Obsessed With Resolution?
Posted on | March 25, 2008 |
Are you obsessed with sample rate resolution? Gotta make all your recordings 24/96…32/192…64/384? Well, let me drop some knowledge on you. And this is free — on the house — advice: you’re wasting your hard disk space.
Even though just about any software program today can record at 24/96 or higher, the A/D converters that come with those applications don’t spec. out anywhere near that type of resolution. Most “bundled” converters (those that come as part of an interface package along with mic pres.) are good for about 20/48. Yeah, really.
That’s why I recommend people record and mix down at 24/48. For starters, it saves you TONS of disc space. Second, you can work faster because your DAW has less integers to crunch. Third, there’s no benefit in tracking at a resolution higher than your converters have a capability to deliver. Finally, I’m skeptical that anyone can really hear much difference between 48 and 96 in PCM recording.
If you’re among the very few people that have Benchmark, Lavry, Weiss, or Cranesong A/D converters (or some other boutique names I may have forgotten), then I’d say you’re good to go with getting some real sonic benefit out of 24/96. Apogee…maybe.
If you know how to make a great recording, you can do it at any bit/sample rate. Focus on the craft of capturing sound, not the bits it’s recorded on.
Comments
2 Responses to “Obsessed With Resolution?”
Leave a Reply
About This Blog
From Ohm to Om reflects the opinions of mastering engineer Paul Abbott, owner of San Diego's ZenMastering.
We welcome comments from readers...pro or con!
March 28th, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
If the final project is ending up on cd- does it make sense sonically to record at 48Khz - or is any perceived benefit negated by the sample rate conversion process back to 44.1?
Also- what about 88.2 khz. Is this a good option? Compared to 96khz, does it make for a easier or better sounding sample rate conversion down to 44.1?
The converters here are courtesy of MOTU HD 192 PCI interfaces.
Thanks for all the work on my ep- I love it! You do excellent work!
Also, I really respect what you said in the other blog topic regarding your preference for working with independent artists. I share the same philosophy - thought granted, it probably is due - at least in part - to not having a major label client roster to begin with.
But that’s quite alright with me.
Carlos
March 28th, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Carlos,
Thanks for your comments. Glad you’re happy with the mastering…your project was great to work on.
Some people argue that 88.2 is better than 96k, as it’s a simpler integer for a DAW to calculate and downsample (exactly twice 44.1). This may be mathematically true, but I don’t know if that equates to any noticeable audible difference.
It does make a lot of sense to record higher than 16/44.1, as the quantization error that occurs in all digital recording is minimized (or, happens in a frequency less noticeable to our hearing capabilities), and it obviously captures more sonic data…which is important. But you can only capture as much data as your converters will translate, and that’s why I say 24/48 for most people.
Hope this helps,
Paul