Trough time loads of engineers have stated that there is a sound quality diference between these rates so Im stiking to 96.
As for 16 or 24 bit. 16 only if your final goal is CD 24 if you are planing to play it live, and please dont turn arround and say it is the same cos it is not defently the same. the higher the bit rate higher the sound quality.
I find it amusing when someone says that 16bit is best than 24bit... It just proves they dont have a clue of what they are talking about.
|
|
The truth is 96 is double what they use in many professional post production studios...the 48khz format is primarily for the movie business...44.1 is for music...if you 88.2 you will have better results when you dither down to 44.1 because the math is better and the system just converts it better....
however, do you need to do 88.2? well if you have a pro control room and the best interface/gear money can buy, you probably should...
is it really necessary to use anything over 44.1? not really....many pro studios just mix at 44.1 because the quality loss is really not that big, because you have to mix it down to 44.1 anyway..many argue that you do get slightly better quality, but how much really? not much...
using 24 bit while producing over 16 bit is a great difference though, simply because you get much more dynamic range to work with from the start, when you mix it down, it still sounds better than starting with 16 bit.
assumption is the mother of all fuckups. |
|
|
|
minddoctorsmakeacid
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
74
Posts :
577
Posted : Mar 9, 2010 00:01
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 23:34, disco hooligans wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 23:29, minddoctorsmakeacid wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 22:04, disco hooligans wrote:
96K requires massive amounts of hard disk space, especially if you are making a lot of music + you have to upsample your entire sample library as DAW's are not happy playing back audio of various sample rates in the same arrangement.
24bit is a lot more viable and makes a lot more sense to use and minddoctorsmakeacid, its better to bounce things at 24bit even if you will dither down to 16bit at the mastering studio later on.
|
|
Im with you on that one but that is why in top end studios these days you see terabyte hard drives everywhere.
|
|
My house is no top end studio though and my abilities as an engineer have not reached the 44.1k ceiling.
|
|
I will not put your ability as an egineer in cause cos Ive heard your music and its top notch.
The diference between 44 and 96 it is minimun, you can hardly notice it.
Im just sticking to 96 because Ive studyed in a top end studio in london and was tought that 96 has a crispier sound (not to different than 44).
44 is fine and I dont judge people for using it but when I was studiyng we've experiment recording an acoustic guitar with a top end condenser mic at 44 and then at 96 and I could tell the diference so I kept my way of working at 96.
Dont want to try and change how people work Im just expressing my thoughts, hope not to offend no one. |
|
|
|
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Mar 9, 2010 01:35
|
Well the anti-aliasing filter involved with 96k sampling frequencies is much less steep than the filter involved for 44.1k. And generally the gentler the slope, the less phase distortion, so its not simply a question of wasting disk space to sample frequencies that will only make your dog (or bat is you're hardcore dark psy producer *harhar*) dance around the room. If you have the space defo go for it. And its not just acoustic sources this works better with, soft synths sound better too.
The main drawback is the upsampling of sample libraries. I've been chopping up samples since my first year in uni, which was in 2000.
I'll be damned if I am gonna sit through them to make them work in a 96k environment. If I was recording a full live band I would defo consider it though, fo shizzle.
http://soundcloud.com/martianarts |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Mar 9, 2010 02:06
|
anyone knows why when saving an 8 bit file in wavelab ,a noise appears there suddenly after it is saved..?
I have fun programming c64 sid and wont to save it properly ,I make a tiny cleaning (maybe cause of the plug ins?) and after I save to an 8 bit file it is noisy..
I do it in an c64 emulator.. maybe it only sound like this but it is not...? I mean the 8 bit...but fuck it sound exactly as some decades ago.
I also change the stereo to mono but that is nothing special in an editor.Why is that?
well if the bitrates are different than I understand than maybe a bit dithering but well just keepin it in 16 will b enuf but I think the emulator is original 8 bit style.
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
calamus
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
32
Posted : Mar 9, 2010 12:36
|
|
*eLliSDee*
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
671
Posted : Mar 9, 2010 12:44
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 15:44, Whr wrote:
bats are my kinda crowd.. so i have to pay attention to frequencies ranging from 20 Hz. to 120,000 Hz.
a 48 kHz sample rate is the only way to swim.
|
|
i aim to entertain them aswell
|
|
|
|
*eLliSDee*
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
671
Posted : Mar 9, 2010 12:45
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-08 15:44, Whr wrote:
bats are my kinda crowd.. so i have to pay attention to frequencies ranging from 20 Hz. to 120,000 Hz.
a 48 kHz sample rate is the only way to swim.
|
|
i aim to entertain them aswell
|
|
|
|
