Greetings all.
Supposedly you saw someone post the following:

".. It's useless. I don't know why people use 24 bit 196k at all! It's a complete waste of their money and hard disk space. What is the ****ing point? It all gets recorded to CDs at 44.1k 16-bit..."

My answer is well known here. I record and master at 24 bit, 196k.

What is everybody else's opinion?

-ED-

It is ALWAYS best to record at the highest resolution even if it is going to be reduced to 44K 16 bit. The higher the resolution the better the dithering down to 16bit. Plus if you are ever going to master to DVD Audio in the future that can support higher sample and bit rates then it makes sense to have the best recording possible. If hard disk space is really an issue then you can record at 96K 24bit to reduce size. The difference between 96K and 192K is not dramatic but the difference between 16 and 24 bit is very noticeable.

I record on 24bit 96k

Why?
1. It's the max my soundcard supports

(delta 1010)

2. Saves a lot of time with mastering.
The dynamic "feel" is much better.
If I record directly on 16/44 somehow
it just get's muddy very fast if there
are a 6 or more tracks.
Don't ask me why as I am by no means technical.

An interesting observation though;
I don't know how you would compare analogue cassette decks in bits but the max was 16Khz.
If only recorded a few tracks somehow there
is plenty of dynamic feel left if transferred to digital while I did not expected this due to the low specs of the cassette tapes.
I observed that when transferring old cassette deck recordings to harddisk which I then mastered. (I pre-mastered before removing the tape noise in this case.)

Maybe Ed has an explanation?

Fred

I record all tracks in 16/44.1 quality. I have no muddy mix as long as I mix it right with my Tascam analog mixer. It's a natural effect that an analog mix gives you a much better dynamic access than a digital mix. The analog mixer adds volume (voltage) levels from each channel to one resulting master (voltage) level each quantum jump of a second. The digital mixer adds bits and bytes in a time fixed task window and at the end there are still remaining numbers at a position after decimal point which causes some interesting side effects.

I think the recording way I've decided to go is called ADD. It's an Analog mix, a Digital recording and a Digitally mastered CD is the result...

I think it's a little bit too early to talk about DVDs as a replacement for CDs. First, a CD offers up to 80 minutes song space which is more than enough for the most music productions. Second, the most households are using hifi systems with standard CD players (some are still using record players and their amount is growing but that's another story). Third, DVDs are good for films/videos which need much disc space but you could save whole rock samplers on one DVD...

Three years ago I tried a recording at true 32 bit @44.1kHz resolution. The result wasn't amazing me (it simply sounded the same like a 16/44.1 wave). So, I decided to go on with 16 bit because of the minor needed disc space and the faster data transfer access speed. Also, I do not plan to record on other mediums than on CDs. I still don't use DVDs (though I have a DVD drive) because I'm still using floppy discs for 5 different systems (two of them are synths) and CDs for three different computer systems. I'm still having my venyls, my music CDs, my VHS cassettes and my music casettes. I don't really need a new medium in my museum...
...the more that this medium isn't very clear to me (+ or -, R or W, or what else?). Is it really necessary to bombard the world with tech and more tech only for financials? Why can't we get a product which is really needful AND clear to everyone?

I don't really understand the fuss around the new and fascinating technologies. The most were possible many years ago but nobody took care of it. Why so today? Maybe it's a mass phenomena...I don't know...

24/192 means nothing!!! Why this? Hmm, it would mean a lot but the main point are the converters. You need very good ADCs and DACs which can provide you the whole range of the required resolution. So, it's not unusual that today's recordings at 16/44.1 mostly sound better than recordings at 24/96 or 24/192 because the technology for 16/44.1 AD/DA converting still is much further developed than the new 24/192 technology. But you'll have to pay a lot for those converters. Why do you think are high quality music gears so expensive? They try to use the best material they can get for this price.

I don't know how long it will take until this advantage will be lost. Look back! How long did it last until the 16/44.1 converters came to their today's level? I would tend to say they will get it for the 24/192 converters in half the time but who knows? Maybe they'll get it faster...

The most computers were made for several things but they aren't specialized for music (all but one - Atari). You'll have to deal with what you have. No software is really able to wipe out the fact that the hardware can't deliver more than its physical ability. It's only virtuality...

Yes, I'm using samples but I'm not very proud to do so!
Have a nice day and sleep well tonight! Music is a friend with a big heart. I love ya'll, my friends...

