Does anybody here actually record at higher than 24/96khz?

[headhunter]

I am looking for a 24/192khz firewire audio interface. But also i am wondering if anything more than 24/44.1 as overkill? I guess 24/96khz is the 'norm' nowadays. Has anyone here really compared the differences between CD quality, 96 and 192? It would help greatly in my firewire interface purchasing dilema.

 

[kithsa]

Personally, I don't think the difference in perceived audio quality is justifiable to buy such an interface. But if you do want to go to that DVD quality, you could try MOTU or RME products. I think they can go up to that encoding depth, but with restrictions (eg, only 2 I/O when 24/192 activated).

 

[godchuanz]

I have tried 24/44.1, 24/48 and 24/96.

Honestly, I can hear no difference. The difference is really negligible. But of course, it could also just be my ears. The difference between 16 and 24 bits is actually audible, but the difference in sampling rate I seriously cannot tell any difference.

Standard CD is 16/44.1, but there shouldn't be a problem recording at any bit rate/sampling rate.

 

[blueprintstudios]

I personally would stick to 24/48 cos the thing is that I tried 24/96 (i'm using an echo layla24) before, I don't know if there's much difference in recording. I've never done an A/B comparison where I record a certain guitarist at 24/48 then I tell him to wait up and re-take it in 24/96 and try hear the difference. and the 2nd reason why I'd recommend 24/48khz instead of 96khz or 192khz (even if that sounds real tempting), is unless you own loads and loads of hard disk space. cos 24/96 the hard disk space accumulated was way too much for me to bear , let alone 192khz! so I've stucked with 24/48 ever since , and my recording improved anyway, and now I sound better than my 24/96 recordings.. so it's more of concern on how you mix/record than what quality you record at. but my POV is that 24/48khz = X marks the spot.

50¢ worth.

 

[headhunter]

Godchuanz, thank you! Your comments are v helpful. My years are not great so i think i wouldn't be able to hear the difference either. Interestingly, my friend says similarly that he also can hear difference between 16 and 24 bit.

Blueprint, yes HD space is a concern now altho it would be less so with time and prices of HD goes down. Why do you record at 48khz and not 44.1khz? Do you have to 'convert' the files down later?

 

[Cheez]

It's not just about hard-drive space. The sheer size of the recorded file also means that you'll be taxing your RAM, CPU and hard-drive when mixing multiple tracks. That may determine the number of tracks you can mix at simultaneously, even less if you're going to use plug-in effects etc.

As for 16 and 24bit, my suggestion is not to throw away 16 bit just yet. The difference albeit audible, may not be large enough to warrant a reduction in number of simultaneous tracks we can mix. There are many arguments about recording at different bit rate - both extremes exist.

My suggestion - go for 24/96 if you are able to without compromising on other areas. In other words, use the best your system can take without crashing it. For me, I'm still the old school sticking to 16bit. Why? I'm using samples - most of them still exist in 16 bit. 24 bit samples takes up lots of RAM and hence limit the number of instruments I can load - and I use A LOT at one time! Also, the slightly hardly discernable lower resolution between 16 and 24 bit ironically adds realism to my mix.

A good read is this:

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

 

[blueprintstudios]

Blueprint, yes HD space is a concern now altho it would be less so with time and prices of HD goes down. Why do you record at 48khz and not 44.1khz? Do you have to 'convert' the files down later?

well i record at 24/48khz cos I can haha. I mean if I record at 24/96khz my soundcard can only record 8 channels. and if I record at 24/48khz my soundcard can add an ADAT/preamp to record 16 simultaneous channels. obviously 48khz is higher than 44.1khz. (in terms of numbers) and thats as far as I can go anyway. so yeah. there you go haha. and yes after recording and mixing in 24bit 48khz , the master stereo mixdown I downsample to 44.1khz / 16bit. and like cheez says. he uses 16 bit samples. I haven't got to use samples yet, but I think I might end up making some 24 bit samples of my own. I bought sample cds that has 24 bit samples too. so just to match / standardize la.. diff ppl got different way of doing things, as long as it's not broken. don't fix it hehe.

 

[headhunter]

http://www.tweakheadz.com/16_vs_24_bit_audio.htm

Thanks for the link Cheez! Answered a lot of my questions. Looks like 192khz is kinda overkill and not worth the trade off for negligibly ´higher´ sound quality. I guess it still boils down to using the ears.