Topic: Please critique my first recording

[TheBang]

Hi, this is my first recording ever.  I tried to read up a lot on these boards before buying and taping, but some of what you guys talk about is greek to me.

Anyway, I would appreciate any advice, suggestions, and feedback about the recording.

Hardware:  CA-14 cardioids > CA-9100 preamp > R-09HR (line-in)

Settings:  I had the CA-9100 turned all the way up, which, according to the label, is a +20 dB gain.  For the R-09HR, I had Limiter off, Low Cut off, Plug-in Power off, Mic Gain low (does this even affect line-in??).  The input level was set at about 13 or 14, which had the recording level meter peaking at just above -12 dB.

This recording was in a small club venue.  I was about 20 feet back from the stage on the extreme stage right.  The mics were mounted on the top of the brim of my baseball cap.  In the future, I will probably be taping loud rock-type shows in small, large, and outdoor venues, most likely stealth.

I learned that temporary vertical obstructions (i.e. people jumping up and down in front of me) and vertical movement (i.e. when everyone gets on the ground) didn't seem to affect the quality of the recording.  Horizontal panning though, I knew not move my head like that, but still did a few times inadvertantly, and I can hear it in the stereo imaging.

Here is one song.  It is untouched, except for downsampling from 96 KHz to 48 KHz:

http://www.aloha.com/~tabanger/misc/kickoutthejams48.flac

So any comments or suggestions about my setup or settings?  Should I set my recording levels higher? 

How about post-processing?  What kinds of things do I need to do?  Normalization?  When would I ever use dynamic range compression?

Thank you for any feedback!

[fmaderjr]

Pretty cool band and choice of song The singer sounds a lot like Wayne Kramer of the MC5 who did the original. Your recording sounds fine, but I couldn't load it into Audition for some reason to look at the wave file.

Recording levels are fine if you peaked at -12 dB. That's perfect for 24 bit (no danger of clipping, but can noiselessly add gain in post).

Just a couple things. Some will disagree, but IMO its a complete waste of space to record at 96 Hz. To most people, there's no audible difference between 96 and 44.1, though some like to use 48. I assume you used 24 bit. That's important 'cause it allows you boost the volume in post without adding audible noise.

Neither mic gain nor plug in power settings have any effect when going line in.

You want to start your R-09HR input setting at unity gain (neither amplifying nor attenuating). For the R-09, 13 (out of 30 max) is about right, but I think I read here that it's a lot higher for the R-09HR. I see in one post someone recommended starting at 50 when going line in. I don't have the HR, but that would make sense if the HR goes from 0-100 instead of 0-30. If nobody knows what unity gain is, I'm sure some R-09HR users can tell you a setting that works well for them in practice. Of course if you have to crank the HR higher in order to reach unity gain, you will need less gain from the ST-9100.

If you set the ST-9100 at full gain at a loud live show, the ST-9100 could clip even if your levels look OK. Watch the ST-9100's clip indicator light. However, if you have your recorder set at unity gain, you will probably need to set the ST-9100 low enough to keep the levels form hitting 0 dB that the ST-9100 itself won't clip. I just don't know what the HR's unity gain is.

You'll definitely want to normalize in post. Most people here don't believe in compression, but I do when the dynamic range is such that it would have you constantly reaching for your stereo's volume control. Personally, I don't care about replicating the sound at the concert exactly. I want to produce recording that makes for the best listening experience possible.

[TheBang]

Thanks for the advice.  My pre-amp is a CA-9100, not an ST-9100.  I don't know what the difference is.



The light to the left of the knob lights up when there's power.  Is the light on the right side the peak indicator then?

I will look into unity gain.  Yes, the HR goes from 0-100.  So, let me see if I've got this right.  I should set the Edirol to unity gain and leave it there, and then set my levels appropriately by adjusting the gain on the pre-amp, is that correct?

For nomalizing, should I just normalize the peak levels to 0 dB?

Thanks.

[fmaderjr]

Sorry for the confusion. You do have the preamp I was discussing. I get confused about Chris' numbering. (He used to call it the ST-9100 I think).

The 2nd light is the peak level indicator.

It's best to set your recorder to unity gain and get the first up to 20 dB gain from the CA-9100. Then you can add more gain with the recorder if needed.

