Recording in 44.1kHz, 48kHz or higher? 24bits or higher?

This had been gone over a million times. I will try to simplify it quickly although it goes deeper.

The argument is that higher sample rates will essentially take more "snapshots" of the audio "more detail" So when doing in the box processing is technically more detailed. Some suggest it can be heard when using convolution reverbs, amp sims , anything really. I dont buy into it too much, but i wouldnt argue it either. 24 bit 48000 is a safe place to be. If processing power and track counts are not an issue at all, then i suppose track as high as possible. I just come back to the theory that music can be made to sound good on any medium, work with what you have and make it sound good. if it sounds good it is good. I tried 32 bit float, there was a slight difference in headroom but the processing was more intense and i didnt feel it was worth it over the 24 bit im used to. No one should be tracking at 16 bit anymore, i dont see any logic in that but sample rates are debatable, don't over think it. I feel that a recording rig that doesnt fuck up or have issues is #1. Use whatever makes your workflow smooth and hassle free. Hope this helps.
 
That's basically how I feel about it as well. If you can afford to pummel your cpu with processing and your hard drive with huge audio files, sure go for it. If not, 44.1/24 bit is fine for now. Maybe in the near future, tech will catch up to our imaginations and we can all use the highest rates out there, even if it only makes a minor difference in the end.
 
^^^ Are you guys really tracking at 16 bit?

I actually use 32 bit ,just because it is default in cubase,but it is still 16 bit in the end...

as to 44.1 , I remember watching "Internal mixing" tutorial by steinberg,which convinced me to use 44.1, it was like 5 years ago or something.Apparently not much changed since,176 or 192 have not become standard for either studio or any consumer format anyway.
 
24/48k here. never done any serious testing on my own, but years ago i asked around and it seemed like everyone good was using 48k... so I followed that.
 
I use 44.1/16. There is absolutely no quality difference between 48 and 44.1, they are different formats, 44.1 was the protocol for audio CD and 48 for DVD/Multimedia, they both have nyquist frequencies that if using even cheap DSP based interpolation and anti-aliasing will faithfully reproduce all samples up to the nyquist. Anything higher is just killing CPU resources and Hard Disk Space. The only reason you would ever need to go higher is because you are using cheap converters, in higher quality converters, you won't hear a difference because there is none. Still its now 2014, even cheap consumer grade DACs have great bandwidth and distortion even at low sample rates. FWIW, I remember Andy saying something that he records at 44.1.

As for bit depth, it all comes down to the loudness of the white noise (noise floor), 16-bit is a little louder than 24-bit but in terms of non-noise sound quality, again in modern converters there is no difference. You won't get a punchier sound recording in 24-bit, and even when you bounce to 16-bit, the only benefit of recording in 24-bit for the mix process is again a reduced noise floor which allows you to add more gain from compression and saturation without having noticeable white noise in the background when no instruments are playing. The thing that you have to keep in mind though is that equivalent noise floors in tape and analog mixing consoles are less than even 16-bit so in the end just using analog gear will contribute to more noise than you converters and that is not something that gets quieter if you record in 24-bit.
 
I use 44.1/16. There is absolutely no quality difference between 48 and 44.1, they are different formats, 44.1 was the protocol for audio CD and 48 for DVD/Multimedia, they both have nyquist frequencies that if using even cheap DSP based interpolation and anti-aliasing will faithfully reproduce all samples up to the nyquist. Anything higher is just killing CPU resources and Hard Disk Space...

That was detailed, thank you :)
 
If you are recording a punk/post punk band, or AC/DC like rock band, then 16 bit might be the way to go (16 bit actually puts "in your face" better), but for metal projects, prog, symphonic metal, etc., we should prob stick with 24 bit.
 
I don't think anyone still records in 16 bit, or am I missing something? Recording in 16 bit would be retarded. Surely TheWinterSnow made a typo or was talking about the end product.
 