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 09-29-2005).]

Here's an article that was written quite sometime ago. I think in overall a lot of it's content basically supports what a lot of us are saying. I'm sure there are lots of other good articles out there ; however this one is written in plain English as in oppose to gibberish that doesn't make sense to us mortals.

"... VS: Most analysts feel that DVD is a sure thing, not only as a replacement for tape as a delivery medium for film, but also as an enhanced audio format. However, audio facility owners buying equipment today are purchasing with the understanding that DVD is not ubiquitous today. How much of a factor should posting audio to specs higher than the current Red Book (CD) standard be? Is archiving to the assumed standards of tomorrow important?
Elen: The Red Book standard (44.1kHz sampling and 16-bit word lengths) was established in the early '80s. We have been able to do better for many years. Today, there are several consumer distribution media that offer quality superior to Red Book, notably DVD and HDTV. DVD in particular offers 20-bit and 24-bit word lengths, and the DVD-Audio specification allows for multichannel recordings at 96kHz sampling and stereo up to 192kHz. Very likely, video productions created today are going to be released on media that offer higher quality than Red Book. In addition, it is important for production facilities to operate at a higher level of quality than the consumer distribution media because higher production standards offer a degree of headroom that can give you more flexibility when re-purposing the content for future release configurations.

Pirali: The answer depends largely on the format you're mixing down to, the kind of music, and the taste of the producer. If you're recording down to a CD, then there really is no need to track at anything larger than 16-bit. Mixing down is a different story because you're summing multiple streams of data there. You'll probably want to mix at higher resolution to preserve everything in the input streams because digital mixing is more of a mathematical process than electrical as in an analog system.
Recording at higher bit rates [greater than 16-bit] provides better dynamic range at the source, allowing for finer detail and more headroom during recording without losing data. Ultimately, the final mix is heard most often as 16-bits, but for most of the process [recording to final mastering], it is desirable to use 24-bit dynamic range, with even higher bit counts for intermediate results during summing and processing. This is especially important when you consider that the level of signal may be lowered and increased in various stages before the final summation and that it is typical to compress the dynamic range of the final mix before truncation to 16-bit. Because of noise levels, amplifier, and the quality of consumer converters, most consumers do not listen to the final results in environments that allow the full dynamic range of a 16-bit recording, so higher bit resolution is not needed.
Braksick: I agree. Certainly the effect of 16-bit wordlengths is easily demonstrated, and I think it is pretty well accepted that engineers want to conserve as much resolution as possible during the recording and mixing process, even if the final deliverable is a 16-bit, 44.1kHz CD. As far as the higher sample rates, a lot of people are just beginning to explore that. If DVD-Audio gets off the ground with consumers, it'll become common. The question that always arises, however, is whether you want to spend your CPU or DSP cycles on running a bunch of tracks and plug-ins at 48kHz, or half as many tracks and plug-ins at 96kHz.
The thing that has really changed is the ubiquity of digital I/O. People now tend to believe that it is a good idea to avoid multiple A/D and D/A conversions and keep the connections between components digital whenever possible.
O'Neill: 24-bit conversion offers real-world, audible improvement over 16-bit or 20-bit. Sampling rates above 96kHz have a less audible improvement but reduce the cost and complexity of the digital filters. Because digital audio can be preserved or published only as well as the initial conversion, it makes sense to capture that audio and perform all processing and intermediate storage at the maximum resolution in terms of both signal level and sample rate. For audio post, use of these higher conversion standards allows music recorded today to be published at higher standards than the current CD RedBook, both now and in the future. "

I can't mix it digitally because I'm a guitarist!!!
So, I still need AD/DA converters...

Are we talking about music or some little fun productions on a PC???
A nice article but it doesn't describe any technical facts. Hey, we are having a news paper here in Germany which is known for their bad investigation. Everybody know it but though it's the most sold newspaper. What do you think why do the Germans make bad politics here? Because they are too stupid!!!
So, if anyone of them would say: "Buy Windows XP because it's a very good system!" then I would tell him: "Hey guy! You have no answer! So, please, be quite and don't talk such nonsens!" or something like: "Eat shit! 1,000,000,000,000 blowflies can't go wrong with their taste!"...

Okay, okay! I chill!!!
I don't go with any articles because they were written to manipulate the masses. It's a kind of advertising. How do you think should factories sell their trash??? If they don't do it they'll close down - that's the truth behind those articles...

