View Single Post
Old 2008-05-22, 02:29
Soeru's Avatar
Soeru Soeru is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Land of Dust
Posts: 3,551
Originally Posted by Sycophant
When I used to record on Cubase, I did everything in 24-bit and then just exported .wavs of all the songs from that program. Working with these .wavs and burning onto CDs turns them into really good quality 16-bit, better than if you would start out recording on 16-bit and left it. The difference may not be noticable but it's there, in the numbers. The equipment you're using to playback your recordings makes a huge noticable difference between 16-bit and 24-bit mixes, and 24-bit will always sound "truer" to what you recorded. On higher end monitors the difference becomes staggering. Now when you take that 24-bit mix and burn it onto a CD or make it an MP3, it's going to be a hell of alot more pure than if you started and stayed at 16-bit (although on a budget sometimes you got no choice!)

If I could record at 32-bit without hangups/latency or technical issues, and then just save those master tracks so I can make MP3's or .wavs/CD Audio files out of them later (i.e. changing them over to 16-bit audio) I totally would, no questions asked. It's a truer, more real audio recording.

It's smart to do it this way rather than convert it to a higher bitrate later, which is ass-backwards and will most likely fuck up the quality, pitch and/or speed of your original track. Always convert down, and never convert up (duh). It also depends on how good your equipment is, you can even go up to 96khz sampling rate for recording on some soundcards without latency or choking. 96khz for recording is insane pro-quality. At sampling rates that high, it's not so much a difference in quality issue, as it is just simply a quality issue. Because afterwards it's all going to be turned into 16-bit audio anyway!
But, even though everything's going to end up 16-bit audio at 44100 (or a compressed audio file), it's going to be clean as fuck from downgrading from 32-bit. Recording at the highest bitrate you can possibly get will guarantee the music sounding as you intended. That's what I've seen.

EDIT ::: To answer your question about the photos... the bigger one resized down will look alot better than the other one. Probably by alot.

I see. What about just recording at higher bit rates (khz) instead of both bit rates and bit depths(24 bit)? I read somewhere that bit rates(khz) are the only thing that determine the frequency spectrum(all the subtle details the Eq, the crisp highs and sub-low bass and the thousands of frequencies in between) of an audio recording.

Wouldn't it be more sane just to record in 16bit/96khz since higher bit rates actually give your EQ more detail or does 24 bit also contribute to it? I'm still not sure exactly what higher bit depth does to the sound. Btw I read somewhere that using 32-bit floating point mode in Cubase actually uses less cpu power than 24 bit because of the way the cubase engine is designed, I might try it and see if it runs faster.

I'm gonna start doing my projects in 24/96 and see how well they go(I have quadcore CPU, s-ata hard disks and 4gb's of ram so my PC is fast, it's just that my cracked version of Cubase 4 is unstable as fuck ).
Originally Posted by far_beyond_sane

(Did you know In Flames had a 2005 album called "Come Clarity"? How prophetic. I think they're trying to tell us all their sperm are dead.)
Reply With Quote