A slightly ignorant quick question about recording

[| Bass Drop |]

I have always followed the 16-bit 44,100hz Stereo way.

If you have a 24-bit sound card what settings do you record @ ?

[Quannum Logic]

I have always followed the 16-bit 44,100hz Stereo way.

If you have a 24-bit sound card what settings do you record @ ?

generally you want to record to the highest bit rate, but keep in mind, Redbook CD Standard is 16-bit 44.1khz Stereo Interleaved, so you will eventually down convert if you plan on burning to CD.

what are you recording? I can tell you more specifically if I know what you are trying to record.

[| Bass Drop |]

A 79:xx DJ set that will be handed out on CD.

2 Techs
1 CDJ-200
DJM-600
Soundblaster Audigy laptop card

[Perpetuum]

I always record at 24/96 if I can and dither down as necessary.

[| Bass Drop |]

If I do that Aaron, (in short) what steps do I need to do after that (as far as preparation for tracking and buring to CD?) I thought regardless of the original bitrate, while burning/converting to .cda it auto coverts it to 160kbps

[Broken Home]

A 79:xx DJ set that will be handed out on CD.

2 Techs
1 CDJ-200
DJM-600
Soundblaster Audigy laptop card

How are you getting from the DJM to the laptop? It's great that your sound card supports it, but does your mixer? And the cables? (I don't know the answers of if that matters)

Furthermore -- what's the max quality for vinyl? CDs obviously are at 16-bit so your source CDs won't sound better if you record them at 24-bit.

[Quannum Logic]

A 79:xx DJ set that will be handed out on CD.

2 Techs
1 CDJ-200
DJM-600
Soundblaster Audigy laptop card

what are you recording in? Soundforge? Wavelab? A Wax Cylinder?

[robhyx]

I use 24bit recording but still 44.1 for the sampling rate.

Edit: I didn't realize this was for recording a set (and I am guessing the cdjs are hooked up analog rather than digital as the turntables are)...I'm not sure how much of a difference the bit depth would make, but I figure the sampling rate would be good to go with the highest.

And as someone already said, if you burn this to a cd it's just going to go down to 16bit 44.1 anyway.

[Broken Home]

People have sent me WAVs at 44.8 or 48 or something, and they were obnoxiously huge.

[Perpetuum]

If I do that Aaron, (in short) what steps do I need to do after that (as far as preparation for tracking and buring to CD?) I thought regardless of the original bitrate, while burning/converting to .cda it auto coverts it to 160kbps

No. Burning to disc will dither down the quality to 16/44.1, usually automatically. Record your mix in the highest quality possible, trackmark/track split (as necessary) and burn as you normally would. If there's an option for dithering, select it. Unless it's an MP3 disc, it'll never be 160Kbps.

[stormryder]

I record everything at 24/96 and dither down as appropriate. You always want to record at a higher rate when possible, even if your source material is lower (16/44.1) because you have to account for noise inherent in the mixer, etc. Your digital source material becomes analog once it leaves the CD players and some of the signal you record up is the warmth (or noise) added by it.

[Perpetuum]

People have sent me WAVs at 44.8 or 48 or something, and they were obnoxiously huge.

Losers like myself who spend all of our time in the studio can notice a difference between a 24/48 and a 16/44.1. The trade off is lack of a social life and a lowered sense of self-worth.

[robhyx]

Losers like myself who spend all of our time in the studio can notice a difference between a 24/48 and a 16/44.1. The trade off is lack of a social life and a lowered sense of self-worth.

But the real question is: can you look at a waveform and tell what genre it is?

[Perpetuum]

But the real question is: can you look at a waveform and tell what genre it is?

Yes. If it looks like a Tetris piece with two small gaps of silence where the breakdowns are, it's skullstep.

[| Bass Drop |]

what are you recording in? Soundforge? Wavelab? A Wax Cylinder?

Sound Forge 9


How are you getting from the DJM to the laptop? It's great that your sound card supports it, but does your mixer? And the cables? (I don't know the answers of if that matters)

RCA to 1/8th " jack.


No. Burning to disc will dither down the quality to 16/44.1, usually automatically. Record your mix in the highest quality possible, trackmark/track split (as necessary) and burn as you normally would. If there's an option for dithering, select it. Unless it's an MP3 disc, it'll never be 160Kbps.