If the R09-HR has levels that go from 0-100, it's likely that the guy who posted that unity gain was around 50 could be correct. It certainly wouldn't be as low as 13 which many say is the unity gain on the R9 (which only goes up to 30). If nobody can chime in with the correct figure, you'd probably do best starting by setting the R-09HR to 50 and see how that works out. If you have unity gain on the recorder correct you probably won't be able to turn the CA-9100 up enough for the CA-9100 to clip without the meters going over 0 dB on the R-09HR. I never even have to worry about the clip indicator on my CA-9100 because I know the unity gains for my recorders.

By the way unity gain on the CA-9100, if you ever need it know it, is 11:00. At 11:00 it is acting like a battery box, neither attenuating nor amplifying.

[TheBang]

Makes sense, thanks!

[rsimms3]

For bass heavy shows, full gain on the 9100 may result in distortion.  Your recording here is excellent.  The settings you used were obviously good, especially for a first recording.  I would be happy with that recording today and I have been taping 6 years.  Some of the things to always remember, if it's not loud enough to start with you can always increase the volume later, but if it's too loud to start with there isn't much you can do about it.  I use a 9100 that has the 4.7k switch which drops the gain by about 10db.  I run that at any rock show and turn the gain all the way up.  It's better if I have to keep the 9100 out of site to know all I need to do is peg it at the top and not mess with the adjustments.  I run an iRiver H120 with Rockbox and run 0db gain.  If I need to add volume, I do it in post.  I have never had an issue using these settings, great results every time. 

[Dede2002]

The Bang,

Sounds pretty good to me. Well, I agree a 100% with Fmaderjr, but I'd like to add a little something here. Of course, your mics sensitivity plays an important role here, but taping bands like the one on the sample, chances are you're going to use your preamp as a regular bb. With your R09HR at, say, 50 rec level ( that's what I do), no extra gain will be needed at all. Sometimes you'll even have to attenuate the signal feeding your recorder. I only use my pre with quiet acoustic stuff. Save some space in your pocket/bag next time: with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick.
Thanks for sharing your recording. 

[Church-Audio]

The Bang,

Sounds pretty good to me. Well, I agree a 100% with Fmaderjr, but I'd like to add a little something here. Of course, your mics sensitivity plays an important role here, but taping bands like the one on the sample, chances are you're going to use your preamp as a regular bb. With your R09HR at, say, 50 rec level ( that's what I do), no extra gain will be needed at all. Sometimes you'll even have to attenuate the signal feeding your recorder. I only use my pre with quiet acoustic stuff. Save some space in your pocket/bag next time: with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick.
Thanks for sharing your recording. 

That's too bad. I would still get some gain from my preamp if were you. And dont run my ca-14's with out a battery box not a good idea.

[Dede2002]

The Bang,

Sounds pretty good to me. Well, I agree a 100% with Fmaderjr, but I'd like to add a little something here. Of course, your mics sensitivity plays an important role here, but taping bands like the one on the sample, chances are you're going to use your preamp as a regular bb. With your R09HR at, say, 50 rec level ( that's what I do), no extra gain will be needed at all. Sometimes you'll even have to attenuate the signal feeding your recorder. I only use my pre with quiet acoustic stuff. Save some space in your pocket/bag next time: with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick.
Thanks for sharing your recording. 

That's too bad. I would still get some gain from my preamp if were you. And dont run my ca-14's with out a battery box not a good idea.

Yes, I can always get some gain from your ( awesome, I'd say) preamp. The question is, why? Well, since in the recent past you have posted several messages saying the same thing: loud music, no preamp needed, I feel confortable in my take. It's impossible for me to run your
( awesome, I'm told) ca-14's because I don't have those (yet). Anyway, I've never suggested one should run your mics ( or any mics for that matter) without a bb. I said exactly the opposite as you can read in my post: "with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick".
Take care. I'm almost ready to order your ca-14's,btw.

[Church-Audio]

The Bang,

Sounds pretty good to me. Well, I agree a 100% with Fmaderjr, but I'd like to add a little something here. Of course, your mics sensitivity plays an important role here, but taping bands like the one on the sample, chances are you're going to use your preamp as a regular bb. With your R09HR at, say, 50 rec level ( that's what I do), no extra gain will be needed at all. Sometimes you'll even have to attenuate the signal feeding your recorder. I only use my pre with quiet acoustic stuff. Save some space in your pocket/bag next time: with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick.
Thanks for sharing your recording. 

That's too bad. I would still get some gain from my preamp if were you. And dont run my ca-14's with out a battery box not a good idea.

