KVR Audio

TrevorG · Post by **TrevorG** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:55 pm

Just finished a project that was in 48K. I usually work in 44.1 but the guys I was working with needed the higher rate and its got me thinking about what other people do and why.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:00 pm

i use 44.1 to keep things simple (ie when burning to CD). You only really need 48 if your doing television work - you really don't gain any noticeable hifi advantage with it. Also 96 takes up too muh resources at present and 192 is just ridiculous

Mr A

C00kie · Post by **C00kie** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:00 pm

44.1kHz all the way. Because thats how it ends up on Audio CD anyway. Saves the hassle of sample rate conversion...

Some people use high sample rates like 88 or 96 kHz in their projects because the synths they use will sound better that way.

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:09 pm

my sample rate is the best!

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:10 pm

mostly stick to 44100 for simplicitys sake TBH ...

... starting to render out at 88200 a lot more now though (although some of my effects plugs dont seem to like that for some reason) before resampling down to 44100 since it DOES make SOME synths sound nicer ...

slainte

rob

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:56 pm

im a bit slow i only get about 50 a year done

sangha · Post by **sangha** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:02 pm

Mr Arkadin wrote:i use 44.1 to keep things simple (ie when burning to CD). You only really need 48 if your doing television work - you really don't gain any noticeable hifi advantage with it. Also 96 takes up too muh resources at present and 192 is just ridiculous

Mr A

What about 24bit/48K as compared to 16bit/44.1K? Does that result in a significant improvement in quality?

CypherOne · Post by **CypherOne** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:08 pm

I'm not a sample.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:18 pm

sangha wrote:What about 24bit/48K as compared to 16bit/44.1K? Does that result in a significant improvement in quality?

If I could only increase one, I would rather increase the sample rate than the bit depth. I have more issues related to nyquist than to lack of dynamic range. Most people compress the living crap out of their material anyway, so there should be no need for them to use more than 16 bit audio.

I use 96kHz 24-bit audio for some things. It does seem smoother for some things, like some VSTis, or if you plan to do extensive editing on the sound after recording. I haven't had the pleasure of using a sound card that supported higher sample rates or bit depths. I would like to try that sometime, but I concede that the storage requirements would be cumbersome.

take care,
McLilith

C00kie · Post by **C00kie** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:21 pm

sangha wrote:What about 24bit/48K as compared to 16bit/44.1K? Does that result in a significant improvement in quality?

Firstly the sample rate: 44.1 opposed to 48kHz. You get highest quality if it matches the sampling rate of what you publish on. So 44.1kHz for audio CD and 48kHz for DVD or Sony Minidisc. When converting the sample rate you mostly lose the time you're waiting for that to finish. The extra 10% in high frequencies is not really noticable. Its one whopping whole note higher.

Then the bit depth: 16 opposed to 24 bits. When recording : if your soundcard can handle it, record in 24bits. When exporting / rendering, and it is not yet the final version to go on disk: use 24 or 32 bits. Is it significant? Depends on your ears and the type of music.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:27 pm

I forgot to mention, the opinion I just gave does seem to be a minority opinion. It seems that most other people care more about the 24 bits, than the 96kHz.

When I bought my 24bit/96kHz audio card, the salesmen were practically doing their best to talk me out of using 24bit/96kHz audio.

It made me wonder how they ever sold anything. Then again, it was a "Guitar Center" store. Maybe that explains part of it.

take care,
McLilith

stick-in-the-mud · Post by **stick-in-the-mud** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:29 pm

24/96 here - there is a BIG difference in the sound. If you're recording acoustic source material there is a much greater depth that is definitely palpable.

It does eat up a lot of CPU though.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:38 pm

C00kie wrote:Firstly the sample rate: 44.1 opposed to 48kHz. You get highest quality if it matches the sampling rate of what you publish on.

That's sort of correct. You do avoid conversion errors when recording at the same bit depth and sample rate.

However, what about the future? If you record all your music in higher bit depths and sample rates, your music should be better prepared for future audio formats which might well demand higher sample rates and bit depths. There are already some mediums (DVD-based) which work with 24-bit 96kHz audio.

The way I see it, record in the best quality setting you can. Convert that for mastering, if you need to. You shouldn't loose that much in the conversion. Then, you'll be ready if you ever need to re-release anything at the higher sample rates.

Also, I think I remember reading that the film industry has mostly settled on 24-bit 96kHz audio. Can anyone confirm that? If so, anyone thinking of composing for film, might want to start working in that format.

take care,
McLilith

sangha · Post by **sangha** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:40 pm

C00kie wrote:
sangha wrote:What about 24bit/48K as compared to 16bit/44.1K? Does that result in a significant improvement in quality?
Firstly the sample rate: 44.1 opposed to 48kHz. You get highest quality if it matches the sampling rate of what you publish on. So 44.1kHz for audio CD and 48kHz for DVD or Sony Minidisc. When converting the sample rate you mostly lose the time you're waiting for that to finish. The extra 10% in high frequencies is not really noticable. Its one whopping whole note higher.

Then the bit depth: 16 opposed to 24 bits. When recording : if your soundcard can handle it, record in 24bits. When exporting / rendering, and it is not yet the final version to go on disk: use 24 or 32 bits. Is it significant? Depends on your ears and the type of music.

Since I plan on publishing to CD, and my music involves some acoustic material and lots of guitars, it sounds like I should be recording at 24bit/44.1K. Sound right?

And thanks for response.

sangha · Post by **sangha** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:44 pm

McLilith wrote:The way I see it, record in the best quality setting you can. Convert that for mastering, if you need to. You shouldn't loose that much in the conversion. Then, you'll be ready if you ever need to re-release anything at the higher sample rates.

That was my initial impression too, but since then I've heard people saying that there isn't much difference between 44.1 and 48, and their reasoning appears impeccable. The math does show that there isn't all that much there. I'd go to 96k, but as you point out, that uses a lot of disk space. I think for now I'll go with the 44.1/24bit and once I have a better idea of what I'm doing, I'll play around with 96k.

What's your sample rate?