I think I meant 128Kbps?

[[r]evolution]

Yes. If it looks like a Tetris piece with two small gaps of silence where the breakdowns are, it's skullstep.

Win.

[[r]evolution]

Losers like myself who spend all of our time in the studio can notice a difference between a 24/48 and a 16/44.1. The trade off is lack of a social life and a lowered sense of self-worth.

For posterity...

[Perpetuum]

I think I meant 128Kbps?

It won't be that either. Those are MP3 bitrates, not WAV/AIFF/CDA bitrates. So unless you're burning an MP3 (which, even if you were, it would still just decompress the MP3 back to WAV - CDA format), it won't be any of those bitrates.

[Broken Home]

Losers like myself who spend all of our time in the studio can notice a difference between a 24/48 and a 16/44.1. The trade off is lack of a social life and a lowered sense of self-worth.

yeah I definitely cannot tell the difference.

What file formats can store 24/48? I know WAV can, what about FLAC or similar?

[Perpetuum]

yeah I definitely cannot tell the difference.

What file formats can store 24/48? I know WAV can, what about FLAC or similar?

MP3 can encode 24-bit formats, although the difference is negligible (to my ears at least).

[Broken Home]

OK so here's the real question (which is more ignorant than OP)

I know what kbps measures.... That's the amount of data you have per second of audio (right?) What does the 8-, 16- and 24-bit measure? Please explain in easy terms, I barely graduated high school.

[Quannum Logic]

OK so here's the real question (which is more ignorant than OP)

I know what kbps measures.... That's the amount of data you have per second of audio (right?) What does the 8-, 16- and 24-bit measure? Please explain in easy terms, I barely graduated high school.

bit depth is the number of bits of information per sample, and the sample rate is the number of samples per wave cycle.

so a 16-bit 44.1k audio file has 44,100 samples per wavecycle and each of those samples has a resolution of 16 bits.

basically the higher the bit depth, the higher the dynamic range of the recording (+-1 bit is equal to +- 6dB in dynamic range)

[Perpetuum]

OK so here's the real question (which is more ignorant than OP)

I know what kbps measures.... That's the amount of data you have per second of audio (right?) What does the 8-, 16- and 24-bit measure? Please explain in easy terms, I barely graduated high school.

Alright, lemme see if I can explain this. Since I'm not a digital audio expert, I may fuck this up, so any of ya'll out there that know this better than me, feel free to chime in and correct me.

In simplest terms, a bit is a piece of information that essentially dictates whether something is on (1) or off (0). In the audio world, that essentially means a signal that is either completely on or completely off. If you take a look at a close up waveform view, you'll see all these little dots (assuming you're using something like Soundforge). If all of those dots either had to be completely on or completely off, it would essentially look and sound like a square wave. If you were to double the number of bits, the picture would come in a little clearer. Double it again and you're now at 8-bit sound, an even clearer representation of the sound. Essentially, the higher the bit rate, the more clear the "picture" of the audio becomes.

Hopefully, I'm not too far off in this explanation, so anyone with more knowledge on the subject can verify or correct me.

[[r]evolution]

Alright, lemme see if I can explain this. Since I'm not a digital audio expert, I may fuck this up, so any of ya'll out there that know this better than me, feel free to chime in and correct me.

In simplest terms, a bit is a piece of information that essentially dictates whether something is on (1) or off (0). In the audio world, that essentially means a signal that is either completely on or completely off. If you take a look at a close up waveform view, you'll see all these little dots (assuming you're using something like Soundforge). If all of those dots either had to be completely on or completely off, it would essentially look and sound like a square wave. If you were to double the number of bits, the picture would come in a little clearer. Double it again and you're now at 8-bit sound, an even clearer representation of the sound. Essentially, the higher the bit rate, the more clear the "picture" of the audio becomes.

Hopefully, I'm not too far off in this explanation, so anyone with more knowledge on the subject can verify or correct me.

You're a visual learner aren't you?

[Perpetuum]

evolution;3248429']You're a visual learner aren't you?

I don't know what you just said. Please draw me a stick figure with big titty illustrating your point..