Yes, I can always get some gain from your ( awesome, I'd say) preamp. The question is, why? Well, since in the recent past you have posted several messages saying the same thing: loud music, no preamp needed, I feel confortable in my take. It's impossible for me to run your
( awesome, I'm told) ca-14's because I don't have those (yet). Anyway, I've never suggested one should run your mics ( or any mics for that matter) without a bb. I said exactly the opposite as you can read in my post: "with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick".
Take care. I'm almost ready to order your ca-14's,btw.

When you own it use it If you dont own one of my preamps and your always recording really loud shows of 110db or so then you can get away with not having one of my preamps and just using a battery box when your using a quality recorder like the HR. I was trying to say that in his case he would be better off using it because he does not have a battery box.

Chris

[Dede2002]

The Bang,

Sounds pretty good to me. Well, I agree a 100% with Fmaderjr, but I'd like to add a little something here. Of course, your mics sensitivity plays an important role here, but taping bands like the one on the sample, chances are you're going to use your preamp as a regular bb. With your R09HR at, say, 50 rec level ( that's what I do), no extra gain will be needed at all. Sometimes you'll even have to attenuate the signal feeding your recorder. I only use my pre with quiet acoustic stuff. Save some space in your pocket/bag next time: with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick.
Thanks for sharing your recording. 

That's too bad. I would still get some gain from my preamp if were you. And dont run my ca-14's with out a battery box not a good idea.

Yes, I can always get some gain from your ( awesome, I'd say) preamp. The question is, why? Well, since in the recent past you have posted several messages saying the same thing: loud music, no preamp needed, I feel confortable in my take. It's impossible for me to run your
( awesome, I'm told) ca-14's because I don't have those (yet). Anyway, I've never suggested one should run your mics ( or any mics for that matter) without a bb. I said exactly the opposite as you can read in my post: "with loud rock type music, a small bb will do the trick".
Take care. I'm almost ready to order your ca-14's,btw.

When you own it use it If you dont own one of my preamps and your always recording really loud shows of 110db or so then you can get away with not having one of my preamps and just using a battery box when your using a quality recorder like the HR. I was trying to say that in his case he would be better off using it because he does not have a battery box.

Chris

Correct.

[aaronji]

When you own it use it If you dont own one of my preamps and your always recording really loud shows of 110db or so then you can get away with not having one of my preamps and just using a battery box when your using a quality recorder like the HR. I was trying to say that in his case he would be better off using it because he does not have a battery box.

Chris

[PSA]
And if you are seeing a lot of shows at that volume, do yourself a favor and get some good hearing protection!  According to the NICDC (the National Intitute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, part of the NIH), regular exposure to more than one minute at 110 dB risks permanent hearing loss...
[/PSA]

[Church-Audio]

When you own it use it If you dont own one of my preamps and your always recording really loud shows of 110db or so then you can get away with not having one of my preamps and just using a battery box when your using a quality recorder like the HR. I was trying to say that in his case he would be better off using it because he does not have a battery box.

Chris

[PSA]
And if you are seeing a lot of shows at that volume, do yourself a favor and get some good hearing protection!  According to the NICDC (the National Intitute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, part of the NIH), regular exposure to more than one minute at 110 dB risks permanent hearing loss...
[/PSA]

 

[TheBang]

OK, thanks for the advice.

So, the CA-9100, is it a battery box if the knob is just barely turned on, or is it a battery box if the knob is at 11:00?

Also, I'm sure I'll usually have the CA-9100, but if for whatever reason I don't, I can plug the CA-14's directly into the R-09HR's mic in, right?  I think I read that it has a decent pre-amp?

BTW, Chris, thanks for building and getting me the equipment quickly before my international trip at the end of last year.  Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the show that I really wanted to record due to wife veto.    So this concert was its maiden voyage, and I was really happy with the results. 

[PSA]
And if you are seeing a lot of shows at that volume, do yourself a favor and get some good hearing protection!  According to the NICDC (the National Intitute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, part of the NIH), regular exposure to more than one minute at 110 dB risks permanent hearing loss...
[/PSA]

Oh, definitely.  I wish I had been more vigilant about that in my youth.  Fortunately, I didn't go to TOO many rock concerts, and now I always make sure I use either Hearos or Etymotic plugs.  I've also convinced my brother at age 22 to always wear ear plugs, so that's good.

[OFOTD]

Nice recording for your first time.  Lots of good feedback here as well.

One thing that I would take issue with is this statement:

Just a couple things. Some will disagree, but IMO its a complete waste of space to record at 96 Hz. To most people, there's no audible difference between 96 and 44.1, though some like to use 48. I assume you used 24 bit. That's important 'cause it allows you boost the volume in post without adding audible noise.