My previous statement stands, I record in 16-bit. If you use dithering, unless your overall gain in the mix exceeds 44dB there will be absolutely no noise floor difference between 16 and 24 bit. The people falling into the pitfall of the tonality of 16-bit being pushed and distorted comes from tracking too hot. I still track the levels the same as if it were 24-bit and since I don't smash the master, you guessed it, not audible noise in the noise floor region. As a rule of thumb as long as the lowest section of the audio is 60dB larger than the noise, the noise is virtually non-existent. That gives you in 16-bit 32dB of dynamic range null and void of noise, and another good 48dB or so additional dynamic range that maybe effected by the noise floor. The noise floor on my final mixes sit at about -80dBFS to -70dBFS, essentially on par with any 24-bit recorded, 16-bit mixdown track. I don't have to processing power or the disk space to record in 24-bit.

If you are a professional studio that can afford the processing power and disk space then yeah, record 24-bit, even if it doesn't help in the final mix it doesn't hurt
 
Processing power has never been cheaper and efficiency has never been better, especially with 64 bit workstations now I can't see any reason to record in 16 bit. But if you don't have a modern computer it makes sense to choose stability over bit rate I suppose.
 
I just graduated with a recording arts degree, and did have a couple of instructors tell me that recording certain genres would be better suited for recording at 16bit (those old AC/DC and Black Flag recordings sound great, right? but I run at 32bit float 44.1, and do mostly mixes with a lot of elements.
I agree with Studdy, processing power AND SS drives are on the cheap, so time to upgrade and have more options.
 
I just graduated with a recording arts degree, and did have a couple of instructors tell me that recording certain genres would be better suited for recording at 16bit (those old AC/DC and Black Flag recordings sound great, right? but I run at 32bit float 44.1, and do mostly mixes with a lot of elements.
I agree with Studdy, processing power AND SS drives are on the cheap, so time to upgrade and have more options.

I don't think AC/DC ever recorded something in digital. 16bit has no "sound", it just has less headroom. No music sounds better at 16bit. This thread is becoming weird. :err:
 
I sometimes would track guitar DIs at 88.2khz and then freeze them at 44.1khz. The highs from amp sims always tend to sound a bit more organic, for the lack of a better word, than 44.1khz. Either that or just a placebo effect. Has anybody got any opinion on this?


Edit: I think I'm gonna go ahead with a shootout ;)
 
Guess you missed my post, but yeah I've recorded amp sims at 96khz and 192khz, and to me they do sound better. I'm sure deLuther will come in here and deBunk that somehow in broken english with numbers and charts though. :lol: I kid.
 
Ok time for some debunking. I think a big part of the problem is that it is hard to grasp the size of the decibel system especially when it comes to measuring audible noise.

For starters, low level noise is not equal in transmission power relative to higher signals in newer hardware. New digital audio information is represented in a logarithmic scale rather than the old system which was linear, the old system was called unsigned if you want to look into it (check out 8-bit unsigned digital audio). There is a downwards gating effect that happens in the newer system, lower level bits are attenuated more than higher bits when converting back to analog, the new system is called mu-law.

Some were mentioning noise levels of analog gear and gain from reamped guitars. Analog noise or rather the signal to noise ratio of analog gear remains the same regardless as to which bit-depth you use, bit-depth is only reducing the amplitude of noise created from quantization errors when converting to digital.

What does quantization error noise sound like? Its nasty, if it is audible you would notice, its a very digital square wave triangle wave hybrid if you input a single sine wave. The more wideband your signal is (closer to white noise), the less apparent the quantization distortion becomes. You also don't really care if a signal that is close to white noise has a very slight increase in white noise because all you are doing is getting an infinitesimally small bump in gain, and in the end you use dithering which injects white noise relative to the amount of quantization distortion present. A larger amplitude signal causes more quantization distortion, a more band limited signal causes more quantization distortion. Dithering actually erases those errors, and actively changes its amplitude so that the white noise it injects goes unnoticed in quieter sections.

So keep this in mind, the signal to noise ratio of your analog gear, including preamps and compressors and other outboard gear is the same not matter which bit-depth you use.

Mic preamps and high gain guitar amps don't have that much gain in retrospect, at max gain (gain dimed) a guitar amp typically will have a gain around 64dB. That's at full gain, the gain knob due to cascade staging acts more logarithmic, so having the gain set half way is closer to 32dB, not 61dB as you might expect. And most of us aren't running out 5150s half way on the gain, which is still overkill.

