Recording at Higher Sample Rates

[Rick Shepherd]

I realize this topic has been discussed to a great extent, but hang with me.

I recently purchased a nice coverter which enables me to record at higher sample rates up to 192kHz. I think being able to record at high sample rates is great for being able to save them for listening on my system and monitors, which is great, but when I take the recordings and burn them to CD or change the file type to a smaller format, I run into problems with the conversion.

I take the 120 to 150 meg .wav file and burn it to an audio CD using Easy CD Creator, which takes the .wav file and converts it to a .cda file type, and plays wonderously on any CD player, the result being about a 30 meg file.

Ok, so I still may want to convert the original large .wav file to a smalller mp3 format for loading on my website, but when I try that, the song does not play back very well. There is a glitch in the conversion process and I am not sure why.

Can anyone advise me of a way to successfully convert my large .wav file to mp3 file type successfully without causing a glitch in playback, which is a popping sound throughout the song?

Or, should I not waste my time recording at that high a sample rate and just drop it to 96 or 44.1kHz?

Finally, I read somewhere that some person prefered to record at a certain sample rate because the "math" of the conversion process made it work better? Does that make any sense to anyone?

Infomation about the setup: My signal chain is fairly highend

Peluso 2247LE and Gefell M300 mics
Avalon AD2022 preamp
UA 2192 AD/DA converter (ADAT optical connection to my soundcard)
E-MU 1212m soundcard (not highend) (thinking about upgrading to the Lynx L22
Hafler P3000 amplifier --> Daedalus W-803 Monitors

Your advise is appreciated!

[Rick Shepherd]

Ok, I did some reading and searching here and learned some interesting things about sample rates. My real concern then at this point is how to successfully convert large sample rate files to smaller file sizes, such as mp3 without running into problems?

[just.sounds]

Hi,
If all you do is recording than 96k or even 48k will be enough but most digital audio processing will benefit from that high sample rate. and most converters sound better at high sample rates because their anti aliasing filter is less than optimal.
But great converters and good programming can solve that problem.

and for the mp3 be carefull that you not overload the converter try to lower the level 2dB if the problem not dissapears than you could use another converter
L.A.M.E. always did the job alright for me

[MattGray]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

Ok, I did some reading and searching here and learned some interesting things about sample rates. My real concern then at this point is how to successfully convert large sample rate files to smaller file sizes, such as mp3 without running into problems?

Hi Rick, if your main delivery medium is going to be Mp3 then I would say that recording & mixing at 192kHz is a waste of time & computer resources. There is some benefits to be had in recording at higher sample rates but I doubt anyone would hear them once converted to Mp3.

I would stick with 24bit 44.1kHz for this purpose, or at the most 24bit 88.2kHz. To answer your question regarding converting 192kHz wave files to Mp3, I would suggest that you download 'R8Brain Free' from Voxengo, it is a free high quality sample rate converter. Use R8Brain Free to downsample your 192kHz wave file to 44.1kHz then use another program to dither your newly created 24bit 44.1kHz wave file to 16bit 44.1kHz (use a noise shaped dither such as POW-r type 2 or 3. Once you have it in this format any Mp3 encoder will happily convert it without glitches. I would recommend iTunes for Mp3 conversion as it seems to have a great codec for this & sounds better then many others I've heard.

Hope this helps...

Matt

[Rick Shepherd]

Thanks for the info. I am now using an optical cable from my converter to the ADAT in on my sound card. I realize that recordng at the higher rate is probably not going to yield better results, but I needed to see for myself what or if there would be a difference. Until I do more comparative analysis, I won't know for sure. Anyway, thanks for the info!

[just.sounds]

Originally Posted by Rick Shepherd

Thanks for the info. I am now using an optical cable from my converter to the ADAT in on my sound card. I realize that recordng at the higher rate is probably not going to yield better results, but I needed to see for myself what or if there would be a difference. Until I do more comparative analysis, I won't know for sure. Anyway, thanks for the info!

Be sure that you also run a wordclock cable because adat optical absolutely su**s
at that

[elijahlucian]

Originally Posted by just.sounds

Be sure that you also run a wordclock cable because adat optical absolutely su**s
at that

way old topic but i did a search so you cant be mad.

why is optical bad? i run 8 channels from my 8pre to my 896mk3