|
|
Post by lolo on Aug 11, 2013 23:20:52 GMT -6
What bit rate do you guys tend to record and mix at?
Currently i'm doing all my stuff at 48/24.
Do you guys find that there's any noticable differences between 48/24 vs just 44.1/24?
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Aug 12, 2013 8:05:19 GMT -6
88.2/32 here. I hear a difference yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchtower on Aug 12, 2013 8:15:14 GMT -6
I record at 44.1k/24 bit
I only mix at 48k if that's the file format I'm sent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 12, 2013 8:20:37 GMT -6
Yeah - I've been going 88.2 lately too...Sounds better at the mixing stage - who knows whether it sounds better once it's bounced down, though...
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 12, 2013 8:35:16 GMT -6
44.1/24 here.
Gonna try 88.2/32 and see what the load is on my late 2012 Mini running BFD2 (15-20% cpu all by itself!) and 12-15 audio tracks, max.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Aug 12, 2013 8:36:18 GMT -6
Will give 88.2 a try on my next project. But would there be any differences between 32bit and 24bit? Do you still mixdown to 24 bit before mastering if you mixing at 32bit?
|
|
|
|
Post by wreck on Aug 12, 2013 9:12:26 GMT -6
I record at 44.1k/24 bit. For me it doesn't make or break the song from the consumer perspective to go higher. I also feel like most of the benefits are lost as soon as it becomes an mp3, which is all I can get anyone to listen to. Probably most important, in my case is that I benefit from the extra processing options. For me, it's the sweet spot for my set up. Give me greater processing power and I would gladly bump it up. But if we can believe the stuff we hear on Pensado's Place, there are songs on the radio that are mixes of mp3 files. While I really love gear and I always want better stuff, I know that I really don't need it. Consumers ears probably can't tell the difference between 16 bit and 64 bit. And if they can, they aren't likely to care too much. I guess it all boils down to work flow though. If your setup can go higher and you can get to the end of the song without a meltdown then go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolo on Aug 12, 2013 9:41:56 GMT -6
Thats what scares me. If my pc will be able to handle it. But because most of my stuff is Demo's, better quality can be very handy
|
|
|
|
Post by mokobigbro on Aug 12, 2013 10:57:22 GMT -6
24/48 here. Mastering to a higher res though looking at the trend in hdtracks.com and itunes Mfit.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 12, 2013 10:57:41 GMT -6
24/44.1 is the tracking format. Once it's being mixed down, I come back into a sound card at 16/44.1 so I don't have to dither.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Aug 12, 2013 11:06:09 GMT -6
My Mac mini handles the higher rate pretty good. That said, I'm in a habit of using a lot of buses for group processing. I basically try to keep all processing to a minimum by recording well.
I usually mix to a hardware comp and limiter, then disable them for the 88.2 print through the Burl.
If I'm having it mastered, I'll pull it off the drive from there. If I'm doing a "makeshift master", ill pull it into a new 88.2 session adding the comp and limiter back on with the same values I mixed to. Usually end up adding a few extras on the strip at this stage as well. When all sounds good, dither and bounce down to 44.1/16.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Aug 12, 2013 12:52:41 GMT -6
My Mac mini handles the higher rate pretty good. That said, I'm in a habit of using a lot of buses for group processing. I basically try to keep all processing to a minimum by recording well. I usually mix to a hardware comp and limiter, then disable them for the 88.2 print through the Burl. If I'm having it mastered, I'll pull it off the drive from there. If I'm doing a "makeshift master", ill pull it into a new 88.2 session adding the comp and limiter back on with the same values I mixed to. Usually end up adding a few extras on the strip at this stage as well. When all sounds good, dither and bounce down to 44.1/16. If I remember correctly, we have the same Mini, late 2012 2.6ghz cpu 16gig ram + ssd, so this is good news. I usually map my groups to the number of stems I have available for OTB mixing, 7 max due to hardware limitations. Starting a fresh session of Aint No Grave tonight, and will try it at 88.2/32. Gotta program a drum track, my favorite thing to do. Why didn't I take up the sticks when Bonham died? I thought about it, and should have thought a little more. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 12, 2013 13:00:10 GMT -6
Will give 88.2 a try on my next project. But would there be any differences between 32bit and 24bit? Do you still mixdown to 24 bit before mastering if you mixing at 32bit? Im no expert, but this is my understanding, 32 bit will allow you the headroom to input right to 0 w/out compression(0 utilizes all your available reso/bit depth) on your meter without the fear of clipping, in turn allowing you to utilize as much resolution and bit depth as possible, while keeping all your transients in tact. I am one of those non committal blokes who tracks minus compression, except now i've got these JW modded aphex 651's so i've been cheating a little. I've been using 96/32 and i hear a diff, especially on spacious acoustic tracks with long verb tails. Btw, i believe 32bit is accepted at mastering houses, it's been a long time since I've done that though, does someone else know this answer? |
|
|
|
Post by scumbum on Aug 12, 2013 15:03:04 GMT -6
24bit/48K here .