With a guitar amp having a robust and somewhat over the top 32dB of gain does that mean your noise floor audibly comes up 32dB? No, remember mu-law means the actual represented analog voltage for small level noise is still attenuated relative to high amplitude signals. Quantization noise typically would therefore be half that, depending on proper tracking levels.

While mic preamps may have a gain of 60dB, how frequently do you have to crank the gain all the way up to get proper tracking? If you do because you have a quiet source and a low output mic, well you should use a different mic but regardless of bit-depth the white noise and some 50Hz/60Hz noise will be equally proportioned to audio amplitude, bit-depth be damned.

Back to dithering so a moment, with sensitive sources like overheads or high gain guitar heads during reamping, if you don't hear nasty harmonic distortions when you increase gain and you cannot hear noticeable white noise (that isn't mic pre/comp analog noise) when the drummer is playing, then you don't have a problem.

Now even with all that in mind the full scale system that is used to measure audio is in power gain, not voltage gain (although they result in the same measurement), and for refreshers you get only 6dB increase of gain for every doubling of power. For example, noise sitting at -80dBFS would be 1/100,000,000 the output power of a full wave signal. Now I don't know anyone at ambient listening levels could hear that noise or the effects of such noise.

16-bit has a dynamic range of ~96dB depending on quality and 24-bit has a dynamic range of ~144dB, the only thing that this means is you can have quantization noise that is up to, theoretically speaking, 48dB quieter. Quantization distortion in an entire mix may reach -60dBFS in 16-bit and its 24-bit equivalent would be -108dBFS. -60dB is 1/1,000,000 the power of full scale, and -108dB is roughly 1/60,000,000,000 Now the noise output power at 16-bits is a lot more, but considering it is still very small for a very high amount of noise how many people would be able to hear an extra one millionth of full wave power additional "similar to white" noise in a full mix at ambient listening conditions? Then can you really hear it when you dither and the noise is drastically reduced upwards of 20dB on top of the fact that output power is in mu-law which makes noise even quieter than the figures I posted?

The chances of you hearing a difference is slim to none. The big reason why many who have done shootouts hear a difference is you are hearing white noise from mic preamps because when you record in 16-bit there is a subliminal urge to track hotter to get maximum signal to noise ratio in the box, but inadvertently do more damage because you are getting hotter levels by giving your analog gear more gain. The higher you turn up the gain on a compressor or mic pre you are decreasing the S/N ratio. That's the extra noise you are hearing is because you tracked too hot. Then because you tracked to hot your converters have higher harmonic distortion which makes the tone sound "pushed". If you backed off an other tracking levels you will find that you won't pick up on quantization distortion especially if you dithered.

Put it this way it is hard to hear quantization noise with 8-bit mu-law. Also keep in mind professional reel to reel tape at its best had an equivalent noise floor to 13-bit unsigned digital. Everyone rants and raves about the vibes that tape adds, it adds a whole hell of a lot more noise than 16-bit quantization distortion could ever dream of.

_________________________________________________________

Also, for the guys that keep saying they record in 32-bit floating point, you are not actually recording audio in 32-bit. The audio is 24-bit but the audio engine is processing the numbers in floating point to provide more headroom in the processing phase of audio. 32-bit uses the first 24-bits as a binary number and the next 7-bits as an exponent, the last being a parity bit. That allows the values to exceed 24-bit values and still retain all the information. That only implies inside the DAW because if the master bus exceeds 24-bits, clip-city.
_________________________________________________________

My reasons for recording my demo's/tracks in 16-bit has less to do with computing power, although my 4 year old 3.0GHz AM3 Dual Core can barely track with 4 instances of X50v2 and Superior Drummer 2.0 with stock Andy Sneap Library, at any latency. I can however mix without much of a hitch. My main reason is that 24-bit audio takes up 50% more space than 16-bit. I am tight on disk space and can't afford to go out an buy a Hard Drive every time my current one gets full, it would be a nice luxury.