Topic: 24-Bit / 48kHz or 96kHz

[yltfan]

Run the highest resolution you can for mastering purposes. Regardless if you can hear it or not, someone else might.
Hell I plan on running 192/24 now that cards have come down in price and I because I can. Do it for the future :p

??

Your not concerned about the file size limit, which I'm guessing is about 30 min at 192/24?

[JackoRoses]

Your not concerned about the file size limit, which I'm guessing is about 30 min at 192/24?

If I was stuck with size limitation on recording media yes I would be. Yet my only limitation now is 16 gb which
is enough for any show I record.

[page]

Your not concerned about the file size limit, which I'm guessing is about 30 min at 192/24?

If I was stuck with size limitation on recording media yes I would be. Yet my only limitation now is 16 gb which
is enough for any show I record.

yeah, for many it's now a media limitation and not a file size. There are a number of recorders which have really been put through the test to demonstrate they do not drop any samples when splitting files.

[hi and lo]

Hell I plan on running 192/24 now that cards have come down in price and I because I can. Do it for the future :p

thats assuming your converters work as well at 192khz as they do at 44.1 or 48.

Exactly. It's been discussed at length whether or not a modern ADC sounds as good at 192kHz vs. 96kHz and whether or not 192kHz exceeds the performance limitations of modern SRCs.

[lastubbe]

My theroy is that since I can listen to the recording in 24/96 I might as well go for the highest resolution my playback system will permit.  If I was going to dither/resample back to 16/44 then I dont see the point.

I agree with this for me.

I dither/resample to 44.1 for others who burn to cd, and for me so I have a version to throw on my ipod.

[stevetoney]

It's my standard response to this question, but nobody else has really mentioned it so I will.

For live recordings that generally suck anyway for one reason or another, above 48khz what difference does it make?  Even if I could hear a difference at 24/96, so what if I hear in greater quality how much a room sucks, how much my location sucks, how much those loud people talking near my mics suck, how much my rig sucks, etc. 

In the end, no matter what resolution you record at, the end result is still a crappy recording of a live show.  I've got $5000 or more wrapped up in my gear, and I still think literally 100% of my recordings sound like shit compared to how I want them to sound.

For studio recordings where everything is controllable, I say go for the highest res possible.

[adrianf74]

It's my standard response to this question, but nobody else has really mentioned it so I will.

For live recordings that generally suck anyway for one reason or another, above 48khz what difference does it make?  Even if I could hear a difference at 24/96, so what if I hear in greater quality how much a room sucks, how much my location sucks, how much those loud people talking near my mics suck, how much my rig sucks, etc. 

For studio recordings where everything is controllable, I say go for the highest res possible.

Of course this makes some sense (and I completely agree), however, there were one or two shows back in October where I wish I'd rolled at the higher rate just because the pull was THAT GOOD.  With this in mind, it's one of the reasons I've been toying with 24/96 (and because I can).

[stevetoney]

It's my standard response to this question, but nobody else has really mentioned it so I will.

For live recordings that generally suck anyway for one reason or another, above 48khz what difference does it make?  Even if I could hear a difference at 24/96, so what if I hear in greater quality how much a room sucks, how much my location sucks, how much those loud people talking near my mics suck, how much my rig sucks, etc. 

For studio recordings where everything is controllable, I say go for the highest res possible.

Of course this makes some sense (and I completely agree), however, there were one or two shows back in October where I wish I'd rolled at the higher rate just because the pull was THAT GOOD.  With this in mind, it's one of the reasons I've been toying with 24/96 (and because I can).

Can't argue that point either.  It's all a function of your personal situation and what your priorities are.  I can see the people with uber high end playback valuing the 24/96.  I can also see people with limited harddrive space saying 24/96 masters are a waste.  In this case of this question, it seems logical that there's no one size fits all response.

[acidjack]

It's my standard response to this question, but nobody else has really mentioned it so I will.

For live recordings that generally suck anyway for one reason or another, above 48khz what difference does it make?  Even if I could hear a difference at 24/96, so what if I hear in greater quality how much a room sucks, how much my location sucks, how much those loud people talking near my mics suck, how much my rig sucks, etc. 

For studio recordings where everything is controllable, I say go for the highest res possible.

Of course this makes some sense (and I completely agree), however, there were one or two shows back in October where I wish I'd rolled at the higher rate just because the pull was THAT GOOD.  With this in mind, it's one of the reasons I've been toying with 24/96 (and because I can).

I would be willing to bet a few bucks that recording a PA system with 4061>Church>M10, there is no recording, no matter how good, where you could tell the difference with 24/96.  The response of every other thing in the chain, starting with the PA system, is worse than could make a difference. I take Jon's point from earlier, but still... I just doubt it.  If you were recording chamber music or orchestras or something with your rig, then MAYBE you could tell a diff, but....

[adrianf74]

I would be willing to bet a few bucks that recording a PA system with 4061>Church>M10, there is no recording, no matter how good, where you could tell the difference with 24/96.  The response of every other thing in the chain, starting with the PA system, is worse than could make a difference. I take Jon's point from earlier, but still... I just doubt it.  If you were recording chamber music or orchestras or something with your rig, then MAYBE you could tell a diff, but....

In the case of one of those recordings, it was with a particular artist, his band, a choir and full orchestra.  They have a REALLY good sounding PA at this particular casino (close to 2 hours north of Toronto) so that show may have benefited with the sample rate.  There are some clubs shows (and stadium/arena ones as well) that would not benefit.  I was just curious as to what people thought on it, in general.

[lastubbe]

Part of it is who knows what the future holds.  Ideas for playback and what can be done with these files are endless.  If I'm going to lug this gear out, and tape music that I like enough to spend valuable time and money on, I may as well record at the highest settings reasonably possible.  This is my main hobby as time with family and work has not allowed for much more.  Sports, and other man hobbies have been relegated to moderate amounts that past 4 years that I've ramped up my collecting and taping efforts.  Vast majority of my free time is music related (attending/managing files at home). 

Just another thought on my personal perspective on recording 24/96.  Everyones situation is different, and I think you should record in the format that works for you and your ideals of what you're getting out of this.  It's clear there's no right or wrong today and what's best is a matter of perspective, so just do what works for you and your situation.

[Belexes]

My ears can't tell the difference, and to those that have bionic golden ears, have you done a blind taste test and guessed correctly 10 out of 10 times?

[LikeASong]

My ears can't tell the difference, and to those that have bionic golden ears, have you done a blind taste test and guessed correctly 10 out of 10 times?

I bet not

[lastubbe]

My ears can't tell the difference, and to those that have bionic golden ears, have you done a blind taste test and guessed correctly 10 out of 10 times?

Has somebody claimed to hear a difference?  I've never heard that claim.

I think it's about file format.  You can always go down.  Can't always go up.

[page]

My ears can't tell the difference, and to those that have bionic golden ears, have you done a blind taste test and guessed correctly 10 out of 10 times?

Has somebody claimed to hear a difference?  I've never heard that claim.

I think it's about file format.  You can always go down.  Can't always go up.

very very true, but if you can't tell a difference with great gear, does it matter? This is the proverbial "falling tree sound" issue and the real question in my mind.