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

[Rainer Straschill <moinsound@googlemail.com>]

Am 14.12.2011 22:17, schrieb Rick Walker:
> Does a recording at 96-24 downsampled to 44-16
> sound better than a recording sampled only at 44-16, initially.
That's two questions in one:
1) does a 24bit recording sound better than a 16bit one?
2) does a 96kHz recording sound better than a 44.1kHz one?

ad 1: In my experience, yes, at least if your gear is able to make use 
of the increased resolution of the 24bit. Which may or may not be the 
case, depending how your setup looks.
The reason here: typically, you use steps which bring down the dynamic 
range during processing steps. You record with some headroom, then you 
apply some compression...let's say you recorded with a 12dB headroom, 
and you furthermore apply a 2:1 compression at -12dB threshold, then two 
bits are gone. If you started with 16bits, you're down to 14. If you 
started with 24, you still got 6 more than you need.

ad 2: first of all, as someone already mentioned, if CD is your target 
format, then 88.2 makes more sense than 96. That being said, I suggest 
you do a quick test and see how much of the added frequency range 
actually goes through your recording setup (which includes cables etc.).
There's software for this:
http://audio.rightmark.org/index_new.shtml

Both explanations nonwithstanding, I always recommend using the maximum 
available bit depth for mixdown (which your run-of-the-mill DAW will do 
automatically) and for the mixdown audio files. As for the frequency - 
in theory, higher sampling frequency especially when processing the 2bus 
(read: mastering) makes sense. Don't know about if it really does 
matter, though...

                   Rainer
(who tends to record in 24/48 - because that difference between 44.1 and 
48 can be heard).


--
http://moinlabs.de
Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/moinlabs