Samling Frequency

Recording Settings

Just out of interest, what is recommended in terms of both recording AND mixdown??

By the way, I never got the latency issue sorted, there is still a small delay, is the only solution an ASIO soundcard?

ASIO is the way to go.

Ultimately your files have to be 16/44, of course. But I try to go 24/96 when recording – it sounds better, and I figure that at some point in the future the defective 16/44 standard will go away… although I don’t suppose it really matters with my music.

What does the 16 and 24 stand for? I’m presuming that 44 and 96 are 44100 and 96000 respectively. Excuse my ignorance, but why can’t we wap it up to highest sampling frequency available?

On a different note; anybody know where I can get a good heavy distorted guitar VSTi plug in thingy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio#Overview_of_digital_audio

http://www.vst4free.com/free_vst.php?id=580

Free amp should give you what you want for your guitar.

Quote: (Bubbagump @ Mar. 22 2011, 11:33 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_audio#Overview_of_digital_audio

..but that doesn't answer my question. Why are there much higher sampling rates and why do we never use them?

Quote:

Ultimately your files have to be 16/44


Why is this please?

Thanks
Quote: (Willy Eckerslike @ Mar. 22 2011, 12:36 PM)

http://www.vst4free.com/free_vst.php?id=580

Free amp should give you what you want for your guitar.

Thanks, that seemed excellent, but when I installed it into the location, it never shows up as a virtual instrument in the drop down list. Like most VST things I download, 99% 'error' in some way when I try to use them. I put them in the correct path. I have been trying to get a electric guitar virtual instrument for some time now......can get many synths, but no guitar.
Quote: (GIBBO @ Mar. 23 2011, 11:21 AM)

Quote: (Bubbagump @ Mar. 22 2011, 11:33 AM)

..but that doesn't answer my question. Why are there much higher sampling rates and why do we never use them?

Quote:

Ultimately your files have to be 16/44


Why is this please?

Thanks

A scientist called Nyquist has a sampling theory that states to capture a waveform accurately you must sample it at twice its highest frequency (put simply).

In other words if you sample at 44.1 kHz you fill accurately capture frequencies up to 22.05 kHz. Since none of us can really hear up there, 44.1 kHz has been considered a standard.

But clearly sampling doesn't just happen in the audible audio world so sampling of higher frequencies requires higher sampling rates.

Those higher sampling rates are also available in audio processing. There is much discussion as to whether people can really hear the difference of higher sampling rates. Science says no... but science has been wrong before, but then psycho-acoustic effects are also at play.

My feeling is that until you've maxed out the quality of every other part of your gear you are just adding extra cpu cycles, extra disk space etc, etc, to your recording.

Why 16/44.1? Because that's the standard for audio CDs.

Now, higher bit depth. That's a different discussion. 24 bits is well worth it.

Checkout Ethan Winer's audio myths video - that's a good source of down to earth reality.
Quote: (GIBBO @ Mar. 23 2011, 11:47 AM)

Quote: (Willy Eckerslike @ Mar. 22 2011, 12:36 PM)

http://www.vst4free.com/free_vst.php?id=580

Free amp should give you what you want for your guitar.

Thanks, that seemed excellent, but when I installed it into the location, it never shows up as a virtual instrument in the drop down list. Like most VST things I download, 99% 'error' in some way when I try to use them. I put them in the correct path. I have been trying to get a electric guitar virtual instrument for some time now......can get many synths, but no guitar.

But isn't that an effect rather than an instrument?

Thanks MarkA, understood and appreciated.

I will attempt an answer, with thw hope that if I get it too wrong someone will oorrect. This i not meant to be not so much a technically correct answer as an explanation that will give you some idea of what the two terms talk about.
> First off, a digital recording is nothing but a series of zeros and ones just like all of the other computer language. In analog recording, the time of recording you use a tape recorder for, the actual sound is recorded to the media and then played back. So when we recorded in digital really only creating a bunch of numbers the computer to understand that it is supposed to turn itself on and off in patterns that match the particular sound that you’re listening to. In other words, the computer listens with an analog here and records the information digitally. When we get ready to play the sound back to digital information has to be re-created again as an analog sound. You will hear a great deal about A.D. converters - that is the interface that is converting the analog sound to something you computer can understand and then converting it back from digital to analog…
To me, it is easier to visualize digital recording if we think about it as though we were taking photographs of sound:
> A “sample” is a “picture” of the sound. The number of times per second that you take a picture of the sound is called the sample rate. The bit rate is the amount of information contained in each picture. If you had a movie camera that only took one picture every second you could show movement but there would be jerkiness to the picture. Not very clear – if you blow up the picture enlarged it you would see that there is a lack of clarity when it comes to the more detailed parts of the picture. So the more sound information you want to capture the higher the bit rate. A Symphony Orchestra would require a much higher bit rate in order to capture all the nuances of all the different sounds that were being produced.
> And just like a camera the quality of the information recorded his influence by how much detail you take with each picture. So if I have a camera that can capture a greater detail even though I may not take as many pictures (samples) each picture will be of a higher quality. So, one of the factors that you control with the bit rate.
24-bit by 4100 samples is considered CD-quality. On a standard CD that is the setting that you want to use if you plan on having it played on anybody’s standard CD player.
From here on out the math gets rather complicated, so again here is some information that is not probably scientifically exact. After you have raised the bit rate up to something like 32 or 64 you begin to have more information then the human ear or recording and reproducing audio equipment can actually use. So many people record at a higher bit rate and sample rate and then “dither” the recorded information. So, let’s say that I’ve recorded something at 24-bit by 196. That will not play on a CD player so I’ve got to do something to have the information/sound changed to the 16 x 4100 that CDs require. This is done with a process called dithering. Basically what happens is that all of the information that is outside of the 16 x 4100 spectrum is thrown away leaving us with a high-quality picture of the sound. You would do this to get the maximum results in a recording.
There is an ongoing argument as to whether recording at the higher rates is worth the trouble. I think it depends on how a great deal on what you are recording and what you plan on doing with the recording.
If you really want to understand this is simply going to have to read some articles on the subject and do some experimenting on your own to determine whether the extra space required by the higher-settings is worth the trouble.
I hope this will help.

