sample rate/ bit depth

i've been recording at 192,000hz in 24 bit but i think it's just too much (i'm a quality hog). any other suggestions?

for what purpose... ie, are you gonna master it for cd or vinyl?

for cd... record at 24/96, then bump down at the end.

for vinyl, keep the sample/bitrates as high as poss.

CD for right now

well, record at 24/96 is my advice

192 is a bit excessive, and will eat your h/d in a couple of weeks if you're reasonably prolific.

24/96 is fine, and you can downscale to 16/44.1 when you master it.

hope that helps a bit.

thanks man... yeah i was costing me almost a gig per song and ate the shit out of my resources so it was always lagging a bit behind. I'll be recording today so i'll let you know how it goes.

192kbps

48kHz

24 bit 44.1khz

for cd's anything more than 44.1 is stupid as you'll just need to do a sample rate conversion (which suck and lose bits) before it can end up on cd anyway, might as well hear what you get from the get go and do it all in 44.1

for vinyl sky is the limit as it will have to be converted to analog instead of to 44.1 digital, to make a master they can play the 192khz or 96khz audio out some decent 96/192 converters and into a mastering lathe.

256kbps

44.1khz

  aeser said:

24 bit 44.1khz

 

for cd's anything more than 44.1 is stupid as you'll just need to do a sample rate conversion (which suck and lose bits) before it can end up on cd anyway, might as well hear what you get from the get go and do it all in 44.1

 

for vinyl sky is the limit as it will have to be converted to analog instead of to 44.1 digital, to make a master they can play the 192khz or 96khz audio out some decent 96/192 converters and into a mastering lathe.

if you're mixing digitally then it's way better to keep the song tracks in higher samplerate. if you're just recording stereo mixdown from the console then 44.1kHz is okay for cd. if you trust your converters. otherwise record in higher freq and do some mastering digitally.

that's what i'd say.

44.1

16

  kokoon said:

  aeser said:

24 bit 44.1khz

 

for cd's anything more than 44.1 is stupid as you'll just need to do a sample rate conversion (which suck and lose bits) before it can end up on cd anyway, might as well hear what you get from the get go and do it all in 44.1

 

for vinyl sky is the limit as it will have to be converted to analog instead of to 44.1 digital, to make a master they can play the 192khz or 96khz audio out some decent 96/192 converters and into a mastering lathe.

if you're mixing digitally then it's way better to keep the song tracks in higher samplerate. if you're just recording stereo mixdown from the console then 44.1kHz is okay for cd. if you trust your converters. otherwise record in higher freq and do some mastering digitally.

 

that's what i'd say.

if you're doing everything natively, i.e. "mixing digitally" and then bouncing that mixed audio to a wav or aiff (or even mp3) it's not better to keep your tracks in a higher samplerate because to become a wav or aiff or mp3 that people can play in a normal player it has to be samplerate converted to 44.1, and sample rate conversions do bad things to audio, if you are mixing the higher sample rate audio to something external i.e. playing the higher sample rate audio out some decent converters to analog and then mixing down to an analog source or to another decent converter/digital medium it's good to have the original sound source machine at a higher sample rate and the one it's mixing down to at 44.1

basically it's going to be 44.1 so unless you have some elaborate setup with very nice very expensive converters (or are mixing primarily for dvd audio or something) just keep it at 44.1 from the get go and avoid mucking your shit up with sample rate conversions.

44k 160vbr

tape

  aeser said:

  kokoon said:

  aeser said:

24 bit 44.1khz

 

for cd's anything more than 44.1 is stupid as you'll just need to do a sample rate conversion (which suck and lose bits) before it can end up on cd anyway, might as well hear what you get from the get go and do it all in 44.1

 

for vinyl sky is the limit as it will have to be converted to analog instead of to 44.1 digital, to make a master they can play the 192khz or 96khz audio out some decent 96/192 converters and into a mastering lathe.

if you're mixing digitally then it's way better to keep the song tracks in higher samplerate. if you're just recording stereo mixdown from the console then 44.1kHz is okay for cd. if you trust your converters. otherwise record in higher freq and do some mastering digitally.

 

that's what i'd say.

 

if you're doing everything natively, i.e. "mixing digitally" and then bouncing that mixed audio to a wav or aiff (or even mp3) it's not better to keep your tracks in a higher samplerate because to become a wav or aiff or mp3 that people can play in a normal player it has to be samplerate converted to 44.1, and sample rate conversions do bad things to audio, if you are mixing the higher sample rate audio to something external i.e. playing the higher sample rate audio out some decent converters to analog and then mixing down to an analog source or to another decent converter/digital medium it's good to have the original sound source machine at a higher sample rate and the one it's mixing down to at 44.1

 

basically it's going to be 44.1 so unless you have some elaborate setup with very nice very expensive converters (or are mixing primarily for dvd audio or something) just keep it at 44.1 from the get go and avoid mucking your shit up with sample rate conversions.

i disagree! you'll have to explain why downsampling a mix from say 192kHz produces worse 44.1kHz mix than 44.1kHz mixed to 44.1kHz.

you know what i mean? it's better to do the mixing with better quality material and then downsample it. we're talking digital mixing ofcourse.

and yeah, i've never mixed anything digitally so it's just what i think theoretically.

ok guys....no ones mentioned dither....thats what retains quality when downsampling...otherwise weird shit like aliasing,distortion n the like happens...

yeah ofcourse dithering... i'm assuming you're downsampling with highest possible quality tools and options.

like... when you take your time for downsampling (as opposed to doing it in realtime - when you're capturing the analogue signal) you can do it much better.

  kokoon said:

  aeser said:

  kokoon said:

  aeser said:

24 bit 44.1khz

 

for cd's anything more than 44.1 is stupid as you'll just need to do a sample rate conversion (which suck and lose bits) before it can end up on cd anyway, might as well hear what you get from the get go and do it all in 44.1

 

for vinyl sky is the limit as it will have to be converted to analog instead of to 44.1 digital, to make a master they can play the 192khz or 96khz audio out some decent 96/192 converters and into a mastering lathe.

if you're mixing digitally then it's way better to keep the song tracks in higher samplerate. if you're just recording stereo mixdown from the console then 44.1kHz is okay for cd. if you trust your converters. otherwise record in higher freq and do some mastering digitally.

 

that's what i'd say.

 

if you're doing everything natively, i.e. "mixing digitally" and then bouncing that mixed audio to a wav or aiff (or even mp3) it's not better to keep your tracks in a higher samplerate because to become a wav or aiff or mp3 that people can play in a normal player it has to be samplerate converted to 44.1, and sample rate conversions do bad things to audio, if you are mixing the higher sample rate audio to something external i.e. playing the higher sample rate audio out some decent converters to analog and then mixing down to an analog source or to another decent converter/digital medium it's good to have the original sound source machine at a higher sample rate and the one it's mixing down to at 44.1

 

basically it's going to be 44.1 so unless you have some elaborate setup with very nice very expensive converters (or are mixing primarily for dvd audio or something) just keep it at 44.1 from the get go and avoid mucking your shit up with sample rate conversions.

 

i disagree! you'll have to explain why downsampling a mix from say 192kHz produces worse 44.1kHz mix than 44.1kHz mixed to 44.1kHz.

you know what i mean? it's better to do the mixing with better quality material and then downsample it. we're talking digital mixing ofcourse.

 

and yeah, i've never mixed anything digitally so it's just what i think theoretically.

mmmm, it´s not worse, it´s just the simple fact that you´re mixing at higher samplerates and what you´re earing it´s not gonna be the final product cause it will be converted to lower samplerates! and this way it can´t be considered a true or even faithfull mixing, just my 2 cents...

48khz 32 bit

then usually dither down to 44khz 16 bit after mastering to play in my g ride

  Orubasarot said:

Everyone in here who is posting mp3 settings is a fucking idiot.

yep

128 Kbps, with dithering (2X), Upsample, then run the audio through a line loop back into your computer. Record this at 48 Khz 24 bit, then render to wave in you recorder. open it up in an audio editor, reencode to 16 bit 48 khz (dither), and then you want to bring the samplerate down to 44100 (dither again) then save for a CD burner (remember to do these separately because you cant trust an audio application to do both at the same time). Next import into Itunes in at least 192 AAC. Burn to disk!

