KVR Audio

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:45 pm

well if your not using too many fx but its mainly audio i'd suggest recording at 88.2 24 bit - it won't hurt any as if it's a modern computer it will cope

and if these superdoopah formats take off (which they should as they sound luverly) you've already recorded in it

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:45 pm

sangha wrote: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?

It sounds to me, like you should be publishing on something other than CD.

McLilith

sangha · Post by **sangha** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:17 pm

McLilith wrote:
sangha wrote: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?
It sounds to me, like you should be publishing on something other than CD.

McLilith

Actually, you're probably right about that, but for now, just getting it in the darn DAW is enough of a challenge.

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:30 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.

Right... hands up how many of us here are popluar enough to sell regular CDs, let alone a possible re-release, bleedin' Nora

Mr A

PS. i use 24 bit/44.1kHz.

PPS. Don't get caught in the 88.2 myth, it doesn't convert to 44.1 any better than 96. Also if you can afford all the CPU and disc space 96 takes up then you should be able to afford a nice Apogee converter to get it to CD. If you can't afford an Apogee then you should ask yourself whether the music you're doing really justifies 96 in the first place.

Spaceman Sounds · Post by **Spaceman Sounds** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:34 pm

Nooooooo not this thread again he he... I won't be on my soap box. But I do work at 96k all the time now.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:22 pm

Mr Arkadin wrote:Right... hands up how many of us here are popluar enough to sell regular CDs, let alone a possible re-release, bleedin' Nora

The question was what would be "better", not what is financially more expedient. I'll leave questions of finances to the person who originally asked the question concerning "what's better", to decide for themselves.

"bleedin' Nora

" Whatever does that mean, anyway? Can't you make a point in plain english, without being so perversely euphemistic?

take care,
McLilith

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:33 pm

My Bro the audio engineer favours increasing the bit-depth (at 32-bit it's practically impossible to clip) and staying with 44k - IF you're going to CD. Apparently it's much easier and you get better results if you use divisible samplerates. So 88k down to 44k will get you smooth dithering at the final stage, but 96 to 44k might create more artifacts as the computer works with odd numbers.

I'll bug him to get me some info on it, he made a compelling case...but mostly I'm too busy composing to pay attention to this stuff!

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:57 pm

McLilith wrote:

"bleedin' Nora " Whatever does that mean, anyway? Can't you make a point in plain english, without being so perversely euphemistic?

i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it's a form of exclamation like "Bloody Hell!" i hope 'rocket scientist' wasn't too euphemistic a term for you.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:26 pm

Mr Arkadin wrote:McLilith wrote:
"bleedin' Nora " Whatever does that mean, anyway? Can't you make a point in plain english, without being so perversely euphemistic?

i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that it's a form of exclamation like "Bloody Hell!" i hope 'rocket scientist' wasn't too euphemistic a term for you.

I realized the general thrust behind the statement, but I thought the aggresive tone of it was uncalled for.

Additionally, you don't seem familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question, or is "rhetorical question" too much like proper english for you to understand?

I'm sorry, that was another rhetorical question.

Hint: Don't bother replying.

sweet dreams,
McLilith

TrevorG · Post by **TrevorG** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:17 pm

Cheers people! Not sure if that's changed anything for me but I might experiment just to see what happens.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:20 pm

That sounds like a good idea Trevor. Sometimes, there's no good substitute for trying something yourself.

take care,
McLilith

Mr Arkadin · Post by **Mr Arkadin** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:23 pm

McLilith wrote:

Additionally, you don't seem familiar with the concept of a rhetorical question

Yes i am aware of the existance of that term, i just assumed you genuinely didn't know, sorry.

Oh no, i've fallen into his cunning trap and replied. Bugger

Mr A

PS.

but I thought the aggresive tone of it was uncalled for.

You think i'm aggressive, you're lucky you weren't dealing with BONES or xoxos.

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:29 pm

What's your sample rate?