Bit-rate and sample-rate question...

[urobo[l]us]

Sorry to interupt all the NAMM discusions, but I have a question that is kind of confusing me.

I used to go to homerecording.com/bbs a lot until I got locked out, and there was discussion over there every once in a while about what sample rate each person records and why and the vast majority of people would record at 24/48 because (in so many words) "it is pointless to record at a higher sample rate because the audio signal is not preserved when dithered down," but bit-rate on the other hand was vital to record at the highest you can as it does maintain most intergrity when sampled down. I can't remember the name of the guy who come up with the theory on this...

But, I saw on here a few people saying otherwise. Anyway, long story short, I'm going to making upgrades and need to see how vital it is to be able to record at, lets say, 192k. It's looking pretty pricey at this point to record 16 channels at 192k, so I might have to stick to 96k.

Thanks again.

[XHipHop]

do whatever sounds best to you.

And this was definitely the wrong place to ask this question.

EDIT: This guy posted this in the namm 2007 forum for some reason. That explains my post.

[Cellotron]

A good article to read for food for thought on this subject is at:
http://www.lavryengineering.com/docu...ing_Theory.pdf

At this point I'm pretty firmly agreeing with Dan Lavry that the 4xFs rates (i.e. 176kHz, 192kHz) don't exhibit any sonic improvements over the 2xFs rates (88.2kHz, 96kHz) and add the inconvenience of double the storeage and more strain on the cpu if you are primarily mixing in a DAW. Personally I think that recording at 88.2kHz using the best converters you can afford is all you need to do.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by Toad

Seriously? Why? Where do I sign up to become one of the "Post Police"?

The first post was originally in the "NAMM 2007" forum and got moved here in its entirety - which explains the second post.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[urobo[l]us]

Thanks for the help.

Crap, I didn't even know that was the NAMM forum, but I guess that would have explained why there was so much NAMM discussion. I am so used to "So much gear, so little time!" being in that slot I didn't even bother reading it.

Thanks again!

[MASSIVE Master]

I'm with Steve (and Dan, and Nika, and Dave, and so many others). If you can't get an absolutely stunning sound at the target rate (I still wonder why people use 48k when they're not working on video, but I digress), then higher rates aren't going to help one bit.

And Nika's white papers on sample rates should be required reading.

Heck, I still record at the target rate 90% of the time (on the relatively rare occasion that I'm tracking). Great converters sound great at 44.1kHz. Crappy converters don't sound any better at 192 than they do at 44.1k.

[Toad]

Originally Posted by Cellotron

The first post was originally in the "NAMM 2007" forum and got moved here in its entirety - which explains the second post.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

I see! Thank you sir!!

[XHipHop]

On a somewhat related note, do you find most plugins sound better at higher rates?

[urobo[l]us]

Originally Posted by XHipHop

On a somewhat related note, do you find most plugins sound better at higher rates?

Plug-ins like EQ's, comp., other signal processing I can't say I really notice a difference. However, with some sample based programs that I used, like the Liquid series stuff, sounds much better at aroud 96k than 48k. It gets really grainy when you switch between the two. It's been a while since I've done a comparison as I moved back in August and still haven't set up my equipment.

EDIT, this is why I posted in the NAMM forum. Complete accident sorry about that:

Crap, I didn't even know that was the NAMM forum, but I guess that would have explained why there was so much NAMM discussion. I am so used to "So much gear, so little time!" being in that slot I didn't even bother reading it.