I try it out for my own and if a technology doesn't make me feel better then it's not an interesting technology. In my own experience I couldn't realize any difference in higher resolutions than 16 bit. I also couldn't realize any difference in higher rates than 44.1kHz. Therefore that I know that nobody can hear higher frequencies than 20kHz it isn't very amazing me that 16/44.1 is the top.
What's on? The most people are archieving their music as mp3 formatted files. I never thought that it would result in high quality tracks but it's the today's main household usage worldwide. So, why suddenly going into the opposite direction and lift up to 24 bits with cinema surround sound at higher sample rates? There's no logical correlation! That's the reason why I only trust into my own experiences, my friends. People are talking/writing too much if the day is too long...
So, that's the reason why I should pull my brakes and stop writing...

You sound reasonable. Time to up my medication.
You've missed the point of this article entirely. IN fact judging by your reply you haven't read it very carefully or at all for that matter because some of it supports things that you have been saying all along.


To be fare to you we will continue this discussion later. Let's let others post now.

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-30-2005).]

Okay, that's a good idea!

BTW: I guess my hifi system isn't sufficient enough to mess with newer digital techs. Wait, there are two buttons...hmm, one for the noise filter and the other for the rumble filter...*LOL*

Hey, ED!
What's on? Why are you so angry with me? I'm still calling you 'a friend' but our little verbal conflict is irritating me. Please, tell me what I did wrong!!!
Regards, Danny

Just wait another 40 years when we can record at 196 bit, not 196 K, and sample rate of 25000000000! You just don't understand people! Mixes would sound so much better if you could put some 250k in them. Granted, the human ear can only hear up to 20k, but the difference is in what 250k does in the subharmonics of 100k, and consequently, what that does to 50k, and then what that does to 20k that makes a huge difference. And your dynamic range is so much better.

Who cares if most people who listen to music will listen in not only 16 bit 44.1 K, but even 320 kbps .mp3?


In other words, I'm not very interested in why yadda yadda is mathematically supposed to sound better, but whether or not it actually does.

Ed, do the experiment. Listen to a song at your highest bit rate, and make an identical mix at 16/44, then make a 320 KBPS .mp3. Then, get "someone else", and that's the important part, "someone else", to cycle between the 3. Do this with 2 different songs. See how often you get it right. Seriously. do this experiment for us. Unless you've already done it. I want someone to tell me face to face that they can do this.

I don't think there's anything to prove here.
Afraid you will have to find other ways to express your ideas on this issue. Quit with the bullying and I will answer your question. That's if you actually want my answer.

Otherwise. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 10-09-2005).]

I wasn't bullying. I was being direct. How come people who aren't being attacked feel like they are....unless there is some truth to the alleged bully's statement?
Seriously though, I do want the experiment mentioned actually tried sometime during my lifetime. It seems to me that most of the people who talk about this stuff do it from a "this is what should be, or this is what the machine shows" perspective rather than a "this is what I hear" perspective.

Here is an excerpt from Morph in the mastering thread started by pennywizz

Some Mp3's are amazingly close out
of the speaker, but they are far from the same on the wav/mp3 editor. Take the mp3 and re-convert it back to wav now and compare the statistics. Better
yet try cross channel fading on the once an mp3 wav. You cannot do it to the wav that has been converted and re-converted back. You can, but it is horrible
sounding because the frequencies were merged during encoding. This is how mp3's digitally represent sound. Technically speaking mp3 is a SOUND format and
not a form of preservable audio media. Rather It's just a compressed digital representation of combined frequencies. The theory began long ago when searching
for ways to make FM stations more powerful and longer range. The same pricipal goes for the dynamics of the media. try putting some quality compression
or other dynamics process on an mp3 same thing.


Morph admits here that even a high bit .mp3 can sound amazingly close to the original. Only when reconverted into wav and annalized through a wave editor can the differences be "seen" not "heard".
If this is true of a high bit .mp3, it must be even more true when comparing a 16 bit wav to a 24 bit wav.

Oh, and the first part of my post, about 196 bit 25000000000 sample rate, I call it "tongue in cheek", you call it bullying. Gees. The people telling me to lighten up are the people who actually need to do the lightening up.

well, if it is your odd way of apologizing for inderectly calling me a person who looks at numbers instead of using their ears than it is almost accepted.
To answer your sarcastic and ill posed question: Yes.
I have compared the two. I have to do that every time I have to dither.