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Aug 12, 2013 16:33:43 GMT -6
44.1 24 bit
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 12, 2013 16:38:55 GMT -6
I've got the newest version of the mac mini with 16gb ram...it slices and dices 88.2 like nothing...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2013 17:39:23 GMT -6
44.1/24
Never gave much thought to any of the talk regarding this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchtower on Aug 13, 2013 9:20:47 GMT -6
Recording at 32-bit doesn't really make sense unless you have a 32-bit converter. But even then, I was taught in audio engineering class that "even god doesn't get 24-bit" out of a regular 24-bit converter due to the natural, thermal(?) noise of circuitry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 13, 2013 9:26:06 GMT -6
You can hear a difference from 44.1 to 88.2 in your DAW...Reverb tails are better, etc...The question is whether or not it's all for naught once you bounce it back down to 44.1 16bit...
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Aug 13, 2013 10:00:43 GMT -6
Recording at 32-bit doesn't really make sense unless you have a 32-bit converter. But even then, I was taught in audio engineering class that "even god doesn't get 24-bit" out of a regular 24-bit converter due to the natural, thermal(?) noise of circuitry. That's true. A bit depth rating like "16/24/32" etc is theoretical maximum. In digitizing signals, you always lose a few bits to various forms of noise like the thermal noise floor of the system, Johnson noise of active parts, Noise Figure of amplifiers, etc. The true measured SNR of the system is known as ENOB or "effective number of bits". Even the best design will lose up to 3-5 bits due to the noise of the system. You also have to remember that higher numbers of bits don't necessarily mean great fidelity either. A/D Sampling rates beyond the Nyquist rate can be diminishing returns due to the processing (math function precision, truncation, algorithm purity, etc) and signal reconstruction (DAC + output image LPF filters, more noise sources, etc) which can further limit your fidelity. It really is just a marketing technique to give bit/sampling rates as the best determination of audio quality. The actual best determination is "does it sound ok?". The human ear can detect impossibly low amounts of distortion in various forms and once trained, can hear things that machines can't quantify or qualify. I've heard ancient 1bit serial converters sound better sonically than the current super 24 bit 192khz oversampling converters even though looking at their datasheets would lead you to believe that just should not be the case. Now, internal processing is another totally different beast. That totally comes down to coding prowess of the software designer. Even 64 bit floating point can't overcome bad code, while good code could probably create a pleasing result with 16 bits. Again, the precision is not the final say in the "quality" of the actual *sound*. Only your ears can say. I just think it's totally overblown these days. I've dealt with designing enough sampling systems for crazy complex signals and have never seen people go so gaga over bit depths and sampling rates in the measurement community as they do with the audio community. To the designer, the sampling system is just the tool to get the signal into the digital domain, which is where the magic truly happens. One such mind-blowing setup is "subsampling" signals so that the signals over the Nyquist point mathematically fold over into the sampling band and are later mathematically reconstructed using complex DSP algorithms. You've always heard that the A/D converter sampling rate needed to be 2x the highest frequency to be sampled for proper reconstruction.. Well, that's not necessarily true anymore.. I've seen some crazy SDR (software defined radio) setups that can sample and reconstruct signals 2x-4x their sampling rates.. It's crazy! |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Aug 13, 2013 15:09:18 GMT -6
Svart's post is way over my head, but IMO, it's the sum of all the small things that make a great sounding recording, if you listen to both a 4 track cassette recording and pink floyd DSOTM over a cell phone speaker, one will sound remarkably better than the other. My suggestion would be, make you recordings sound as stellar as humanly possible, it will translate amazingly well on an audiophile system, and even when dumbed down to its lowest possible form, it will still appear better than a crappy recording when listened to on a cell phone speaker. besides all that, this is about our enjoyment, and work flow. When i can hear beautifully, a mix concludes quicker, and much more accurately and translatable. I honestly could care less if someone else can't hear the diff, because i certainly can  . |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 13, 2013 16:37:27 GMT -6
24/192 for me.
am pretty happy at 24/96 also but am not happy with anything lower than 96.
|
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 13, 2013 16:40:01 GMT -6
My suggestion would be, make you recordings sound as stellar as humanly possible, it will translate amazingly well on an audiophile system, and even when dumbed down to its lowest possible form, it will still appear better than a crappy recording when listened to on a cell phone speaker. besides all that, this is about our enjoyment, and work flow. When i can hear beautifully, a mix concludes quicker, and much more accurately and translatable. I honestly could care less if someone else can't hear the diff, because i certainly can . +1 |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Aug 13, 2013 16:42:07 GMT -6
Never even attempted 192. Don't want to like it  |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Aug 13, 2013 16:49:07 GMT -6
doesn't cause any issues at my end. I don't use any plugs at all so I just load up as many tracks as I want. pc is nothing over the top. only disadvantage is storage space but that's getting cheap now.
|
|
. 