I think that alot of people who take issue with recording 24/96 for the most part have a beef with it or talk about how they hear no difference based on space issues and lack of quality playback gear.  A 24/96 file IS big.  It does take a good bit of horsepower to process it and its sure not real quick doing so.   For most the effort needed to correctly process these large files is a big deterrent and they fall back on 16 bit.  The other being that most naysayers are listening to their shows on a p.o.s. set of computer speakers.  'Nuff said on that one.

There are several reasons you SHOULD record at either 24/96 or 24/48.  The first of which is that you'll have the best currently available (sorry DSD owners) sampling rates and bit depths to have a high resolution master because who knows how good audio algorithms and programs will be down the road.   You can always dither down successfully but never back up without introducing 1's and 0's that were never there in the first place. 

Second is the ability to make DVD-Audio and DVD-V discs.   Eventually those drives will be common place

Third is because you can.  Its really that simple.   Copy you master to your PC, burn it, save it and work with the 16 bit files.   

Sorry to slightly hijack the thread.  Nice tape and keep up the good work.

[fmaderjr]

If I ever need to make a DVD-Audio disc I'll convert my saved 16/44.1 flac files (that I downsampled from my edited 24/44.1 recording) and I won't hear a difference. It's just a hobby. We can all do what we're comfortable with.

[Dede2002]

OK, thanks for the advice.

So, the CA-9100, is it a battery box if the knob is just barely turned on, or is it a battery box if the knob is at 11:00?

Also, I'm sure I'll usually have the CA-9100, but if for whatever reason I don't, I can plug the CA-14's directly into the R-09HR's mic in, right?  I think I read that it has a decent pre-amp?

BTW, Chris, thanks for building and getting me the equipment quickly before my international trip at the end of last year.  Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the show that I really wanted to record due to wife veto.    So this concert was its maiden voyage, and I was really happy with the results. 

Yes, 11:00 is where your can set your preamp to perform like a regular bb.
The R-09HR has a nice preamp. I was under the impression that, yes, you could plug your mics directly into Mic In (plug in power). But CC says it's not a good idea.

[Church-Audio]

OK, thanks for the advice.

So, the CA-9100, is it a battery box if the knob is just barely turned on, or is it a battery box if the knob is at 11:00?

Also, I'm sure I'll usually have the CA-9100, but if for whatever reason I don't, I can plug the CA-14's directly into the R-09HR's mic in, right?  I think I read that it has a decent pre-amp?

BTW, Chris, thanks for building and getting me the equipment quickly before my international trip at the end of last year.  Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the show that I really wanted to record due to wife veto.    So this concert was its maiden voyage, and I was really happy with the results. 

Yes, 11:00 is where your can set your preamp to perform like a regular bb.
The R-09HR has a nice preamp. I was under the impression that, yes, you could plug your mics directly into Mic In (plug in power). But CC says it's not a good idea.

There are two versions of my mics one with a 2.4k resistor mod that can be used directly with the HR and R-09 and do not need a battery box with these two recorders or there is my 4.7k mod that must be run with a battery box or a preamp/battery box. You have to special order the mics with the 2.4k mod in order to get it.

[su6oxone]

Hi, this is my first recording ever.  I tried to read up a lot on these boards before buying and taping, but some of what you guys talk about is greek to me.

Anyway, I would appreciate any advice, suggestions, and feedback about the recording.

Wow... this is a great first effort!  Sounds really good, and at least in this sample it sounds like you had a good location without loud people right next to you.  Not boomy at all, and not distant or tinny or anything.  Sounds like you were in the 'sweet spot.'  Well done. 

[TheBang]

OK, well, I guess it doesn't matter since I'll always have the 9100 with the mics.

Thanks for the answers and advice and feedback.  If anyone's interested in the whole show, I'll be putting it up on Dime by the end of the week.

[OFOTD]

If I ever need to make a DVD-Audio disc I'll convert my saved 16/44.1 flac files (that I downsampled from my edited 24/44.1 recording) and I won't hear a difference. It's just a hobby. We can all do what we're comfortable with.

Too bad that some folks take this kind of attitude.  Especially one who has a DSD recorder in their gear bag it appears.

Yet one more show I won't download due to the pool being pissed in with an upsampled recording because i'm guessing the taper is too lazy to deal with a 24 bit file.  You know I've always taken the attitude that if you can put up with all the b.s. taping incurs during a show then why then half ass it in post?   