[Quannum Logic]

also helpful is this little calculation (applies to Pulse Code Modulation or PCM)

Bit rate = (bit depth) x (sampling rate) x (number of channels)

so for a CD standard wav which is 16 bit, 44,100hz sample rate and 2 channel (stereo), its bit rate would be 1411.2kbps

44100 x 2 x 16 = 1411200 bits per second (better known as 1411.2kbps

now compare that to an mp3 with a bit rate of 192kbps.....see how .wav is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than MP3?

[robhyx]

I'm just going to use this as another opportunity to post this:

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c231/robhyx/MathSucks.jpg

[Broken Home]

aaaaaah so THAT's where the 1411 number comes from! Neat.

[[r]evolution]

I don't know what you just said. Please draw me a stick figure with big titty illustrating your point..

http://www.freebigtitdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/inbedwithfaith-office.jpg

Close enough?

[Perpetuum]

evolution;3248461']http://www.freebigtitdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/inbedwithfaith-office.jpg

Close enough?

I get what you're saying now. Yes, I'm a visual learner.

[[r]evolution]

also helpful is this little calculation (applies to Pulse Code Modulation or PCM)

Bit rate = (bit depth) x (sampling rate) x (number of channels)

so for a CD standard wav which is 16 bit, 44,100hz sample rate and 2 channel (stereo), its bit rate would be 1411.2kbps

44100 x 2 x 16 = 1411200 bits per second (better known as 1411.2kbps

now compare that to an mp3 with a bit rate of 192kbps.....see how .wav is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than MP3?


Wow. It's funny how something you never cared about before can become suddenly interesting to you when it's broken down into terms you understand.

So here's a question for you Quannum... I know that a FLAC is *supposed* to be lossless... so how does the compression work if it's not removing certain things like a MP3?

[[r]evolution]

I get what you're saying now. Yes, I'm a visual learner.

I thought as much... you explain things in pictures most often... I'm not nearly so visual... (i.e. too logical... ) so while I understand what you're explaining sometimes... it doesn't really catch me as much as the math or logic behind the concept does.

[| Bass Drop |]

I'm just going to use this as another opportunity to post this:

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c231/robhyx/MathSucks.jpg

Hahahahaha~! Oooooh man. :star:

[Perpetuum]

evolution;3248465']Wow. It's funny how something you never cared about before can become suddenly interesting to you when it's broken down into terms you understand.

So here's a question for you Quannum... I know that a FLAC is *supposed* to be lossless... so how does the compression work if it's not removing certain things like a MP3?

It is removing things. Just in a different way. MP3s (at least Constant Bit Rates) remove large parts of the audio (frequencies) and that's it. They're gone. FLACs remove smaller parts of the audio as they become unnecessary. A low sub has no need for any frequency data above a certain point, so everything unnecessary is removed until needed, much like a VBR MP3. You could ALMOST think of a FLAC as kind of a VBR WAV/AIFF file in the same regard.

[| Bass Drop |]

evolution;3248465']Wow. It's funny how something you never cared about before can become suddenly interesting to you when it's broken down into terms you understand.

So here's a question for you Quannum... I know that a FLAC is *supposed* to be lossless... so how does the compression work if it's not removing certain things like a MP3?

I was under the assumption it's like zipping it up, then decompressed with the same value.

[Perpetuum]

evolution;3248470']I thought as much... you explain things in pictures most often... I'm not nearly so visual... (i.e. too logical... ) so while I understand what you're explaining sometimes... it doesn't really catch me as much as the math or logic behind the concept does.

I was terrible at math, but loved science, so that probably explains it.

[[r]evolution]

It is removing things. Just in a different way. MP3s (at least Constant Bit Rates) remove large parts of the audio (frequencies) and that's it. They're gone. FLACs remove smaller parts of the audio as they become unnecessary. A low sub has no need for any frequency data above a certain point, so everything unnecessary is removed until needed, much like a VBR MP3. You could ALMOST think of a FLAC as kind of a VBR WAV/AIFF file in the same regard.


So it's still compressing... but not in a way that makes the file become lossy like a MP3? Just in a way that removes frequencies that are inaudible to the human ear? Or in a way that remove frequencies un-used by that particular track?

Hmm. Understood now. I'd been curious.

