24/32 Hardware/Software

[IRBY]

If Tracktion can record on the software side of things at up to 32/192 but your physical hardware interface can only record your incoming signal at 24/96, does it make any sense to still use the highest recording settings on the software end? I have been told that a 32/192 recording of an incoming 24/96 sound is better than a 24/96 recording of a 24/96 sound. Is this true? Or should I just set my software recording options in bit depth and sample rate to match that of my audio interface?

[Rangtangtang]

What you end up whith is a 32/192 recording of a 24/96 signal. Still the 32 is going to be better than the 24 recording of the 24/96 signal? What about whith proccessing?

[jupiter8]

I have been told that a 32/192 recording of an incoming 24/96 sound is better than a 24/96 recording of a 24/96 sound.

Whoever told you this is a moron who has no clue what he's talking about.

First of all,is it even possible to record at 192kHz if your soundcard does'nt support it? Even if it is possible there is no benefit to this at all.None.Zero.

There is a slight benefit in recording to 32 bit float as everything gets converted to this at one point. So CPU usage should be slightly lower. How big this difference is,i don't know,but it should be very small.Maybe not even noticable.
And the drawback is of course bigger filesizes.

[Guckli]

Doesn't mean any difference as long as you're recording. Mixing is another story though. While you won't win anything with a higher samplerate it's a lot easier to mix in 32bit float (no digital overs). Besides the PCI bus is 32bit wide, doesn't make sense to send 24bit packed as it'll slow down the cpu, so you actually send 32bit sound back and forth between the host and the audio card, the least significan byte padded with 0s.
I use 32bit float/96k in all projects, using Terratec EWS88MT and EMU 1820M.

[IRBY]

Huh?

[IRBY]

Umm...still confused.

[jupiter8]

Don't run 192. I don't even think you can.32 bit has a small advantage but not much.If it is worth it is up to you to decide. I'd say it isn't but make up your own mind.

[jupiter8]

Depending on what medium the final final product is going to end up i recommend:
CD or mp3 24 bit 44.1 kHz.
If you really want to go higher i recommend going 88.2 instead of 96 as it is easier to downsample to 44.1.If you're recording for a CD that is.
If you're recording for mp3 you might as well stick to 44.1 as any benefit from a higher samplerate will bo lost in the mp3 conversion.

Confused still?

[Lunch Money]

Tracktion only lets you choose the bit-depth of your recorded audio. It lets your soundcard choose the rate. So, your rate is decided by what your soundcard is currently using.

I'm totally with jupiter8. 24/44.1 is where it's at, but if you're extra paranoid you could use 24/88.2 (if available).

Greg

[IRBY]

I think I get it now. But why do all the software/hardware manufacturers make such a big deal about higher and higher bit depths and sample rates. It's seems that anything over 24/88 is considered overkill by so many people? 24/96 is held out as "the pro standard" by the hardware manufacturers. Is this all just marketing hype? Funny thing though. I still can't seem to wonder. Even if your sound card only alows 24 bit input/output and your software allows you to record at 32bit, wouldn't a 32 bit recording of a 24bit source still be of a higher quality and have more definition and headroom than a 24 bit recording of a 24 bit source? Am I thinking of this all wrong?

[Lunch Money]

Yes, most of it is hype. Manufacturers trying to out-do one another and all that. Notice how very few of them are bothering with 192 because they know that consumers aren't THAT dumb?

By recording a 24-bit soundcard resolution into a 32-bit file, I guess you theoretically give yourself headroom. But for what? 24-bit is already far more headroom than you SHOULD need. It won't have more quality or definition, though.

Greg

[trs]

I´m currently at SAE Institute finishing a Bachelor Degree in Recording Arts, and after checking and measuring myself and another collegues, we reached to the same conclusion: no audible improvements over 24 bits resolution/44.1 Khz sample rate.

The REAL difference took place when we moved from 16 to 24 bits. On the sample rate side, working at higher rates will make no audible difference at all, is basically the industry pressing for us to upgrade to a bigger, faster hard drives etc....

[Distorted_Mastermind]

I think that 192 is for DVD format (not 100% sure). I don't do movies or work for a major hollywood production company, but believe the 192 Khz relates to DVD movies. I record 24 bit 48 Khz, but really have little doubt 44.1 would be any differant.
Edit:spelling correction

[Distorted_Mastermind]

Ha and I still have spelling errors......Screw English, I speak American

[IRBY]

O.k.. Now I think I finally get it. I'll go with 24/44 I guess. Thanks everyone for all the input. I just figured if it was there, it was supposed to be drastically better and supposed to be used. And when I try to do A/B comparisons, most of the time, I can hear no difference, and then at other times I FEEL as though I can MAYBE hear some differences, but I usually just chalk it up to an audio placebo affect, where I tell myself I'm hearing something different/better because I'm expecting to hear something different/better. Thanks for letting me know, any differences in sound were really, all in my head, and I don't need to waste the hard drive space.