[fmaderjr]

If I ever need to make a DVD-Audio disc I'll convert my saved 16/44.1 flac files (that I downsampled from my edited 24/44.1 recording) and I won't hear a difference. It's just a hobby. We can all do what we're comfortable with.

Too bad that some folks take this kind of attitude.  Especially one who has a DSD recorder in their gear bag it appears.
Yet one more show I won't download due to the pool being pissed in with an upsampled recording because i'm guessing the taper is too lazy to deal with a 24 bit file.  You know I've always taken the attitude that if you can put up with all the b.s. taping incurs during a show then why then half ass it in post?   

I'm truly perplexed by your "my way or the highway" attitude. Especially for calling me lazy for enjoying a hobby the way I want to enjoy it.

I'm taping for my own pleasure, not yours. My recordings sound great to me & my friends, so why do I have to do things the way you feel is the right way? It's a hobby! I'm having fun. Isn't that what it's all about?

The recordings the Korg makes in 24/44.1 sound great do me. Why should it piss you off if I don't choose to deal with making and archiving in DSD? I also feel free to compress the dynamic range of my recordings if necessary to keep me from having to play with the volume control when playing them back. Bet that would drive you crazy too.

I am not pissing in your precious download pool. I don't upload my recordings nor download those of others. I gathered in years past form reading posts in Datheads that nobody there would be interested in hearing my mini-disc recordings that I was very happy with. I do give my recordings to a couple of local bands that don't get taped by anyone else and they rave about the sound. I'm out to please myself and people like them. Not the 24/96 police!

[OFOTD]

I'm not pissed about anything.   

In your particular case you have the ability to make a high quality recording at high resolution.  Instead you decide to take the high resolution recording and turn into a lower resolution recording and then potentially pump it back up.  So instead of it then being a high resolution recording its just a fake resolution recording.

The mini-disc issue on DAT-Heads over the years was pretty simple to understand.   The vast majority of MD users up until the last 2-3 years recorded in a lossy compressed format.  Folks there were fighting the good fight to keep things lossless. 

So the statement that you have to please yourself is so true its just too bad that instead of doing things right the first time yuo've chosen to take lossy shortcuts when you don't have to in the first place.   You have the tools it just doesn't appear that you either 1. use them or 2. give a shit.

No sweat off my back.

[fmaderjr]

Just a couple things before I give up the fight. It obviously isn't worth continuing much longer.

My recordings do sound high quality to me & everyone who has heard them. I don't need 24/96 if I am not going to hear the difference.

You have extremely high quality microphones. Mine cost $100-$300. They sound great to me, but not as good as sample tracks I've downloaded that were made using mics like yours. Perhaps the fact that I don't have high dollar mics may be part of the reason I can't hear a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I do record in 24/44.1 to make boosting the gain in post as noise free as possible.

[OFOTD]

Just a couple things before I give up the fight. It obviously isn't worth continuing much longer.

My recordings do sound high quality to me & everyone who has heard them. I don't need 24/96 if I am not going to hear the difference.

You have extremely high quality microphones. Mine cost $100-$300. They sound great to me, but not as good as sample tracks I've downloaded that were made using mics like yours. Perhaps the fact that I don't have high dollar mics may be part of the reason I can't hear a difference between 16/44.1 and 24/96. I do record in 24/44.1 to make boosting the gain in post as noise free as possible.

I'm not trying to fight with you nor am I trying to tell you what does and does not sound good to your ears I promise. 

My point is that you have the ability to record and keep a very high resolution recording.   Be it from a $10 mic or a $10,000 mic.   The fact remains that it is of high resolution quality which will only diminish if you diminish it.   

Not hearing a difference between 24/96 and 16/44.1 is not to me a condition of how pricey your mics are but more of a question of what you're listening to those recordings on.   What you may listen to your recordings on now may change in a month or in a year where you can easily tell the differences between the two.  Then you'll kick yourself for not keeping a high quality version.   

Especially for someone with one of the Korg units.   Record in 1bit burn it off and dither to your hearts content.

Just a couple things. Some will disagree, but IMO its a complete waste of space to record at 96 Hz. To most people, there's no audible difference between 96 and 44.1, though some like to use 48. I assume you used 24 bit. That's important 'cause it allows you boost the volume in post without adding audible noise.

Back to the original statement here.  You're suggesting here that it shouldn't be recorded in highest quality because "to most people..."    Think of recording and backing up your high resolution recordings as future-proofing your tapes.  You can also dither/sample down with mimimal quality loss but you can't go back up without significant quality loss.