[Quannum Logic]

im not too sure about flac, so here's a tech def from Flac's site:

FLAC supports only fixed-point samples, not floating-point. It can handle any PCM bit resolution from 4 to 32 bits per sample, any sampling rate from 1 Hz to 655,350Hz in 1 Hz increments, and any number of channels from 1 to 8. Channels can be grouped in cases like stereo and 5.1 channel surround to take advantage of interchannel correlations to increase compression.

[Perpetuum]

evolution;3248507']So it's still compressing... but not in a way that makes the file become lossy like a MP3? Just in a way that removes frequencies that are inaudible to the human ear? Or in a way that remove frequencies un-used by that particular track?

Hmm. Understood now. I'd been curious.

In a way that removes frequencies that aren't being used at the particular time. This is all to the best of my understanding, by the way.

[[r]evolution]

I was terrible at math, but loved science, so that probably explains it.

Possibly.

I loved math, loved science (chemistry and physics especially... biology to a lesser degree) and like history and English... but all those have a potential logical basis.

Can't do a fucking thing with art though.

Seriously. I can't even draw a straight line with a ruler... I end up with triangles.

[[r]evolution]

Knowledge = power... even if it's just random stuff that has no practical application in every day life... it at least gives you something to talk about.

[MINDPHUQ]

nice.

so there was nothing "wrong" with me originally recording my records @ 48,000hz instead of 44.1?

[Perpetuum]

nice.

so there was nothing "wrong" with me originally recording my records @ 48,000hz instead of 44.1?

Nope. Pretty much the opposite.

[MINDPHUQ]

figured that.

I was doing all of them @ 48 until I started running out of disk space, then I cut back to 44.1

I've been wondering if I should start recording at a higher rate again since I don't have space issues anymore. Does it really matter?

[Perpetuum]

figured that.

I was doing all of them @ 48 until I started running out of disk space, then I cut back to 44.1

I've been wondering if I should start recording at a higher rate again since I don't have space issues anymore. Does it really matter?

It depends. Will most people notice the difference? No. Will most people notice the difference between a WAV and an MP3? Nope. Will most people even notice the difference between a 320 and a 192? Probably not. But if you're into having the highest quality product despite only audiophiles noticing a discernible difference, then record at the highest possible bit/sample rate.

[MINDPHUQ]

thanks for the info.

I for one wish I never had space issues and was recording full wavs the whole time :(

[Perpetuum]

thanks for the info.

I for one wish I never had space issues and was recording full wavs the whole time :(

It's a rough trade-off. Luckily, you can convert files to FLAC and burn them as you would WAVs. It's about 50% smaller if that helps.

[Broken Home]

Aaron -- FLAC wouldn't work for Bulla because the tagging on it sucks! You should consider ALAC (which is proprietary but still), that's what Sean recommended.

[Perpetuum]

Aaron -- FLAC wouldn't work for Bulla because the tagging on it sucks! You should consider ALAC (which is proprietary but still), that's what Sean recommended.

Well, there's a few lossless codecs available. ALAC, APE, FLAC, etc.

[[r]evolution]

thanks for the info.

I for one wish I never had space issues and was recording full wavs the whole time :(

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Passport-Essential-WDME5000TN/dp/B001F9LY14

http://www.mobilewhack.com/wd-my-passport-essential-portable-usb-drive.jpg

Best.

Purchase.

Ever.

[john c]

from a DJ perspective, I think 16bit/44.1 is perfectly fine. the songs you are playing are already mastered so why record at higher levels and then dither down? makes no sense

from a production perspective, its a much trickier issue.

[Perpetuum]

from a DJ perspective, I think 16bit/44.1 is perfectly fine. the songs you are playing are already mastered so why record at higher levels and then dither down? makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense. Even if you dither down, the sound imprint of the recording is still there, in the same way that if you recorded at 8/22KHz and boosted the sample rate to 16/44.1, it would still sound like shit.

[john c]

so you are agreeing with me correct? are you saying what I said makes perfect sense? or that what I said makes no sense, makes perfect sense? lol

[Perpetuum]

so you are agreeing with me correct? are you saying what I said makes perfect sense? or that what I said makes no sense, makes perfect sense? lol

Hahaha, nonono, I'm disagreeing with you (respectfully of course). It's always better to get the highest quality resolution even if you plan on dithering down.

