[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: OT: 24Bit/96Khz vs 16Bit/ 44.1Khz recording

Yes there is good reason.  There are many, including archiving for possible upgrades in hi res players of the future and in the event you should ever need the higher res surround DVD format, but most important is, the higher the quality of the initial recording, the better the mp3 or 16/44.1 will sound.  

I think 24/44.1 sounds terrific and use that a lot for tracking.

If you're recording gorgeous solo acoustic guitar stuff, 24/88.1 is good.  

I use Bias Peak to convert to lower res.  

I haven't used it myself, but I've heard this one:

is terrific because you can HEAR or audition what's being thrown out in down sampling.  It's by the fine folks of Fraunhofer who brought us mp3 in the first place.

All of this has been flamed and argued so much it's best to put on your asbestos suit when approaching the topic.  

On Dec 14, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Paul Richards wrote:

Hi, all:
I just picked up a Tascam DR-2d on a closeout for a very reasonable price. The recording formats of this portable unit are varied and full-featured. I remember recording at a very high resolution many years ago and was awestruck by the clarity of the sound eminating from my speakers. The guitar tones had much clarity. Of course, to listen to the music in a portable format, I recorded to CD (16Bit/44.1Khz, I believe).
So, the question is: is there any advantage to recording the source at a higher rate (e.g. 24Bit/98Khz or 24Bit/44 Khz) when, ultimately, the songs will be converted to CD quality?
Of course, the higher rate means filling up SD cards quicker. But, they are fairly reasonable as far as cost. Opinions?
Thanks, Paul