Now since you've proposed an experiment here why don't we do it so you actually get to experience things yourself without having to count on general public or my crazy self.

Get a good mic. A good preamp. record an acoustic guitar (or whatever you have) using your current setup.

Then try doing the same thing using a decent audio card with 24 bit 96k.

Compare the two. Listen several times. Then put some plug-ins on a track. EQs, compressor-limiters etc.

Then tell me what your experience is. I'm not so much interested in your neighbour's opinion (unless of coarse they are audio engineers or have studios themselves).

EDIT.
I have a nasty habit of editing my posts. So if you've already replied to my previous attempt to compose this responce it can stil stay as valid. ROFLMAO.

--ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 10-09-2005).]

A bit of text-based sparring. It's kind of fun eh?
E Q and other useless things. That was good.

Seeing as how I work in a studio pretty much every day of my life, I think we can talk about this from a somewhat mutual level of understanding. We're recording at 24 bit 44.1, and I have noticed no discernable difference between that and 24 96. I've never tried 196. I send my mixes to Nashville to be mastered because that is something I do not want to get into. I've invested enough time in the producing and mixing etc to then try to tackle the nuance of mastering.
The person I use to master is named Tom King, and he has told me that my mixes sound every bit as good, and sometimes better, than Nashville products he's got. And this is no slouch of a mastering engineer, I can promise.

He sends back 24 bit and regular CD quality masters for me. And try as I might, I cannot tell the difference. And that is real world experience. From my ears. So to my real world experience, 196k will do me no good but eat up hard drive.

Now I'll go join the ranks of Sherriff who's feeling bad 'cause Ed's pissed with him.

You wanna "join" Sheriff? Well, we're stil friends. So you'll have to be one to.
Oh, that's what it's all about. Damn. Good thing I deleted that sarcastic crap I wrote you. Although it was good. I'll save it for those who deserve it though.
Actually Sheriff and I have resolved our issues long time ago. his post has been just sitting here. So if you felt obligated to kick my butt for me being mean to him or something it's a bit uncalled for. You're not doing either of us a favor by jumping in and thus jumping to conclusions.

To be a hundred percent serious about the usefulness of 196k (vs 96k) I can honestly say that I have very little to notice there but don't mind recording at a 196k since I'm not pressed for hard disk space. I do it because I can. However, using 24 bit /96k as in oppose to 16 bit /44.1k makes a difference for me.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 10-09-2005).]

Just curious,why isn't this discussion on the recording forum? I have been hanging out there looking to learn some more about recording.Oh well I am glad I found you guys!
Hey, I am using 20 bit and dithering to 24/96. Do I actually gain very much in your opinion by going 24/96 all the way?
I dont mean to throw more into this.

Here are a few observations
1. Most High End Keyboards now use 24bit 96kz (Or more) for sound samples and sound reproduction.
2. High Quality CD Players use 24bit 96Khz (Or more) D/A converters to over sample CD for better quality sound.
3. DVD Audio discs use 24bit 96Khz (Or more) for quality sound.
4. Super Audio CD use 24bit 96Khz (Or more) for improved sound.
5. Cinema systems (Home and Professional) mainly use 24bit 96Khz (Or more)
6. Most Studios use 24bit 96Khz (Or more)
7. Computers are now coming as standard with 24bit 96Khz (Or more) onboard sound chips.
8. Most Audio manipulation programs recommend to use 24bit 96Khz. (Or more)
So whether you can here the difference or not, we do now live in a 24bit 96Khz (Or more) world.

Bill


[This message has been edited by abacus (edited 10-10-2005).]

Yes, and that's really frightening me! Now we musicians are living in a computing business world too...*AAAARGH*

Okay, we have to live with so many things that we don't really need but the wheels of time keep on turning. At least I hope that the resistance of us musicians will grow again to the point where the factories have to raise with us.
I remember the days when the PA systems turned to transistors (long after it was done for HiFi systems). After a short while the musicians started to want back their warm sounding tube amps. I'm very glad about that fact!

You're loosing dynamics with 16/44.1 because you're mixing it down digitally. The digitally inaccuracy is the devil! Higher bit resolutions and higher sample rates do minimize this effect but never do reach towards analog resolution - it's only a digital imitation of the nature! So, we can get better results by using analog technologies especially for the audio mixes.

Personally, I like to mix analog and digital devices in my studio because it provides me a bigger range but, analog devices are still having a great PLUS in my decicions...
Regards, Danny