[john c]

i see. but tell me, if all the songs you are mixing have been dithered down to 16 bit already, how does recording in 24 bit give you anything? unless the FX you are using are of substantial quality (which i doubt happens with most djs here). 24 bit is advantageous when mixing down a track you produced for headroom and sonic clarity of VSTs and things. I dont see how the same applies to songs in a dj mix already masterd down to 16 bit.

[john c]

in other words, say I bounced down a track and dithered to 16 bit.
If I then open that dithered file in Cubase again, and record it in 24 bit, the quality wont improve.

[Perpetuum]

i see. but tell me, if all the songs you are mixing have been dithered down to 16 bit already, how does recording in 24 bit give you anything? unless the FX you are using are of substantial quality (which i doubt happens with most djs here). 24 bit is advantageous when mixing down a track you produced for headroom and sonic clarity of VSTs and things. I dont see how the same applies to songs in a dj mix already masterd down to 16 bit.

Well, if all the samples you're using in a tune are 16-bit, what's the point of bouncing to 24-bit? Again, increased headroom and clarity. The same is true of anything else you'd record. You're not just transferring a 16-bit audio file to another 16-bit audio file. You're literally recording one. The mixer, the cables, the tables themselves, the needles, the CDJs, the laptop, whatever devices that go between the actual tune and the recording medium play a part in how the end result is going to sound. So recording something in 24 bits is smart merely because you never really know what's going to affect the overall sound and it's, again, better to have complete sonic clarity and maximum headroom even if that's going to be reduced later on. Here's a decent article about dithering from 24-bits.
http://crawdaddy.wolfgangsvault.com/Article/Dithering-Away-the-Compact-Disc.html

[john c]

ok good point. What if you record a mix in Ableton alone?

[Perpetuum]

ok good point. What if you record a mix in Ableton alone?

I'd still bounce to 24-bit, simply because for clarity's sake (also the 16-bit samples in a 24-bit tune analogy).

[john c]

I just remembered, I do everything in 24 bit. Not 16. However, why not 48 bit?

[Perpetuum]

I just remembered, I do everything in 24 bit. Not 16. However, why not 48 bit?

Because technology (at least consumer and semi-pro grade) has just gotten used to 24-bits and many DAWs, media players and burning applications don't support such a high-bitrate even when dithering is an option. I'm sure there's a much better reason than this. This was just the best answer I could give without looking it up online.

[john c]

well thats the thing. we say dont do 16 bit because 24 is better. yet 48 is too much and not the standard. seems paradoxical to me tbh. especially when 16 bit IS the norm for actual playback. From all my years as a producer and being on forums, I never could get a straight answer on this matter. None of the "bigger" producers I know even have given me good answers.

[Perpetuum]

well thats the thing. we say dont do 16 bit because 24 is better. yet 48 is too much and not the standard. seems paradoxical to me tbh. especially when 16 bit IS the norm for actual playback. From all my years as a producer and being on forums, I never could get a straight answer on this matter. None of the "bigger" producers I know even have given me good answers.

Yeah, I don't have one for you, hahaah. Poke around on Gearslutz and you might find an answer. Bob Katz posts there a lot of the time, so he might know the answer. I do know that 48-bit studios are relatively new and we're just now starting to realize the potential of 24-bit studios, although they've mainly been relegated to jazz and classical recordings due to the subtleties involved in both styles of music. Another reason could very well be the music industry's reluctance to move to Super Audio or DVD-Audio discs.

[stormryder]

Space issues?

"In December 2008, Pioneer Corporation unveiled a 400 GB Blu-ray Disc, which contains 16 data layers, 25 GB each, and will be compatible with current players after a firmware update. A planned launch is in the 2009-2010 time frame for ROM and 2010-2013 for rewritable discs. Ongoing development is under way to create a 1 TB Blu-ray Disc as soon as 2013."

Space is seriously no longer an issue.

[stormryder]

well thats the thing. we say dont do 16 bit because 24 is better. yet 48 is too much and not the standard. seems paradoxical to me tbh. especially when 16 bit IS the norm for actual playback. From all my years as a producer and being on forums, I never could get a straight answer on this matter. None of the "bigger" producers I know even have given me good answers.

You need to read about the Nyquist theory and how analog audio data is approximated by digital storage...

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