Note: if you need to put this on vinyl someday. Remember to record from you walkman (or better system) back into the computer's line-in at 92 Khz 24 bit (or 32). Then burn to a new cd for the engineers at the record engravers to use.

Hint: the trick is to do all of this and not make any stupid conversions which may compromise information loss. KEEP AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. this is the key

  Bubba69 said:

128 Kbps, with dithering (2X), Upsample, then run the audio through a line loop back into your computer. Record this at 48 Khz 24 bit, then render to wave in you recorder. open it up in an audio editor, reencode to 16 bit 48 khz (dither), and then you want to bring the samplerate down to 44100 (dither again) then save for a CD burner (remember to do these separately because you cant trust an audio application to do both at the same time). Next import into Itunes in at least 192 AAC. Burn to disk!

 

Note: if you need to put this on vinyl someday. Remember to record from you walkman (or better system) back into the computer's line-in at 92 Khz 24 bit (or 32). Then burn to a new cd for the engineers at the record engravers to use.

 

Hint: the trick is to do all of this and not make any stupid conversions which may compromise information loss. KEEP AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. this is the key

jesus! can you list some programs? i use acid 5 and am still learning how to work it... does it have all this mumbo-jumbo?

  Orubasarot said:

Everyone in here who is posting mp3 settings is a fucking idiot.

hahahaha... i just ignored them.

lol, everyone stfu except kokoon because he's right

better sampling rates give more numbers to the programs/vst/cubase and your mix WILL sound better in the end. thats the nature of digital audio: numbers, number crunching, approximations, quantizations......

and no 24/96 does not give you a false mix image if you expect to make a cd. its not like the sound is going to change drastically when you go 16/44. whats going ot happen if you wanna look into a microscope is: a little bit less high frequencies and a bit of distortion, nothing really perceptible because you use dithering and a bit of subtle noise (noiseshaping) in the background when you downsample. you wouldnt believe how many digital complications and errors/approximations are happening when you mix a number of 44/16 sounds together.

record at 24/96 (192 really is useless for cd and takes way too much space), put a WAVES L3 limiter at your masterchannel, and use the dithering/noise part of the limiter, choose 44/16 and then noise type 1 or whatever, and export at 44100. or do it offline in soundforge. AND BUY A GOOD SOUND CARD BEFORE YOU GET INTO SERIOUS RECORDING BECAUSE ONE DAY YOUL REALIZE YOUR 100$ CARD IS SHIT AND ALL THE STUFF YOU RECORDED IS UNRELEASABLE.

  Bubba69 said:

128 Kbps, with dithering (2X), Upsample, then run the audio through a line loop back into your computer. Record this at 48 Khz 24 bit, then render to wave in you recorder. open it up in an audio editor, reencode to 16 bit 48 khz (dither), and then you want to bring the samplerate down to 44100 (dither again) then save for a CD burner (remember to do these separately because you cant trust an audio application to do both at the same time). Next import into Itunes in at least 192 AAC. Burn to disk!

 

Note: if you need to put this on vinyl someday. Remember to record from you walkman (or better system) back into the computer's line-in at 92 Khz 24 bit (or 32). Then burn to a new cd for the engineers at the record engravers to use.

 

Hint: the trick is to do all of this and not make any stupid conversions which may compromise information loss. KEEP AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. this is the key

okay that was a joke right?

  kokoon said:

  Bubba69 said:

128 Kbps, with dithering (2X), Upsample, then run the audio through a line loop back into your computer. Record this at 48 Khz 24 bit, then render to wave in you recorder. open it up in an audio editor, reencode to 16 bit 48 khz (dither), and then you want to bring the samplerate down to 44100 (dither again) then save for a CD burner (remember to do these separately because you cant trust an audio application to do both at the same time). Next import into Itunes in at least 192 AAC. Burn to disk!

 

Note: if you need to put this on vinyl someday. Remember to record from you walkman (or better system) back into the computer's line-in at 92 Khz 24 bit (or 32). Then burn to a new cd for the engineers at the record engravers to use.

 

Hint: the trick is to do all of this and not make any stupid conversions which may compromise information loss. KEEP AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE. this is the key

okay that was a joke right?

Yeah I was just joking! I cant believe I wrote that now. Its kind of rediculous! lol

lol