A good example is HDTV.   You watch a program where the content was filmed in 1080.  Flip the channel to a different HD channel and the program was filmed in SD but upsampled to HD.   "To most people...." they can tell a difference.  Same applies with recordings and the benefits that increased resolution provides.

[fmaderjr]

I agree with most all you've said in theory. It's just that in practice I really don't feel I can hear the difference. And if I can't hear the difference now, I don't think better playback equipment in the future will help.

I will go ahead and give the Korg a try in the next month or so and try recording in the 1 bit mode and see if my ears surprise me and are good enough to tell the difference..

[OFOTD]

I agree with most all you've said in theory. It's just that in practice I really don't feel I can hear the difference. And if I can't hear the difference now, I don't think better playback equipment in the future will help.

I will go ahead and give the Korg a try in the next month or so and try recording in the 1 bit mode and see if my ears surprise me and are good enough to tell the difference..

AWESOME!  Good to hear that you'll try it. 

Training yours ears takes a bit of time but is well worth it in the end.  Expensive playback or not.    For me what helped was not listening to just one song and making a conclusion but to listen to 20-30 minutes at a time.  It gives your ears time to adjust as well as lets your brain really focus on the instruments and whatnot.   Remember that if and when you do get to the point of being able to tell the difference you'll be happy that you saved the master hi-res file even if 90% of the time you listen to 16/44.1

Keep us posted on what you think/hear!

[fmaderjr]

Training yours ears takes a bit of time but is well worth it in the end.  Expensive playback or not.    For me what helped was not listening to just one song and making a conclusion but to listen to 20-30 minutes at a time.  It gives your ears time to adjust as well as lets your brain really focus on the instruments and whatnot. 

Do you record a lot of unamplified music? I can imagine the possibility of being able to train your ears to identify instruments in that. However a lot of the recordings I do are of bands in small bars playing though PA systems that are mediocre at best (and often in mono). There I'm pretty confident I wouldn't hear a difference, even if the recordings are technically more accurate.

If I record my typical fare in 1 bit and can't tell the difference, I'll break it out again the next time I record a friend who occasionally gives concerts as either a baritone or organist (He's great at both. Makes his living as a church & synagogue organist, but has a singing voice comparable IMO to major classical artists).

[Church-Audio]

Training yours ears takes a bit of time but is well worth it in the end.  Expensive playback or not.    For me what helped was not listening to just one song and making a conclusion but to listen to 20-30 minutes at a time.  It gives your ears time to adjust as well as lets your brain really focus on the instruments and whatnot. 

Do you record a lot of unamplified music? I can imagine the possibility of being able to train your ears to identify instruments in that. However a lot of the recordings I do are of bands in small bars playing though PA systems that are mediocre at best (and often in mono). There I'm pretty confident I wouldn't hear a difference, even if the recordings are technically more accurate.

If I record my typical fare in 1 bit and can't tell the difference, I'll break it out again the next time I record a friend who occasionally gives concerts as either a baritone or organist (He's great at both. Makes his living as a church & synagogue organist, but has a singing voice comparable IMO to major classical artists).

I personally do notice a difference between 16 bit and 24. But with the limitation of  most peoples playback gear I think that 48/24 is just fine. That being said if what your recording is very important to you 96/24 is the way to go one day soon we will be all listening to at least that resolution maybe higher as a standard sample rate as storage density increases and we find more convenient ways of delivering it and compressing if need be. And yes I realize that some of you are already doing that my own system is 192k 24bit. But its still along way off before we have a standardized playback machine with a super small disk and the ability to store that much data. I do think that a memory card based system is the way to go because its bullet proof but for now its still way to expensive remember cd's cost a record company like $.5 each.... We are a long way off before 2 gig memory cards are $.5 cents....

[OFOTD]

I personally do notice a difference between 16 bit and 24. But with the limitation of  most peoples playback gear I think that 48/24 is just fine. That being said if what your recording is very important to you 96/24 is the way to go one day soon we will be all listening to at least that resolution maybe higher as a standard sample rate as storage density increases and we find more convenient ways of delivering it and compressing if need be. And yes I realize that some of you are already doing that my own system is 192k 24bit. But its still along way off before we have a standardized playback machine with a super small disk and the ability to store that much data. I do think that a memory card based system is the way to go because its bullet proof but for now its still way to expensive remember cd's cost a record company like $.5 each.... We are a long way off before 2 gig memory cards are $.5 cents....

Good post.