I will attempt an answer, with thw hope that if I get it too wrong someone will oorrect. This i not meant to be not so much a technically correct answer as an explanation that will give you some idea of what the two terms talk about.
> First off, a digital recording is nothing but a series of zeros and ones just like all of the other computer language. In analog recording, the type of recording you make using use a tape recorder, the actual sound is recorded to the media and then played back. Recorded in digital is really only creating a bunch of numbers the computer can understand that it is in patterns that match the particular sound that you’re listening to. In other words, the computer listens with an analog ear and records the information as numbers - digitally. When we get ready to play the sound back the digital information has to be re-created again as an analog sound. You will hear a great deal about A.D. converters - that is the interface that is converting the analog sound to digital - something your computer can understand and then converting it back from digital to analog…
To me, it is easier to visualize digital recording if we think about it as though we were taking photographs of sound:
> A “sample” is a “picture” of the sound. The number of times per second that you take a picture of the sound is called the sample rate. The bit rate is the amount of information contained in each picture. If you had a movie camera that only took one picture every second you could show movement but there would be jerkiness, and if you enlarge ( amplify) the picture you would see that there is a lack of clarity when it comes to the more detailed parts of the picture. So the more sound information you want to capture the higher the bit rate. A Symphony Orchestra would require a much higher bit rate in order to capture all the nuances of all the different sounds that were being produced.
> And just like a camera, the quality of the information recorded is influence by how much detail you take record on each picture.
24-bit by 41000 samples is considered CD-quality. On a standard CD that is the setting that you want to use if you plan on having it played on anybody’s standard CD player.
From here on out the math gets rather complicated, so again here is some information that is not probably scientifically exact.
After you have raised the bit rate up to something like 32 or 64 you begin to have more information then the human ear or recording and reproducing audio equipment can actually use. So many people record at a higher bit rate and sample rate and then “dither” the recorded information. So, let’s say that I’ve recorded something at 24-bit by 196. That will not play on a CD player so I’ve got to do something to have the information/sound changed to the 16 x 41000 that CDs require. This is done with a process called dithering. Basically what happens is that all of the information that is outside of the human hearing range is thrown away leaving us with a high-quality picture of the sound. You would do this to get the maximum results in a recording.
There is an ongoing argument as to whether recording at the higher rates is worth the trouble. I think it depends a great deal on what you are recording and what you plan on doing with the recording.
I generally use 24 bit setting to record because it is more forgiving when it comes to “clips” , but I seldom record at more than the 44100 –
If you really want to understand this you are going to have to read some articles on the subject and do some experimenting on your own to determine whether the extra space required by the higher-settings is worth the trouble.
I hope this will help.
Bax

Thank you very much, that was rather well explained, thanks for the effort. In theory then, we should, with digital technology readily available and affordable, be able to get studio quality in home recording, but whilst my recording sounds absolutely fine, you can hear a difference when I play a ‘proffessional’ recording. I suspect this then is just down to the equipment used to record?

Quote:

But isn't that an effect rather than an instrument?


A bit of both, not sure, I never got chance to find out as it never installed correctly. It resides in the correct path etc, but just does not want to 'play'. Does anybody have a electric guitar virtual instrument that they can recommend??

Cheers
Quote:

ASIO is the way to go


Would i have to have a new soundcard, or can I simply get the drivers?
Quote: (GIBBO @ Mar. 23 2011, 10:56 PM)

Quote:

But isn't that an effect rather than an instrument?


A bit of both, not sure, I never got chance to find out as it never installed correctly. It resides in the correct path etc, but just does not want to 'play'. Does anybody have a electric guitar virtual instrument that they can recommend??

Cheers

Because it is an effect not an instrument. Just like a delay plugin "won't play" and you won't find it in the list of vst instruments.
Quote: (GIBBO @ Mar. 23 2011, 10:53 PM)

Thank you very much, that was rather well explained, thanks for the effort. In theory then, we should, with digital technology readily available and affordable, be able to get studio quality in home recording, but whilst my recording sounds absolutely fine, you can hear a difference when I play a 'proffessional' recording. I suspect this then is just down to the equipment used to record?

It's not quite that easy. I wish it was at times.

If you buy more expensive gear you will just be disappointed (until you understand hey it is limiting you). The "quality" that you seek is affected by quality of gear - of course - but skill and expertise, micing techniques, use of eq, the sound of the room, etc, etc have a far greater effect. Mostly skill and expertise.

You should be able to get really good sounding recordings out of a soundblaster.

Mark’s right, I will add the one thing I have learned for sure:
nothing can make a great recording that doe not start with a great performance.
Digital will give you a way to make a clean sounding recoding. It also gives you some great tools that were once only available at very expensive recording studios.
Digital also gives you SO0000 many ways to change things that you can use to really mess it up.
Learn every thing you can about the tools that digital gives you - then learn how to Not use them.
Bax

Thats’ why I wrote ‘in theory’. :p
But yes, there must be elements of expertise and recording skills etc

Thanks guys, it is much better to come on a place like this and discuss with people that actually DO this stuff, rather than just read the technical magazines etc. Cheers.
:agree: